Brad wrote:
> I believe he is referring to your tendency to come up with numbers with > little support. The number was a joke. It illustrated the fact that only a miniscule fraction of all the images shot and published are square. The square cameras has significantly less than 1% marketshare, and I can print that number without backing it up as it is obvious, proving it's lack of popularity. A square film format can survive as long as the medium is cheap and doesn't have to be square, like film. However, in the future nodody would invest in a format that is unpopular to such an incredible extent. It doesn't matter what Bruce R is trying to stay; those photographers are so few and far between that nobody cares; if they wanbt square images - crop it like many are already doing. Sure the square is important in photography, but so is the triangle. How about triangular shutter opening? P�l
