Have any of you ever thought that for certain large format negatives (4x5 here), there is simply too much information in them for a small (8x10 ish) print? I seem to recall Ansel mentioning something about this in his book The Print. I think he was discussing the optimum print size, relative to the viewing distance, relative to the actual distance between lens and negative. I'm not sure I fully understood what he was saying. I recently printed a 4x5 negative of a landscape. It was a shot from the top of a small mountain overlooking a mountain lake, with distant mountains, i.e. quite a bit of information. The forground was very dark and rocky, the middle ground had pine trees etc. then the lake, the hills in the background were very light due to haze etc. Looking at the 8x10 print, it almost seems that there is simply too much going on to comprehend at this small scale (relative to the real scene). There is a ton of detail in there, but something is odd when looking at it. I'm not sure if I'm taking what Ansel said and inventing an excuse, or if my brain is really trying to tell me something. Anyone have any experience like this?