Quality Vs. Content

[erik_a._flickinger1]

An interesting thought has occured to me.Has the quality of your photographic CONTENT increased with the transition to medium format, or are many photographs simply finer grained prints of subjects rendered interesting by the medium alone. AS art, Is a 5x7 print from 35mm inherently inferior to a

16x20 print from a 6x7. subject matter being the same? This debate has ranged through High-end audio, Performance vs. Recording quality.Perhaps an interesting thread? In art, Does size really matter?

[nolan woodbury]

I'll say this:

 

<p>

 

As a freelance journalist and photographer, my subject matter has come

TO LIFE with medium format.

 

<p>

 

There is just something about shooting a vintage European motorcycle

with a vintage European camera. A depth, a quality that was missing

before. A artistic difference...in the soul of the image. I FEEL better

about the work when the work looks better. I love vintage things,

be it cameras, furnature, people, anything of substance. While others are

raving about digital this and that, I find simple pleasure in doing it

the way the old timers did. Composing and viewing not just with my eyes,

but with my mind. Medium (and large) format inspires me to do better,

to think, and feel. I never feel that way shooting 35mm. I'm not saying

everybody is wrong, and I'm right, that is just the way I gain my inspiration.

 

<p>

 

Oh yes, the large prints are killer too!

 

<p>

 

Nolan Woodbury

[jack_congson3]

In my case, my transition to a fully mechanical Mamiya RB Pro S with its larger viewing screen, has made me more careful of composition and exposure. It is a totally different frame of mind from my 35 mm Canon AE2 days. The fact that I have only 10 or 20 shots per roll adds to the psychological effect on me as well. Sometimes I wonder if I should have started on Medium Format and acquired its photographic discipline first and then "graduated to 35mm" (A Leica or Contax of course for its great contrast)

[per_ofverbeck]

Yes, this is a PROBLEM for me too! A lousy pic in 35 is not camouflaged by technique, so it looks like the junk it is. In MF, that same junk is sharp and has beautiful gradation, so it may delay your realization that it is without contents. The plus (yes, really!) side (and it is the important one) is that MF is so much slower, heavier, costlier, and cumbersome. You just HAVE to think about each single shot in terms of contents and composition, and that should give you fewer and better pictures. But it is important, when you evaluate your prints, to forget their technical merits and look at them for what they have to say. Take off your glasses, or look at them across the room. If they still interest you, you MAY have something worth keeping! Then put your glasses back on, and enjoy the technique as well!

Good luck

Per

[stephen_poe1]

Your suggestion for a thread is an interesting one, especially for this forum where some discussions , in my opinion, get a little too fixated on the hardware.

I think I did feel like my ideas about my work were developing more intensively when I started using medium format but don't know if I should credit switching to a larger film size. I think I had made a few decisions about what I wanted to photograph and why and switched to medium format camera because I was looking for a more appropriate instrument. In my case, I wanted to start making portraits and I bought a used, cheap Twin lens reflex. The great increase in print quality impressed me, but I also found working behind a camera I held up in front of my face (like the 35mm) could interfere with the process in this portrait taking situation. With the TLR I was looking at my subject a lot more with just my eye while holding the camera and looking for a picture.

[jerry_vincent]

I think we could argue this topic forever. In my opinion I think small, easy to use cameras (35mm) tend to be used more often to catch lively subjects. Larger cameras (medium format and large format) tend to be used in a more formal, posed manner.

 

<p>

 

I've spent lots of time looking at wonderfully printed medium and large format prints only to find myself bored out of my mind. What dead pictures?! What an incredible amount of time spent in a silly activity?! Get a life, hey! Though I suppose it beats time spent in criminal pursuits. Though I can't really blame the camera and must blame the photographer for subjecting me to what are basically lens tests of his/her amazing camera.

 

<p>

 

Yet shooting from the hip with a 35mm doesn't necessarily entail a great photo, more than likely it yields a snapshot.

 

<p>

 

Certain types of cameras fit certain kinds of personalities. I guess each of us has to find what suits us the best - and then go out and take pictures. Hopefully the experience will be rewarding for all involved.

[jim_sabo]

Moving to medium format helped me improve my content. I think the key to this is the large image in the viewfinder. I can't really take in the 6x7 image at once the way I do with 35mm. As my eye is forced to move around the image, I pick up all those little details that make or break the final image.

