Quote Originally Posted by huggyviking
I think you're right. I recently took the plunge with 4x5, and will, as soon as my wallet can allow it, go for even bigger formats. The added sharpness is considerable.
But, why do you have to print your images so large? I always thought that 35mm and MF was best suited for 5x7 and maybe 8x10 prints. Like you pointed out, a lot of the inherent sharpness is lost due to the vast magnification. Already a 5x7 is quite a large enlargement for 35mm.
To me outstanding quality can be produced from 35mm and especially MF. But the print size must be kept down, even with ultrafine film like TechPan and APX25.

My 2 cents,

- Thomas
Saint Paul, MN

That is true! TRI-x in 35mm done in pyrocat makes a stunning 5x7. Print size is an interesting aspect to photographic art. A small print is "intimate" A large print is gradiose! On my walls or in my albums I prefer 8x10, 11x14 or 16x20. I like to get into the image. Most of my landscapes require a large print to open them up so they don't look too busy. There are often many fine details that cannot be appreciated in a 5x7. I love 11x14 portraits or larger where you can see details you would never be able to see otherwise. I am amazed by 8x10 contact prints on AZO or Kalitypes - they have a 3-D quality to them. They are the gold standard of tonality and sharpness.