>>4161027RA4 printing is simply worse than digital. RC paper only, non-archival dyes, worse color gamut, unable to profile, more expensive due to chem costs, etc.
>>4161305Here's a photo of all the film I've shot, 57 rolls of 35mm, 44 rolls of 120, and over 100 of sheets of 4x5 and my spectrophotometer. Almost all the b/w I dev'd myself. Denver digital did my e6 dev. And yes, sensitometer readings can be easily computed from SPDs very easily.
>"yellow shadows on Ektachrome"Exact opposite, blue shadows on e100. You can't even argue with it, if you look at the characteristic curves from kodak, there is a blue cast to the darker colors.
>Grain isn't pixels and 10x isn't the max. enlargement for 35mm. Maybe in the 70s, kekDo you even know what enlargement factor is?? Its format independent, 10x is 10x, doesn't matter if its 110 or 11x14. If you've ever printed in a darkroom, the grain shows up fast. At 10x enlargement, the grain is obvious, even with 100 or 50 iso film. 10x obviously isn't the max, you can print whatever size you want. Its generally agreed that 10x is about a far as you would want to push it. Don't believe me? Check out the ektar 100 datasheet form kodak. They even say that grain will be noticeable at 8x enlargement.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/
https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/files/products/e4046_ektar_100.pdf 