I don't disagree about fine art landscape work and large format film. I think the 500 pixels on a size is generally a misleading way of thinking about it. It's the increase in total area that counts. The pug-size photos that are displayed are only a fraction larger than 500 pixels on a side and that's the entire image. It's like saying a 6x7 frame is only 14.5 mm larger per side in the long dimension than a 35mm frame. 14.5 mm is not very big.
Remember how small digital camera sensors were just 8/9 years ago? A sony Mavica turned out generally 'acceptable' images at 350,000 pixels for the entire image when printed at 4X6. My 2 cents. Tom C. >From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Interview w/Pentax exec >Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 07:12:46 -0600 > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Rob Brigham" >Subject: RE: Interview w/Pentax exec > > > > Add to that list: > > > > C. Landscape photographers - > > >I shot some landscapes this last trip with my istD that I normally think >of as large format type pictures. >They looked great on the computer screeen, not so good in print. >I'm not sure if an extra 500 pixels on a side is going to fix what I see >wrong with digital. >I think good landscape work is still large format film territory. > >William Robb > > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >[email protected] >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
