In article , says...


When I scan my 27 years old 35mm slides with a Nikon 8000, I get
digital files which often yield acceptable A3, prints. This size would
have been out of the question "in the old days", with a traditional
enlarger/chemical system.

I've given up using mathematics to explain what's happening with the
film - digital workflow, but some of my recent practical experiences
seem to almost do the impossible.
My rule of thumb (even mentioned in one of my tips) is you can expect
a 6-8x enlargement from film under most normal situations. If you want
to justify it using math assume the image resolves about 65 lpm and an
8x enlargement would give around 8 lpm on the print. This ignores
enlarging losses, etc. but is close enough for a 'rule of thumb'.

Anyway, if you look at my results with the Minolta 5400 scanner I was
able to get 12-18x enlargements which look much better than would have
been done with a wet darkroom.
I think it may be a combination of new lens design, improved film and
much better detail capture when using a scanner. So I revise my
estimate upwards to about 12x when everything works optimally.
When using my Pentax 67 and the Epson 4870 scanner the overall results
don't appear any better than what I got with 35mm. Perhaps older lens
design, more camera vibration (even with mirror up) and a much lower
resolution scanner (in spite of advertised numbers).
So depending on the workflow, medium format may not be noticeably better
than 35mm.
You can see the samples in the tips section of my web site.
--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail: