as you increase / decrease film format, and control, your quality increases?

[removed account4]

a lot of folks. believe when they increase or decrease film size their quality increases ( or decreases ).

the same can be said for lack of control ( holga, box cameras, pinholes &C).

do you honestly believe you can take better photographs with your diana than your ebony 11x14or better photographs woth your spotomatic than with your clack?

and why?

 

[Light Guru]

Increasing the size of the format you shoot is not going to magically make your quality increase.

Shooting larger formats does require more attention to details. And because large format is a completely manual process it requires more thought.

This additional thought and attention to detail is what leads to an increase in the quality of your images no mater what size format you are shooting.

 

[jp498]

Lets assume some photos are better than zero photos. Many good photos evade us as we tinker with tripods and large cameras instead of keeping our eyes open and snapping a scene or emotion. I love the big cameras and use them, but also use cheap low quality cameras. I am fussier than you about film, but that's not for this thread.

I put the same thought into MF as LF, even with just a holga or rolleiflex. I try to be familiar with both formats enough that I don't think too much about the camera, just what I'm shooting. Bigger DOF with MF makes me think more about the background. LF I have to think hozontal or vertical, which I don't with the MF square camera.

 

[pdeeh]

I'm never convinced by the idea that LF slow and steady improves the goodness of photographs. Or that film "slows you down" and therefore makes you a better photographer than using digital. Otherwise all LF photographs or all film photographs would be "better" than all smaller formats or all digital photographs* ... which just doesn't make sense and isn't borne out by any evidence anyway

As for me, I use whatever I feel like using or whatever I think (feel, often) will be the thing that'll help me get what I think (feel) I'm after from taking photographs.

I just bought a PEN EE because I had a half-frame-hankering (and it was a bargain and I had a tiny bit of spare cash), but I'm not under any delusions that it will make me a better (or worse) photograph taker.


*oh dear god I hope that doesn't ignite another lot of yammering from the "digital photographs aren't real" brigade ...

 

[pdeeh]

Lets assume some photos are better than zero photos.

I like this

 

[jcoldslabs]

For me it's not about better or worse, higher or lower quality, just a different way of working. When I shoot sheet film (of any size), I work slowly, compose slowly, focus slowly, and carefully consider every aspect of the process before making the final exposure. When I shoot with plastic toy cameras or faux TLRs I work more quickly because those tools require me to make fewer decisions (no focusing, guesstimate framing, one shutter speed, etc.) and are usually not tripod bound. I've taken photos I am happy with using every camera and format in my collection, from Minox through 8x10.

Jonathan

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Increasing film size increases the "possibilities" of final image quality (large prints or murals). Failing to master the larger format is the fault of the user, not the format. If you're only doing 8x10" prints then stick to 135 format. If you want to make 16x20" prints then switch to 6x7cm or 4x5". If you want to print larger then switch to 8x10++. If one fails to master large film then don't blame the format.

 

[pdeeh]

Hmm ... but I built a couple of simple 8x10 cameras so I could print 8x10 contacts. Are you telling me I should throw them away and stick to 135?

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Hmm ... but I built a couple of simple 8x10 cameras so I could print 8x10 contacts. Are you telling me I should throw them away and stick to 135?

I wouldn't throw them away but stick to 135 or 6x7cm format, yes.

Okay... bracing myself for the backlash. OUCH!!!... in advance.........

 

[pdeeh]

no not at all, but i do think it's very amusing that so many people know exactly how other people should do or think about things (it's usually the same way as they do or think them themselves, curiously enough); APUG is jammed solid with people who are endlessly willing to tell other people why they shouldn't do what they're doing ...

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Fair enough, pdeeh. I'm not trying to "control" your choices... only "influence" them. If you weren't looking for opinions then why start this thread? If you want to shoot and contact 8x10" then that's your choice. Personally, I don't want to bother with small prints and don't want to bother with anything smaller than 40x50". That's my choice. My point is that 135 and 6x7cm format are more than capable of outstanding quality 8x10" enlargements. I can't fathom, in the depths of my feeble mind, why anyone would wrestle with sheet film (especially 8x10) just to make 8x10" prints. If limited DOF and smooth bokeh are the goals then buy fast lenses and shoot them wide open.

