Michael, excellent article, as always. I very much like the way you compare prints, which, at the end of the day, is what matters. I was equally surprised when a friend preferred a D30 print to a Hassy-film one (both at 8x10"). My suspicion now is that a "nicer" print has much more to do with smoothness, tonality and gradation, rather than being "tack sharp". When we talk resolution numbers I am also driven to a similar conclusion. Excellent human vision, without a loupe, considers 5 lp/mm or 250 dpi as tack sharp in a hand-held print, or as sharp as it gets - hence all the stuff regarding printer resolution. The same cognoscenti then start talking of Depth of Field. DoF calculations are generally based on a Circle of Confusion of (if I recall correctly) either 0.25 mm (200 dpi) or 0.3 mm (only 150 dpi) in an 8x10" hand-held print. This means that these same people are willing to consider a great deal less than "tack sharp" resolution as "in focus"! Eureka! 250 dpi is at times an overkill, provided things stay smoooooth. No wonder, provided things are not pushed too far, most people would seem to prefer smoothness, tonality, gradation (the digital strong points) over a grainy, even if sharper image from a large negative. There will, of course, always be a print size beyond which the larger negative will win. If we refer to the CoC business one would peg the cross-over point at an enlargement that yields, say, only 150 dpi (for eg portraits) or 200 dpi (for eg very fussy landscapes, group shots, etc) in the print. That translates to the cross-over from a 1Ds to larger negatives/transparencies of any size that even hints at graininess at that enlargement at 18x27" for portraits and 13.5x20" for the extra fussy stuff. Quite in line with your findings. It's the CoC business that confuses things "Tack sharp" is almost a theoretical concept when it comes to choosing the "nicer" print, IMHO anyway.