On 23-Aug-05, at 9:58 AM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 12:12:50 -0400
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: "Sunning" at 24x36 inches?
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I suggest you rent/buy a 4x5 camera and scan those negatives
and make 24"x36" print from true 100MP files
and maybe your definition of "stunning" will change.
No, actually they are 'stunning'. I have never achieved the results I
get from the *ist D at that size on 35mm film. And I have shot medium
and large format, thank you very much.
I have seen a LOT of 4x5 and 8x10 images, your crankiness, including
many gallery tours featuring prints by Adams, Dykinga, Wolfe, and
others.
Artistic considerations aside, the results I am getting from the *ist D
compare very favorably to the medium format work I have seen, and are
vastly superior to my results from the same lenses on 35mm film.
At 4x5 and larger, if shot with good technique and with a good scan,
large format prints are still superior, IMHO, but do you have to get so
freakin' nasty, you miserable old coot? You're one of the reasons why
I, and lots of other fine photographers, have left this list. Can't we
just have a nice, pleasant discussion instead of you scolding everyone
like we're ignorant children. Maybe we should just start swearing at
each other. Go **** yourself! There... is that the kind of discussion
you like to have on a list about photography?
You should see your doctor about some Prozac suppositories - I'd
recommend the 12" ones - maybe that'd cheer you up a bit. I'm sure
there'd be lots of volunteers to insert them for you.
Take a pill,
it's only a camera.
Cameron
