Dr E D F Williams wrote:
> But you too are missing the point. It is that the film is the same,
> whether it be 35mm or a piece the size of you bedroom wall ... So
> when the image is of a size that fits 35 mm there is no point in
> using a bigger piece for Heavens sake!
It did take me a second read to get your "equivalent size piece
of film" parameter, but I quickly saw your point then. But
just to add a bit of spice to the discussion - suppose one
started w/ an object the size of the *larger* film size, as
alluded to in a recent post. Would you still say that a 1:1
macro of, say, an approximately 2inch object on 6x7 would be
surpassed by a 1:2 image made on 35mm? This would be a direct
comparison of each piece of film in its entirety, w/o cropping
out a tiny piece of the larger to match the smaller as in the
foregoing examples. In such a comparioson, I'd suspect that
the larger image would be "superior". However, from some of
your other postings on this, I imagine you might agreeon this
situation.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------
Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast
http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------
