On Monday, January 21, 2002 at 12:57, Joe Gwinn <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote re "Re: [OM] Why bigger images are better 4" saying:
> >From: Tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
...
> > > This is why photos for magazine ads are done on 4x5 minimum, with lots
> > > of 8x10 being used. The minimum is medium-format, used for ads in
> > > newspapers (with less resoultion than slick magazines). News photos are
> > > usually 35mm, however.
> >...
> >And National Geographic? Their photographers mainly use 35mm.
> >35mm can be grainless up to 16x20 or so.
>
> Grainless, yes. They shoot Kodachrome, I suspect. But the present
> discussion is not about grain per se, it's about how one achieves the
> illusion of depth in a photograph. Their photos are wonderful, but they
> still look like photos, not the real thing. Not up to advertising
> standards.
Do you mean for products, fashion, lifestyle or ...
I'd like to see some background info to support your thesis. I know
advertisers are picky, but that picky?
I've also heard that more digital is being used because it is so much
faster even if the quality is limited.
Tom
------- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur -----------------
,__@ Tom A. Trottier +1 613 860-6633 fax:231-6115
_-\_<, 758 Albert St.,Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7V8
(*)/'(*) ICQ:57647974 N45.412 W75.714
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Laws are the spider's webs which,
if anything small falls into them they ensnare it,
but large things break through and escape.
--Solon, statesman (c.638-c558 BCE)
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|