 

[David Brown]

“Image quality” is one of those terms that sound objective, but despite a lot of physical measurements is still fraught with subjectivity as to just what those numbers mean.

 

[bdial]

...do you honestly believe you can take better photographs with your diana than your ebony 11x14or better photographs woth your spotomatic than with your clack?

No, absolutely not, at least not simply because of the different format.

There are examples every day of technical masterpieces that fail next to visually superior, but technically lacking images

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

Someone needs to step up and tell "a lot of folks" that they shouldn't be doing what they're doing with those claims about quality.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I have been very, very happy and contented with the quality of my photography whether I have made it on 35mm or 120, in a pinhole camera or a homemade 6x17 right up to the Pentax 67. It is not so much the format that matters, but how well the photographer's skill is refined in bringing the vision of the camera to fruition in the finished form. Much of what I shot on 35mm was repeated on 120, with one noticeable difference being the 120 format allowed more precise (spot) metering over centre-weighted or evaluative metering provided in the 35mm format. Other than that, same scene, same quality of thought applied to it. The best equipment on earth will not guarantee you a beautiful photograph,and that includes large format. Some of the worst and least well thought out imaging has been churned out on large format, while beautiful photography has come from an $80 Holga. It is the photographer that matters, not the format or equipment.

 

[MattKing]

Whenever I see reference to the word "quality" I cannot help but think of Robert Pirsig and motorcycles.

The different film formats and the cameras with different approaches to precision each have their own qualities. IMHO, it is impossible to reliably define or assign absolute or relative quality amongst the choices, but it is useful to identify the qualities which the various choices exhibit.

And some of those qualities are particularly suited to things I like to do. If I intend to print something in a manner that emphasizes detail and tone and texture of a stationary subject, the qualities of my RB67 and Plus-X or TMax 100 are more likely than a 35mm camera loaded with Tri-X to give me a negative that will have good qualities in my darkroom when I go to print it.

And that, of course, tends to lead to a good quality experience for me.

 

[gzinsel]

if the final image tells and evokes, then it is/was a good/great photograph regardless of format, lens, body, developer, etc. . . lets remember that the purpose of photography is to make people feel and think. Photography is not a process that you perfect. as a mouse goes through a maze to get the cheese. I HAVE SEEM SOME HOLGA IMAGES THAT Will totally make any weep and yearn for the pathos, the idea that that person was working on. I have seen other that are crap, i have seen some 8x10 negs that are crap too. some are awesome. the point is not to make the perfect photograph, the point is to communicate feelings, emotions, thouoghts, ideas that motivate us to "do something" about that" ideas that challenge us, who we are people. sometimes holgas can do that, sometimes a salt print is more effective than a silver gelatin print, made from the finest negs, developers, toners etc. I just saw some of Maholy's photograms at the art museum on thursday( its free). They really impressed me. NO CAMERA.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. No one mentioned the tradeoffs, especially when shooting closeup. I shot flowers and such closeup with a Nikon, a macro lens, and ISO 25 Kodachrome until Kodachrome processing went away. I always had to decide whether I wanted to show the main subject with good detail -- fill the frame with it -- or to give up fine detail in the main subject and show it in its setting. A single 35 mm shot can't do both.

So I went up to 2x3. As long as I control myself and don't shoot at a higher magnification than was easily possible with my Nikon rig I can get better, sometimes even satisfactory, shots of the main subject in its setting that contain fine detail in the main subject.

Understand, I'm not trying to get better shots of the main subject, I'm trying to cram more into the frame without giving up much in the main subject. This is not at all what people in this discussion have been talking about. For what I try to do bigger is certainly better, subject to the loss of spontaneity and the sometimes difficult set up that shooting 2x3 closeup with a press or view camera entails. I wish there were a 2x3 equivalent of my FM2n, but there isn't.

 

[removed account4]

Fair enough, pdeeh. I'm not trying to "control" your choices... only "influence" them. If you weren't looking for opinions then why start this thread? If you want to shoot and contact 8x10" then that's your choice. Personally, I don't want to bother with small prints and don't want to bother with anything smaller than 40x50". That's my choice. My point is that 135 and 6x7cm format are more than capable of outstanding quality 8x10" enlargements. I can't fathom, in the depths of my feeble mind, why anyone would wrestle with sheet film (especially 8x10) just to make 8x10" prints. If limited DOF and smooth bokeh are the goals then buy fast lenses and shoot them wide open.

friends saw 40x60 35mm pinhole images that made him cry
also, i have a printing service that recently printed 40x60 prints of my hand colored cyanotypes
that looked beautiful.

the ideas you suggest are why i am asking in the original post of this thread
and i fail to understand why there are folks who insist all sorts of stuff that might not be true .
.
you post reminds me of when i began making photograms on my stocks of azo paper and people told me i was wasting "their paper" they were very forceful ..

