Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/08/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The "Pundits" who suggested that Weston's or anyone's photos would have been "sharper" if they went down a format were wrong. And I'd not refer to them as Pundits. A word from the Sanskrit which suggests the people have a clue what they are talking about. This is the most clear example of how the internet can really dumb things down. Very Especially in this case where the smaller size means projection printing while 8x10 means contact printing. Want to know how many defects in the lens which made Weston's print? How steady really was his enlarger? No lens no enlarger no defects no shake no non alignment no room noise. George L. lets hear it. -- Mark William Rabiner mark at rabinergroup.com > From: Ric Carter <ricc at embarqmail.com> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 11:13:16 -0400 > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Weston's 8x10 contact prints > > also helps remind us that sharpness ain't everything > > ric > > On Aug 1, 2010, at 10:36 AM, Lawrence Zeitlin wrote: > >> Pundits suggested that even with the >> resolution loss of the enlarging process, Weston's pictures would have >> been >> sharper if he had used a smaller camera. > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information