A 'format' wastes nothing at all. It's the photographer that either uses the space efficiently, filling it up to the borders, or he composes something that has to be trimmed and cropped. It's hardly wasted, any more than all the others of the 'wasted' mentality propose... It's all a specious argument and not worthy of further discussion.
keith whaley Raimo Korhonen wrote: > > The 24x36 format usually wastes at least 11% of the area. > All the best! > Raimo > Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho > > -----Alkuperäinen viesti----- > Lähettäjä: Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Päivä: 30. joulukuuta 2002 21:06 > Aihe: Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?) > > >John wrote: > > > > > >> But one thing is clear. Only an amateur would obsess about "wasting" a > >> centimetre! > > > >Whether one should worry about it not is another discussion. It is still a waste. >The day you waste similar % of space on an expensive commodity like a digital sensor, >then such excess will be seen as totally unacceptable. > > > > > >Pål > > > >
