Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/07/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]35mm (and its current digital equivalent) = great tool for you and most of us. When one considers that this new 50mpixel beast will probably deliver files which only 5x7 and 8x10 could in the past. It becomes a very tiny device - almost as your convincing the AD that 35 can do the job as well as 120. Bottom line - it all depends what the market wants (professionally speaking) - or what the photographer wants to produce. > So does the size make any difference in capturing > the instant blink of an eye moment shot with a Leica? Only if one wants to blow the sucker up to 60 x 60 without artifacts and be able to see the back of the eye behind the pupil. Some folks make incredibly gorgeous b&w grainy prints, because they were in the right place at the right time and knew how the instant, subject, light and grain can work for them. Others make incredibly gorgeous, grain-less, color prints, because they worked, walked all day, waited for the light, dragged the proper gear to the proper place, spent an hour framing the shot. Apples and oranges? probably - and yet both understand what their tools can do to advance their vision of the world and hopefully ours as well. Fond regards, George george@imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist On Jul 10, 2008, at 12:08 PM, Ted Grant wrote: > I admit all the digital sizes and tech talk ooohhhsss and > ahhhhhhhhhhh's > about digital really isn't my cup of tea. So I suppose bigger isn't > better > in my eyes for nothing more than a better looking print. However, > so far > I've never had any complaints about any of my 13X19 size prints, > many sold > through a local gallery. > > Or are we maybe getting into apples and oranges?