"Neuman - Ruether" wrote in message
news:3e0c9829.7753312@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...

> If your standards are low enough, almost any other
> standard becomes irrelevant...;-)
> David Ruether

On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 23:13:55 GMT, "Tony Spadaro" wrote:

> And if you zre anal retentive enough to believe the validity of your own
>assinine "test" why the hell are you wasting time on 35mm when obviously
>only 8x10 or larger will give you the results you feel you need? Or are you
>only anal retentive north by north west and quite incapable of knowing what
>words you are parroting today?
> I suspect the latter.

There are many reasons for choosing one format over
another, and I choose one that permits reliably-sharp
results hand-held (among other reasons, like the
relative ease of storage/display of images, the wide
range of good, affordable optics available, etc.).
Choosing 35mm does not imply that I should drop all
standards for sharpness, tonality, etc. Quite the
opposite - getting good results from 35mm requires
more attention to "details" than it does for larger
formats... I'm mystified why you would object to some
effort to optimize results in this format, and dismiss
attempts to do so (and do it rudely...;-). Do you
feel that you have no control over 35mm image quality,
and resent others who may know some of the "ins and
outs" of successfully using 35mm...? ;-)