>>Large formats suck (sharpness-wise, not grain-wise) if you keep the
aperture miniscule. Wider is sharper.
What a bunch of garbage some wonderbrick numbed minds come up with.
Whew! I'm glad I wasn't the only one who misinterpreted Tom's
comment! Thanks, Ken, for making my reply seem mild! :-)
I'll never forget a job my last employer's ad-agency did. They had a
commercial photographer photograph our products with a 4x5...
For what? A product catalog in duotone where the image size never exceeded
4x5 on the printed page. How did they get the image into the computer?
Flatbed scanner at 300dpi. Didn't matter, the print shop never did get the
plates lined up so every single catalog had blurry pictures.
Yes, let's not forget that no matter how good the photography is, any
weak point in the chain breaks the whole thing down. That's why I
choose to do everything except develop the film.
--
: Jan Steinman <mailto:Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
: Bytesmiths <http://www.bytesmiths.com>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|