Paul Farrar wrote:
>
> >
> > 24mm x 36mm = 864mm^2
> > 600mm x 700mm = 420000mm^2
> >
> > Given the difference.. WOW! I'm curious, I understand field work, action
> > shots, etc.. BUT, why would someone use a 35mm in the studio then?? 6x4.5,
> > 6x6 or 6x7, just has such HUGE advantages it's not funny.. Ok, I'm doing
> > the math here..
>
> 6x7 is 60mm by 70mm, not 600mm by 700mm. Actually, it's slightly smaller,
> 2-1/4" by 2-3/4", nominally. 120 negatives are usually about 57-58mm
> wide. Since 6x7 matches the shape of papers more closely, you get about
> a 2.5 larger, linearly, negative. Which is about 6, or so, times the
> area. That's enough to make a substantial increase in quality for things
> like calendars and magazine ads.
Even 4" x 5" prints taken from 6x7 negatives have a greater degree of
richness, depth, tonality, call it what you will than what I see in
comparable 4" x 6" prints taken from 35mm negatives using the same film.
Maybe others have the same experience.
jh
< 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 >
|