Chris, I think there is more to it than just carry size. Real estate needed to display them also becomes an issue. Albums large enough to hold 8X10's are easy to handle for turning pages. Larger albums are not. Also if you are going to wall mount them, larger images take up much more space so you can't really display very many. I think that people might have an image or two that they would like to have larger than 8X10, but most images don't need to be that big even if they could. Plus there is also the cost to print.
Bruce Tuesday, September 17, 2002, 8:07:17 PM, you wrote: CB> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, Herb Chong wrote: >> Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >Then why are posters so large? Look at movie posters, or posters that >> people buy to put up on their walls. 20x30 seems to be about the minimum >> size there, which leads me to believe that most people can deal with >> looking at prints larger than 8x10. < >> >> you don't carry and show posters. the 8.5x11 notebook in the US is not >> coincidentally about 8x10 size. it has nothing to do with looking at and >> everything to do with carrying. CB> Oh, ok, I see what you're talking about. I agree that 8x10 is pretty much CB> the largest size it's convenient to carry about. My original point (lost CB> as it is) was that cameras with more resolution (50MP and up) would pretty CB> much free us from any technological limitations to print sizes, and that CB> people might start displaying more huge prints than they currently do. CB> 8x10's will always be popular for carrying around, I imagine. CB> chris
