Dr E D F Williams wrote: > I think I've just answered this in my final post on this matter > in response to one from Mike.
Yes - it seems so > But absolutely not. The 6x7 would be better. Probably very much > better. But this is not what I was talking about. Well, if it's any consolation !8^) , I do understand your posts on this. If we are keeping magnification constant, I agree that there is no use going to the larger film and just using a tiny bit of it. Mike's point of most folks' desire to equalize the frame- filling capacity of each format and then compare the resulting prints at a given "end-result" magnification may well be the source of confusion/disagreement/etc. Bill --------------------------------------------------------- Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------