>My thinking is that its not just large print sizes that show the >difference, but also the greater enlargement of a cropped part of an >image. How many times I have taken a photo in landscape orientation > >andthought that there is a big space to the side and I want to crop it > >to make it portrait. This means using perhaps half the available >image >and therefore enlarging it twice as much as normal. Therefore >if you need >to go to A3 to show the difference between digital and >film for 'full >frame' shots, by the time I have done my crop I would >see the difference >at A4. [Rob Brigham]
I think this touches upon an important point and one that suggests a continual need for digital to develop beyond the standards of film (whereas many are still, I believe erroneously, using film as a yardstick for digital resolution). I imagine digital resolution continually increasing until one day the method will be that one starts by taking an initial "survey" and then goes into a post-production mode on a PC and creates "pictures" - changing the perspective angles, adding and subtracting various things, at times "zooming" well into an image for a detail or macro from what started as a panoramic survey. The majority of the images will be made thusly in post-production. And having a great capacity to capture large amounts of information (far, far more than on film) from a scene fairly quickly will be deemed essential. Of course, in my opinion this has nothing to do with photography - but at this point that's neither here nor there. Robert Soames Wetmore _____________________ "I am not interested in constructing a building so much as in having a perspicuous view of the foundations of possible buildings" Wittgenstein _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