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I agree, Dan. 135 format excels at a few things... very close macro and very long shots being two of them.

 

[gzinsel]

responding specifically to the OP, You are correct in making a general statement, if I/you increase format AND control, then your quality will increase. Correct, if you assume a rather strict definition of quality. It would also be correct for the obverse or converse. I forget which technical term it would be for taking the opposite of both. your quality will go down if you use less (size) format and use less control, I would say that, that is a logical statement. so for example, I use a diana mini, with no thought as to what type of film I am putting in their and not caring at all what exposure I may or may not have, then yes, it would be fair to say, that unless I am very lucky, probably a "poorly taken" image can be inferred. I really do not know, where you are taking this post. I was under the assumption that you were talking about, or asking about "can i/you/you all- make quality images with "less than optimal" equipment/control/format/tools,etc. . . Or do I need the ULF for everything approach, or were you asking - "is ULF the optimal format?" That it how I first read your OP. I am using ULF as the catch all for the logical end point of "increasing format" part of your OP. I hope that helps? cheers

 

[Jon Shiu]

I have made more good pictures with Diana & Holga cameras than large format. Partly because they are more fun to use.

Jon

 

[removed account4]

so for example, I use a diana mini, with no thought as to what type of film I am putting in their and not caring at all what exposure I may or may not have, then yes, it would be fair to say, that unless I am very lucky, probably a "poorly taken" image can be inferred. I really do not know, where you are taking this post. I was under the assumption that you were talking about, or asking about "can i/you/you all- make quality images with "less than optimal" equipment/control/format/tools,etc. . . Or do I need the ULF for everything approach, or were you asking - "is ULF the optimal format?" That it how I first read your OP. I am using ULF as the catch all for the logical end point of "increasing format" part of your OP. I hope that helps? cheers

hi. thanks for your post ...
i wasnt suggesting poorly taken &c.
or less than optimal or if ulf / 8x10 was the optimal format ...
there is a time and place for everything as they say ...

there is an element that lacks in a lot of photography that jon s. mentioned ( and others)
it is the fun element. often times when we are all tied onto our equipment.
meters, tripods, dark cloths, serious look ( because i was told we all need to be serious!)
there is no room for fun, and the final images show that.
sure they are nice technically perfect images taken with a gorgeous camera,
supreme ( or vintage supreme ) glass of something masterful ... that's great
but sometimes something fun, control free can make a better image.
ive seen holga and diana and pinhole work that belong in museums ...

==

personally speaking, i have made better photographs with
cameras i use ( falling plate cameras, delmar box cameras )
where i dont even know what is in the field of view except
through experience or if the plate was properly exposed than similar images taken with other more
"formal" lf equipment.. because it was fun, not tedious.
as you already know LF can be tedious and some people cherish
or overly stress the slowness &c, and just right, and opera of LF.
( whatever ... )
not to say i dont travel the other side of the street, ive photographed
for archives and powerful people ( and regular folks ) for publication for a long time using LF and other formats...

 

[pdeeh]

. If you weren't looking for opinions then why start this thread? .

I didn't start the thread

 

[markbarendt]

qualities. [/B]IMHO, it is impossible to reliably define or assign absolute or relative quality amongst the choices, but it is useful to identify the qualities which the various choices exhibit.

I agree Matt, I like to use other words in place of quality though.

Each camera and each lens in each of my kits has a different personality. Each has desirable characteristics and certain quirks.

For example my Holga has a strong fun visual personality and while she doesn't demand lots of attention, one must remember to remove the lens cap, advance the film, and focus. She did take a fair amount of attention in the beginning to tame, she just let light in in to many places but we are past that. She is now a fun cheap date and a pleasure to have hanging around, nobody takes her too seriously but she regularly impresses the crowd with her work.