>One wrong choice can ruin the final result - or make the > > image average or mediocre
Hey, what about the printer or paper medium? Kenneth Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 4:49 PM Subject: Re: "Stunning" at 24x36 inches? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 4:23 PM > Subject: RE: "Stunning" at 24x36 inches? > > > > Wether prints will be stunning or not, dos not really have anything to > > with > > format or sensor type (film or digital). > > As always, when we are talking about photography - the w h o l e process > > matters: > > The optics, focusing, sensor, sensor setting (contrast and sharpness), > > file-type, raw conversion, choice of film, exposure, all the printing > > parameters, after market processing in the computer etc. etc. If all the > > choices made are the right ones - for the single image - stunning results > > can be reached. One wrong choice can ruin the final result - or make the > > image average or mediocre. So, to me it seems this discussion is pretty > > useless, > > You forgot a decent picture (composition, subject, etc) to begin with. A > crappy ultra-high resolution image with bleeding edge sharpness is still a > crappy image. > > Christian >
