Paul,
This is indeed a very interesting topic, that involves many factors.
Like you, for certain kind of photography, I find the high-end backs "too" performants.
You will have noticed the quotes in Too.
There are basically 2 approachs and I think that the first question would be, in wich of those
school you feel confortable to.
1, orthodox, tend to be very strict about the relation between the imput and the output.
Arquitecture, landscapes, products, scientific...
2, more flexible, does not care so much about this relation, yes about the overall result from a certain
distance is enough. Fashion, art, street and reportage, sports...
I've seen very very good 2m sized prints made from a 1D MK3. Very good in wich sense?
Certainly not from the most demanding and orthodox photographers.
They would have not accepted such a print size for that format.
Certainly yes if what you are looking is the final subject from a bearable distance, wich is more or less the
same as the print size. (1m print has to be ideally watch at 1m distance).
Here we go.
The public in an art gallery does not care AT ALL about our preocupations in terms of perfection at big magnifications.
Neither in most of the cases, the client. What they care about is what the picture transmits.
Are you shocked when you watch on the street these enormous advertisings? Are you looking desperatly at 20cm
all the dots and being desperate? It is not fine arts yes, but we should remember that the adj fine has never been related to a quality print standard
but to a quality art standard if I might say. Remember, it is fine arts not fine crafts. (then the printing act would be the center)
So we also see extremely acheived prints that fall appart or are just boring in term of creativity. In fact, that is the most we see IMO.
And I'm fine with that. We can not be all Francis Bacon s and if one brings skills in a craft that is indeed valuable.
But, and sorry if that can lighten some provocation, printing process is a craft, and photography is an art.
And the art needs the craft, the craft needs the art but one is the ocean, the other is the land in wich this ocean lays.
The trap of digital is that we are tempted to think through the software, at 100, 200%. What room do we have? IMO, the real room is
the one you will establish.
I'm amazed that when I look at any pics at 100% in Capture, I generally don't like what I'm seeing. I have this dirtyness feeling, these pixels and artifacts...
regardless of the file's size. MF is just not as bad. But when I sometimes enlarge drastically, it works fine. It all depends if you want people to look at your prints with the magnifying glass.
Photography is not engraving. It works fine because the big enlargements and the computer are totally different animals.
When I was working with Balthazar Burkhard (he passed away recently), a master of huge prints, it was amazing how primitive and unorthodox the process was compare to now, but I bet anything with you that if you see now his 3m + prints today, you are simply impressed and shock by their quality and power.
Now, if we get too close...everything falls appart.
But, Have you seen a big Velasquez painting? Very instructive. You will notice that Velasquez, more the output was big, more he was employing big pencils and less precision. If you watch a big Velasquez very close, all you see is a splash.
The sharpness you are talking about depends only on the distance from wich you want your work to be seen.
All these worries with sharpness and resolution are indeed for the photographic smoking room to take a Rob's expression (I'm learning my english).
We have room, a lot of room for playing and enlarging really big.
Cheers.
