CDTobie@aol.com wrote:. > I certainly wouldn't > hesitate to use a good 35mm original for generating a full page ad... I suspect that that is a fairly widespread standard and one that's made to work quite often. In the advertising business, art directors generally try to shoot as large a format as possible given the circumstances. It would probly be just as unlikely to see a photographer shooting 8x10 at an Indy race as another using 35mm for an Architectural Digest spread. Product photography, food, and architecture have always been pretty *heavily* weighted in the 4x5 to 8x10 range (I've been guessing that that's no coincidence <g>). > however > if your answer is no, I would have to ask why it is (if they aren't even good > for 1600 dpi) that 35mm scanners have moved up from 2000 dpi to the current > rates of over 3000... My point isn't that the amount of information in a given area of film is that limited - but that there's little substitute for square inches. If anything, being able to see the results of a quality large format scan @ 100% onscreen should convince anyone of the superior sharpness and purity of tone. IOW, why enlarge the media 8 or 10 or 12 times, when you can conceivably get away with only 1 or 2? I have to contend with people all day that seem to be convinced that film is *continuous tone*. Steve - Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions.