Medium Format vs Digital

[vincetylor]

I always enjoy it when people like you show up JR. There are (unfortunately) occasionally people like you that speak with so much authority, when in reality however, itﾒs really more hot air being put out than meaningful substance. There are some really nice arguments laid out in this thread; yours however is just not one of them. :)

 

 

"When we are describing "symphonic landscape photography"(such as the work of Muench) there is NO OTHER WAY to do it. You MUST use LF." ...JR Fernandez

 

 

I do have an appreciation for Mr. Muenchﾒs work too. Though itﾒs not that often I am THAT impressed I might add. But he does do consistently good work. Perhaps you have never heard of Galen Rowell, J.R. Now his work is very impressive in my opinion. I would suggest you take a look at his work to see what format he uses exclusively by the way, since as you say: "YOU MUST USE LF".

 

 

I would consider that statement by you, as your inserting foot-in-mouth. I also find it rather ironic that just last week I sold the rights of one of my sunrise images that will be used on the side of a bus, 10x28 ft by the way.

 

 

Perhaps if you actually read my arguments you'd be able to respond with something meaningful. I do agree and already stated, that side-by-side, the larger image will be the cleaner, smoother and more desirable transparency, ultimately producing a superior print. However, the differences are far too often exaggerated. The differences for anything that I print are minor at best. We sell thousands of 4x6 through 10x15 monthly, with a few up to 24x36 from our website. Additionally you must ask, at what cost does having this "larger" original take place? The photographer is severely limited in terms of wide angle lenses, total number of images one can take, different angles, settings, has more weight and bulk to lug around etc etc... These are not minor trade-offs by the way.

 

The fact is, IF the size of original did not matter at all, then most people would shoot with 35mm; plain and simple. Because of today's world of technology however, size of original matters far less now than ever before. Improved scanning has changed things dramatically. You should also try reading the March issue of Shutterbug Bug. There is a very interesting article about Genuine Fractals by George Schaub, the editorial director. Times have indeed changed as to what one can get from smaller originals or megapixels.

 

 

In a nutshell here JR, the photographer that shoots a scenic location (such as the lava flow on the Big Island of Hawaii) with a 4x5, 8x10 or whatever else you have in mind outfit, is going to be severely limited in what he will capture when compared to this same photographer using one (or possibly even two) 35mm outfits. I have seen it with my own eyes. While the LF format is shooting his few frames, the 35 has several rolls from several vantage points and angles creating a much more satisfying array of images. The LF photographer will have the larger originals. Ones that he will rarely, if ever, use or need by the way.

 

 

Thanks for the opportunity to remember why I don't use large format today. Though I could foresee a move into the Pentax 645n. That outfit does have some excellent wide-angle lenses and still allows the one shooting to do so creatively. But at this point, everything I need is found by sticking right where I'm at!

[van_camper]

Unfortunately I am responding to late, but I felt the need to respond. It's very simple Vincent, first try a 4x5 or medium format camera before you knock them. Obviously you have never used them. I guess the rest of us are all stupid, you are the man. Arguing with you is nonsense.

 

The math speaks for itself, a 35mm scanned at 4000ppi and enlarged to 36 inches leaves you with 144ppi at the printer (too low for high quality).A 4x5 scanned at only 2000ppi and enlarged to 36 inches is approx 278ppi output to printer (a high quality image). Your argument "I am looking at a 24x36 giclee right in front of my eyes. There is no compromise in detail, richness, contrast or anything else" has been proven wrong just by the math alone.

[van_camper]

Vincent, your the kind of guy that would do pro weddings with 35mm, it's been done before, doesn't mean your doing it right.

[van_camper]

Nother way of looking at it. With all things constant, if your 35mm film were enlarged to 14 inches long, then 6x7 format will enlarge to at least 2.1x longer with "same" quality, and 4x5 film will enlarge to about 3.6 times longer, and 8x10 format will enlarge 7.7 times. Size matters. In all cases you can print bigger with the same quality at the same viewing distance, by varying film format. The science is simple!