Dr E D F Williams wrote:
> I think I've just answered this in my final post on this matter
> in response to one from Mike.
Yes - it seems so
> But absolutely not. The 6x7 would be better. Probably very much
> better. But this is not what I was talking about.
Well, if it's any consolation !8^) , I do understand
your posts on this. If we are keeping magnification
constant, I agree that there is no use going to the
larger film and just using a tiny bit of it. Mike's
point of most folks' desire to equalize the frame-
filling capacity of each format and then compare the
resulting prints at a given "end-result" magnification
may well be the source of confusion/disagreement/etc.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------
Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast
http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------
