Shel Belinkoff wrote:
The photo ~is~ cropped in that what you see is not full frame. However,
the portion that you see is shown at 100% of the original size, it's not
been resized in any way.
Shel
Okay then. If that's how you define it, that makes sense.
However, let's do the numbers. If that bug that Davuid Mann showed in
his image was indeed 1/2 mm long, how large was the original image?!
The bug, as shown on my monitor, measures about 2.5 cm long, which
indicates I'm looking at an enlargement of about 50X... We agree on that?
Since the extent of David's image on my monitor is already 15 cm
(5.0955") vertically, that must mean the _original_ 100% unresized print
or image was some 295" vertically!
Somehow I don't think that's correct.
keith whaley
[Original Message]
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That being the case, the term "100% crop" doesn't mean anything to me.
Perhaps you can elucidate?
thanks, keith whaley
=========
Ditto. Seems an oxymoron. I have decided people mean it's NOT cropped
when they say 100% crop. But I don't know why they don't just say that.
Marnie aka Doe ;-)
