I think you all are too exaggerated on how better a large print is, in
my opinion if you are not going to hang it on the wall, a 8x10 or 12
is good enough to see all the details. With smaller size you get
closer to look at and eventually to your eyes it is the same as a
20x30 viewing from longer distance.
Picture quality is the most important thing, with a print you never
get a good dynamic range, it is just too narrow, it force you to clip
the highlight and shadow details. If you have a good monitor, I think
most of you will found the pictures on your monitor look more
brilliant than your prints and slide projection even better. I admit
print is easier to view, you don't need a computer or set up for slide
projection but I won't spend money on large print unless I have place
to display them. I can use smaller print and look closer to it.
C.H.Ling
Tal Lancaster wrote:
>
>
> When I use to shoot negatives, almost nearly every image stayed at
> just 4x6. Out of many years of shooting maybe 3 or 4 ever made it to 8x10
> (6.5x10).
>
> Now that I am shooting slides, I feel that anything smaller than 8x10
> just doesn't do them justice (and I find even that size a little
> smallish). From shots from this year alone, I would say I have at
> least 30 6.5x10s and several 16x24 and one 20x30.
>
> Tal
> --
> Tal Lancaster
> talrmr@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.renderman.org/RMR
________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working
around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.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 >
|