Right you are. Not sure where my brain was on that one.
Chuck Norcutt
On 2/6/2014 4:33 AM, Wayne Harridge wrote:
> 6cm --> 6" would be a magnification of about 2.5.
>
> ...Wayne
>
>
>
>>
>> Well I was obviously wrong about you quoting 6x17" as a print size rather
>> than a ratio and Ken said. 450-600mm equates (roughly) to 18-24". I
> assume
>> that's the long side and that a 6x17 ratio would be about 6-8" on the
> short
>> side. That would be a print magnification of about 7-10X a 6x17cm
> negative.
>> Is that about right?
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>>
>> On 2/4/2014 9:16 AM, bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> Some DID buy 6 x 17 format, of which I had none.
>>>
>>> Size? 6 x
>>> 17, I'm thinking of from 450 to 600 mm. You convert; I'm too tired.
>> --
>> __________________________________________________________
>> _______
>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|