On 24/7/03 10:51 pm, "paul savage" wrote: > The trouble I have with all this talk of 108 meg file size is that it > must depend on the original Tranny. A 108 meg file from a 35mm is never > going to be as good as one from 6x7cm or 5x4. In the old days a good > big un always beat a good little un every time!, and this must still > hold true....?? > > Just my 10 euros worth!
And a you've earnt every euro of it :-) Wise words indeed. I hate all this talk about what people will accept, whether it be file size or number pixels. Its all such s**te. An out of focus, badly composed, badly exposed 10x8 tranny, is not necessarily better than a print from boots from my throwaway camera is it? Its all depends on what the image is of, and what its final use it for. But unfortunately half on the photographers on the planet (being human) are like a pack of slow old sheep. Information travels very slowly around the pack and therefore, the old rumours are kept alive for a long, long time. Hence, why you often hear people asking the same old questions i.e. Can I produce an A4 magazine page with a 6MP camera? Yes, I know its the way of the world, but its such a slow old process (and I'm not a patient person :-) But I suppose we just have to wait till everyone catches up and realises what digital file sizes actually mean. I feel that we are getting close to it all being irrelevant. Because once we all have our 20MP cameras, no one is going to be asking, is my file big enough? Are they? Regards Paul -- Paul Tansley Fashion & Beauty Photography London +44 (0) 7973 669584 http://www.paultansley.com =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
