[rollei_list] Re: OT / prove it !
- From: "John A. Lind" <jalind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:22:00 -0500
This reads so provocative and argumentative . . . almost grasping at
anything disputable . . . by seizing on an obtuse view of only a portion of
Eric's statement out of context . . . a view that has no real value in
practical photographic work . . . and completely ignoring the intent
expressed in its entirety.
Yes, of course, _in_general_ 35mm will yield greater lpmm on
film. However, you choose to completely ignore that fact that in making
the same size print, a larger piece of film requires less enlargement, and
that _in_general_ the enlargement required decreases at a greater rate as
format size increases than the reduction in lpmm. The net effect is
exactly what Eric expressed in his complete statement; larger format
potentially yields greater "sharpness" in a print or projection.
This is presumptive that the optics in use are comparable and that the same
level of care is taken in making the photograph on the film (hence the
careful "_in_general_" caveat). One could easily cite many anecdotal
examples of just the opposite by carefully crafting an unfair comparison to
achieve that result.
-- John
(who wonders at times *why* there must be so much of this haranguing)
At 07:23 PM 3/31/2005, you wrote:
>Hi Eric,
>
> > If you want real shgarpness at enlargement, you don't shoot 35 mm...
>
>I don't follow you. 35mm is typically sharper than larger formats, per
>square area of negative space.
>
>Regards,
>
>Austin
Other related posts:
