I think I've just answered this in my final post on this matter in response to one from Mike. But absolutely not. The 6x7 would be better. Probably very much better. But this is not what I was talking about.
Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill D. Casselberry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 7:10 PM Subject: Re: An experiment in tonality > 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] > --------------------------------------------------------- >
