Image quality for magazine

[jet_travis]

I'm an editor for a college alumni magazine. I've worked with

photographers who use both 35mm and MF. In our publication, we never

use a photo larger than 8" x 10"--often smaller. However, I'm

wondering, is there an advantage in image quality using MF over 35mm

when the final image will be, say, 4" x 6?" Your input will not only

help me choose photographers but may impact my own personal camera

buying choice.

 

Thank you.

[paulstephen]

Simple newspaper quality or fancy glossy pages? For newsprint you won't really notice any difference, as the quality is more limited by the printing process than the equipment.

[richard_cochran]

National Geographic is shot almost entirely on 35mm,

so if you'd be satisfied with their quality standards, then

35mm should be good enough.

<p>

However, MF can produce noticably sharper prints with better

tonal range even at sizes of 4x6. MF also allows you to crop

a lot more without degrading the image quality.

<p>

It depends....

[steve_singleton2]

It's more of a usability than a quality issue in my opinion. When I was editing a corporate magazine, I shot and printed from 35mm through 4x5. I imagined I could see a very slight quality improvement in covers shot on large format, but I doubt that many people--even photographers--could look through printed samples and tell which was shot with a particular format. All those shots were separated on high end drum scanners at a separation house and typically process printed at a line screen of 150 lpi.

Having said that, medium format does offer advantages in the ability to crop most effectively within the frame. The large film area might also have advantages if you're scanning with a lower end scanner. And of course the reserve capacity exists to make larger prints if the need arises.

But as to the quality difference at a printed 4 x 6 size, I'd bet money that you'd see no significant difference.

[moses_sparks]

I think Steve is correct about the usability vs. quality issue.

 

Not as much now, but I used to shoot lots of editorial, and many of the photo editors had a preference for MF over 35mm, but it had much less to do with reproduction quality than with eye strain!

 

When you spend your days bent over a lightbox with a loupe, the bigger transparencies are a lot easier to evaluate than 35mm slides.

 

Some guys used a slide projector of course, but then you're always fiddling with the focus and sitting in a dark room.

 

They always smiled when I laid those 6x7 chromes on the box...

[graham_middleton]

I must agree with what has been written above, but would just like to add that it is the quality of the film, exposure and composition that will be the deciding factor in terms of quality. Medium format has the potential to be dreadful in the same way as 35mm can be excellent. I am sure a fabulous 35mm photograph can be blown up sky high and still look terrific (the grain being secondary if everything else is spot on). It is the accessory behind the viewfinder that makes a truly exceptional picture!

[roger_krueger]

How often do you crop?? If, like me, you're plauged by always seeing a much better picture within the picture actually taken, MF offers you the ability to crop severely and still have decent quality.

 

I can certainly see a difference between my 35mm 5 x 7s and my MF 5 x 7s, but I'm not sure they're differences that would be obvious in magazine reproduction.

 

Another neat thing about MF is that you can screw up pretty bad and still have a good picture. Yeah, you can make a good 8 x 10 off of 35mm, but you have to get everything perfect at exposure time. MF gives you much a better opportunity to overcome problems of composition and exposure.

 

I'll also second the light-table factor previously mentioned. Squinting at 35mm slides all day is a real drag.

 

The big disadvantage to MF is ease of scanning. If your quality standard is "very good", not "dead perfect", there are a variety of decent 35mm film scanners out there for not much over $1000. There are some passable-for-4x6-use scanners outIf the new Kodak and Polaroid 120 scanners live up to their potential and arrive sometime soon, there will at least be a $2500-$3500 option to scan MF. Aside from them, the next cheapest good MF scanner is over $5000. If you send all your scans out, this isn't issue, but I have the sneaking suspicion that won't be the case at an alumni magazine.

[roger_krueger]

Hmmm... lost a chunk in the middle. Should read:

 

....There are some passable-for-4x6-use film scanners out there for under $500. If...