 

<p>

 

But the size of the image also plays its part. I have a couple of 24x30 prints, and the "wow" factor is much higher than an 11x14 made from the same slide.

[brian_c._miller]

I went directly from a Pentax point&shoot to a Pentax 6x7. Believe me, subject matter is more important than negative size. That said, if you have the same image on medium format and 35mm, GO FOR THE BIG NEGATIVE!

 

<p>

 

Most of my first photographs from my 6x7 were crap. Fine grain, beautiful colors, utter garbage. Sure, some were good. I got some good criticism and I have improved.

 

<p>

 

Would I be better off using 35mm? Well, I would guess that over 50% of the scenes I photograph are keepers. (i.e., saleable, capable of ROI) What's the cost difference? Not much between 35mm and medium format. Pro equipment can be awfully close in price (a Nikon F4 body costs $2250), and the cost for film & processing between 35mm and MF is also very close. So no big deal there.

 

<p>

 

Here's the real question: What more do you get using the MF vs. 35mm? Is the 5x7 from a 35mm much different than the 5x7 from MF? Maybe yes, maybe no. Is the 16x20 from a 35mm much different than the 16x20 from MF? Oh, yeah, it is.

 

<p>

 

The content of the photograph depends on the photographer. My barber used to run a gallery. He told me that the majority of the photos "artists" brought to him were crap. Many painters produce paintings which are crap. When I look at my photos, I can weed out most of the crap. My first few rolls from my 645 were mostly crap because I wasn't taking the time to analyze the subject. They were, ah, "technical". (i.e., garbage)

 

<p>

 

I now have formats ranging from half-frame to 6x7. I have learned that I can make crap or beauty with any of them. I'm the one behind the shutter, I'm the one choosing the film, filters, development methods, etc. I'm the one with the "paint brush".

 

<p>

 

And I'm the one choosing the subject.

 

<p>

 

So I don't think that it's an argument of "Quality Vs. Content." Quality and content are part and parcel of each other. If you're good with your equipment and you're going to photograph the scene whether you have an 8x10 or point&shoot, you might as well go for the large negative size. If the bulky, heavy, user-vicious equipment is going to make you stop and think before going through the effort of making the photograph, THEN GOOD! If you have the discipline to stop and think before pressing the button on the point&shoot, THEN GOOD!

 

<p>

 

The camera is a tool, and nothing more. It's a whole lot easier to produce quality products with quality tools. The rest is up to the craftsman.

[craig_shearman]

I find the pace of working in medium format equally as important as the larger negative size compared with 35mm.

 

<p>

 

When shooting MF, I always put my Yaschicamat 124G on a tripod. I don't have to; it just feels right. But it slows me down and makes me think more about where to put the camera and how high or low, etc. Looking down on the large, waist-level finder, I tend to examine the image more closely than looking "through" my Nikon's prism finder. This makes me think more about what I'm including in the composition.

 

<p>

 

Having 12 exposures on a roll (I seldom shoot 220) rather than 36, I tend to be more likely to wait until I'm certain what I have in the viewfinder is good. In 35, I tend to shoot, then try to find a better angle and shoot again, rather than finding the best angle and shooting once.

 

<p>

 

I almost always use a handheld meter with the Yashicamat, slowing down the exposure-setting process and thereby taking more time again to think about the picture.

 

<p>

 

When shooting portaits in the studio, I have the basic composition locked in by being on a tripod and often don't look through the viewfinder at the time of exposure. Instead, I'm watching my subject's eyes and the light on his or her face. I already know where they are within the frame.

 

<p>

 

I could do all these things with 35mm, know that I should and sometimes do. But MF helps slow me down and make me do it when I might otherwise have hurried along.

 

<p>

 

Craig Shearman

Baltimore

[eugene_crumpler]

I'm speaking as a hobbist who's main outlet is camera club competitions and salons, not commerical.

 

<p>

 

I've used MF and LF before, but from the late 70's until last year, I had worked to develop my vision and technique with 35mm. I spent a lot of time and money trying to squeeze the most quality our of my nikon's. Two years ago I realized that I had reached the limits of quality in producing exibution grade B&W prints from 35mm. So I purchased a p67 outfit as a compromise rather than move up to 4x5. I have had experience with sheet film cameras and I didn't want to get into that whole thing again.

