I�m afraid I have to admit you are right. But... All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-----Alkuper�inen viesti----- L�hett�j�: Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> P�iv�: 30. joulukuuta 2002 21:46 Aihe: Re: Vs: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?) >A 'format' wastes nothing at all. It's the photographer that either >uses the space efficiently, filling it up to the borders, or he >composes something that has to be trimmed and cropped. >It's hardly wasted, any more than all the others of the 'wasted' >mentality propose... >It's all a specious argument and not worthy of further discussion. > >keith whaley > >Raimo Korhonen wrote: >> >> The 24x36 format usually wastes at least 11% of the area. >> All the best! >> Raimo >> Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho >> >> -----Alkuper�inen viesti----- >> L�hett�j�: P�l Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> P�iv�: 30. joulukuuta 2002 21:06 >> Aihe: Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?) >> >> >John wrote: >> > >> > >> >> But one thing is clear. Only an amateur would obsess about "wasting" a >> >> centimetre! >> > >> >Whether one should worry about it not is another discussion. It is still a waste. >The day you waste similar % of space on an expensive commodity like a digital sensor, >then such excess will be seen as totally unacceptable. >> > >> > >> >P�l >> > >> > >
