Yes you can make 17x22 prints from 35mm film if you have an exceptionally sharp original. They look great from a one foot distance or more. This is one of the times when you can resample up in photoshop and use a tad more unsharpmasking. I have a few that were shot on tech pan and they are really nice. Jerry Mark Hochman wrote: > > Rafe, > > I'm wondering why everyone is talking 8x10 prints only? Surely many of us > are printing larger sizes. 11x14 is certainly possible with the 1200 and EX. > And at those larger sizes (I print 17x22's on my 3000) can one really get by > with just 35mm film? Maybe to get some really great prints we need to think > more about the film sizes we use and a little less about the scanner > resolution needed to pull every last bit of info out. > > That's why I posted that website in the beginning. I was interested in what > people on this list would have to say about it. I'm happy I did. > > Mark Hochman Photographics > > > > >Steve, I don't think any of us would dispute the > >merits of medium-format or large-format chromes > >or negatives vs. 35 mm -- in general. > > > >The only issue I might have is whether the advantages > >of either of those formats would be significant in > >an 8x10" Epson print. > > > >What I'm saying is that the printer, the ink, and > >the current state-of-the-art in inkjet printing > >will be the limiting factors -- not the tonality > >of the original chrome, or its grain. > > > >At 8x10" size, the dots on the print (from the > >printheads) and the dithering required to produce > >the illusion of contone will present the more > >daunting limits. > > > >You're quite correct in pointing out that resolution > >alone is not the end-all in evaluating a scanner. > > > > > >rafe b. > > - > Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use > accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions. - Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions.