--- Bob Walkden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > this, to be quite blunt, is ridiculous. Plenty of > people print full-frame on > whatever the dimensions of the paper happen to be. > It's on a par with > Pal's silly claim about square format being > wasteful. When I used to > print black & whites I always printed full-frame on > 10x8 paper, or larger. > When I now occasionally make a digital print from a > 35mm slide or neg. > I print full frame on A4 or A3. So you lose a bit of > paper? Big deal! When > you're taking the picture you're looking through a > 2:3 frame, and this is a far > more accurate, more important and more natural way > of framing than trying to > imagine it's 4:5. > > --- > > Bob ____________________________ Bob, in your experience, how often do you "print to frame" size as opposed to printing to standard paper sizes (whichever)? That is, in your experience, how many negatives/slides are shot so they can be printed/masked to the exact dimension of standard paper/frame sizes and how many in reality absolutely /beg/ to be printed to the frame edge, (or even in panorama)?
Ed I get it done with YAHOO! DSL! ===== Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
