[Phot] phaded fotes

http://tinyurl.com/4vv7e

I don't know why we think 8 MP SLR's are so special.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

http://tinyurl.com/4vv7e

I don't know why we think 8 MP SLR's are so special.

--

Because it is human nature to get wrapped up in the tool, rather than the
product. Thanks for the reminder about what really matters. What a
magnificent portrait.

Walt

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

http://tinyurl.com/4vv7e

I don't know why we think 8 MP SLR's are so special.

--

Because it is human nature to get wrapped up in the tool, rather than the
product. Thanks for the reminder about what really matters. What a
magnificent portrait.

Walt

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

http://tinyurl.com/4vv7e

I don't know why we think 8 MP SLR's are so special.

--

Because it is human nature to get wrapped up in the tool, rather than the
product. Thanks for the reminder about what really matters. What a
magnificent portrait.

Walt

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:04:25 -0500, "Walt Hanks"
wrote:


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .

http://tinyurl.com/4vv7e

I don't know why we think 8 MP SLR's are so special.

--

Because it is human nature to get wrapped up in the tool, rather than the
product. Thanks for the reminder about what really matters. What a
magnificent portrait.

Walt


Ain't that a fact. My belated New Year's resolution is to shoot more,
play less with my photo toys.

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:04:25 -0500, "Walt Hanks"
wrote:


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .

http://tinyurl.com/4vv7e

I don't know why we think 8 MP SLR's are so special.

--

Because it is human nature to get wrapped up in the tool, rather than the
product. Thanks for the reminder about what really matters. What a
magnificent portrait.

Walt


Ain't that a fact. My belated New Year's resolution is to shoot more,
play less with my photo toys.

McLeod wrote:
Ain't that a fact. My belated New Year's resolution is to shoot more,
play less with my photo toys.

.... and let's all screw around less on the newsgroup ... esp. me.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

McLeod wrote:
Ain't that a fact. My belated New Year's resolution is to shoot more,
play less with my photo toys.

.... and let's all screw around less on the newsgroup ... esp. me.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

http://tinyurl.com/4vv7e

I don't know why we think 8 MP SLR's are so special.

---------------

Because as your sig says "...There is no free lunch..."

8MP doesn't mean sh*t if you are printing 6x4 snapshots but it is crucial to
commercial publishing where it is assumed that the MINIMUM image for a full
8.5 x 11 page offset printed image on coated stock with a 150 line screen
should be a minimum 6MP and ideally closer to a 10MP image to allow for
crop; trim; aspect ratio of the print area selection; and positioning on the
page and still have 300ppi in the printed area.

Pulling film scans of 20 50+++ MP @300ppi is not unusual at all for that
application (commercial publishing) off of 35mm film and upwards to 75
100+++MP off MF and plate film scans; explaining why some publishers STILL
demand film - unless you have 50+K bucks to spend on a MF digital back and
all the support equipment for required that.

For most photogs that are NOT being published day to day the issue of MP is
totally irrelevent to their photography, and, like the brand and model of
the car they drive, much more related in their mind's eye to the size of
their co*k and their disposable income.

Journalist

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

http://tinyurl.com/4vv7e

I don't know why we think 8 MP SLR's are so special.

---------------

Because as your sig says "...There is no free lunch..."

8MP doesn't mean sh*t if you are printing 6x4 snapshots but it is crucial to
commercial publishing where it is assumed that the MINIMUM image for a full
8.5 x 11 page offset printed image on coated stock with a 150 line screen
should be a minimum 6MP and ideally closer to a 10MP image to allow for
crop; trim; aspect ratio of the print area selection; and positioning on the
page and still have 300ppi in the printed area.

Pulling film scans of 20 50+++ MP @300ppi is not unusual at all for that
application (commercial publishing) off of 35mm film and upwards to 75
100+++MP off MF and plate film scans; explaining why some publishers STILL
demand film - unless you have 50+K bucks to spend on a MF digital back and
all the support equipment for required that.

For most photogs that are NOT being published day to day the issue of MP is
totally irrelevent to their photography, and, like the brand and model of
the car they drive, much more related in their mind's eye to the size of
their co*k and their disposable income.

Journalist