Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/02/06

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Canon doesn't see it quite like Mark
From: richard at richardmanphoto.com (Richard Man)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 16:44:02 -0800
References: <CAA4z8hd7a-PEENcTb4w7wfDaZptnDakxzVM+0dLoWYU5hi3GJg@mail.gmail.com> <C1DB6908-15E8-4192-A000-2B067B14E01D@mac.com> <031901ce030a$aeab6ef0$0c024cd0$@verizon.net> <6629A47D-8F78-4431-805A-5B082A8C593A@mac.com> <CAN4TZQ7LyekWk=9OLYHiFtXCEnOkLEq+gDC6GmkENRD4bFGUiA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3Pgh4ntd6jCp3ZgJ=3_hi9eS+XHCr7Hb40duW7=wT9eMnGSw@mail.gmail.com>

Paul, it's clear from "LA Photo" and similar shows that BIG is preferred in
the art world now. 11x14" wouldn't even get you to the door....




On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Paul Roark <roark.paul at gmail.com> wrote:

> I recall a discussion I had with a Canon rep some years ago.  He made
> it rather clear that improving the image quality of the optics is not
> as much a goal as keeping the prices appropriate for the market
> segment they were targeting.
>
> Regarding image size, I went to the Los Angles Art show a couple of
> weeks ago, and what struck me was how enormous the art was that was
> displayed.  And, I have to say, it was impressive.
>
> So, for the September B&W show I'm having, I've decided to take a 94
> mp file that is composed of 2 rows of 35mm M9 panoramas and making a
> "triptych" out of it.  I have the B&W dye inkset I'll be using in an
> old Epson 4000 (max 17" wide paper), and the coated, heat sensitive
> "fome-core" I use to dry mount the prints is 36 inches.  So, I'll use
> the full 36 inches and end up with an image size of 36 x 46
> (approximately).   I must say the file is holding up rather well.
> Time will tell if it works.
>
> So far all I have is a small image mock-up
> <http://www.paulroark.com/Ediza-36-46-Triptych.jpg> and small sections
> of the image at the final print size as I try to deal with the details
> (& defects) that show up at that size.  From what I've seen so far,
> however, I must say I like the enormous amounts of detail that such a
> file can hold.  But this is clearly not the market Canon is targeting.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>
> Chris Saganich <csaganich at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  One parallel regarding digital and film format is that it is a function
> of
> > economy and necessarily chosen to reflect the economic artistic strata
> you
> > wish to participate.  ...
>
> > if your goal is MOMA you better be saving for a digital 10x8.
> ...
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>



-- 
// richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>


In reply to: Message from bensonga at gmail.com (Gary Benson) ([Leica] Canon doesn't see it quite like Mark)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] Canon doesn't see it quite like Mark)
Message from red735i at verizon.net (Frank Filippone) ([Leica] Canon doesn't see it quite like Mark)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] Canon doesn't see it quite like Mark)
Message from csaganich at gmail.com (Chris Saganich) ([Leica] Canon doesn't see it quite like Mark)
Message from roark.paul at gmail.com (Paul Roark) ([Leica] Canon doesn't see it quite like Mark)