 

<p>

 

I consider the p67 as a eyelevel overgrown nikon Ftn. I use it just like I use my nikons, except I now know that I have a better shot at getting a really clean 16x20. I don't thing my photography has gotten any better(or worse) except for the technical quality. Frankly the p67 is easlier to use for mostly handheld work. I can get less grainey 16x20's shooting T-max 100 at 400 than the tech pan shots at EI 100. I can shoot at 1/250 with T-max easier than 1/60 with tech pan.

 

<p>

 

So I tend to use a tripod less with the MF than 35mm.

 

<p>

 

So the MF move, for me, was strictly for improved B&W quality.

 

<p>

 

I got lucky and stumbled into purchasing a 55mm f4 for the p67 and am delighted at the outstanding performance of this lens. I thought I already owned some of the sharpest lenses availible from nikon, but have been suprised at the incedible performance of the p67 55mm at all F-stops.

[jim_lebiedz2]

I concur wholeheartedly with Nolan Woodbury! My compositional skills have improved greatly over the past few years shooting with medium format as opposed 35mm format. When I pick up my 35mm gear, I tend to shoot journalistically and reel off many frames. Shooting with medium format has made me slow down and think about every shot, which translates into much better compositions and exposures. And I get much more excited about the final prints from medium format compared to the prints I get from 35mm at the 16x20 size. So to answer the original question, yes, the content of my shooting has improved with the addition of medium format equipment to my photographic tool arsenal.

[djphoto]

I think this is really a case of "horses for courses." Cartier-Bresson or Erwitt would probably never have been able to make most of their great "decisive moment" pictures without the fast, spontaneous 35mm. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine an Ansel Adams scenic on 35mm. Choose the tools that make it easiest for you to make the kind of photographs you want to make. This is not an either-or situation, and just about everything in photography is a trade-of. The content is part of the quality, and the quality is part of the content.

[Spearhead]

What I find interesting about the responses to this question is that most everybody seems to have focused on the tools rather than the medium. I use 35mm in a way that emphasizes the lower resolution and the grain, often shooting at very low speeds for blur, handheld at wide apertures, sometimes pushing Tri-X to get high grain. With medium format, I usually shoot on a tripod, typically at f11-f22. The results seem to me to make better use of the differences in the results than just changing shooting styles because the tools work differently.

[scott_eaton]

I agree with the several posters above in that the switch to medium format forced me to concentrate on composition in a much more detailed way than my 35mm work.

 

<p>

 

Too often I see a celebrated 35mm image that is grainy and out-of focus. There is no excuse for that in the world of MF.

 

<p>

 

Look at Ansel Adams and John Sexton's large format work. Do you really thinks this stuff would look great in 35mm? By contrast I can't envision Harry Callahan carrying around a 4x5. I'm also annoyed at these 4x5 contact prints mounted in 2foot square white mats by fine art photography students. For crying out-loud use the medium for what it is.

 

<p>

 

I learned to exploit the format of the film long ago. I shoot big, brash images that require lots of film surface area and don't look right if not printed larger than 16x20. With MF you can make an image you can "fall into".

 

<p>

 

//scott eaton

[erik_a._flickinger1]

I'll pat myself on the back for starting this thread, Thanks everybody now we are discussin'.

IMHO,there is always a best tool for the job. 35mm af for Desicive Moments(sp),etc.etc.,we all know the drill.

What i have noticed and it bugs me are landscapes that are just pictures of the outside. Mostly taken with blads and wisners these photos often have little to recomend them outside of "THE BIG PRINT". A really large Grainless Supersaturated gee look what I can do.

I actually began to worry that I myself was falling into this trap. The dullest subject taken with my Fuji,or Velvia through my Rollei tlr was impressing me visually but sometimes anything can look good(ask Pres. Clinton).

I became tempted to sell my Nikon gear and go whole hog Med format. Then I wondered, Why is the size what matters, art is art right?

Again thanks to all who responded I really enjoy the dialog

bye,

Flick

[steve_hovland]

My first adjustable camera (back in the early 60's, I think) was a Wirgin folding 6x6 I bought for $10 after much thought. I had a home-made tripod made out of scrap lumber. I exposed by the "sunny 16 rule."

 

I could only afford to shoot about 1 roll (12 exp)per month, so I was very picky. I burn more film now, but I'm still picky.

 

Now I'm shooting mostly 35mm Provia 100F, on a tripod, at f16-f32 whenever possible. It captures a lot of information.

 

Big negatives do not compensate for boring ideas.