I guess it is a matter of taste, but even Ansel's LF prints don't look
good to me when they are 8 feet wide, unless I am at least 30 feet
away.
I really think this is a straw man you have set up for rollicking
discussion. Who, of any substance, has claimed that common digital is
better than large format? Of course there is large format digital with
scanning digital backs, but obviously that is not what is being
discussed.
Winsor
Long Beach, California
USA
On Jul 29, 2004, at 9:14 AM, Walt Wayman wrote:
> Didn't say it would be a good print. Just said that's how big it
> would be. Just trying to put it all in perspective, you know. No
> print 8 feet wide is going to be "good" unless it's made from at least
> a 6x9cm tranny or negative. Of course, 4x5 in. would be even better.
> But I'm sure something digital would be, oh, so much better.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|