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

[pdeeh]

Technical quality is measurable, aesthetic quality is in the eye of the beholder.

It's certainly true that different people might like different things, but that isn't the same as saying aesthetic quality (using "quality" in the "bad-mediocre-better-best" sense) is relative to the beholder.

So, for instance, say I pick an acknowledged "master" photographer - Adams or Weston or Cartier-Bresson or Brandt, for instance.

Then I show a wide selection of their photographs to a friend, and show the same friend a wide selection of my own photographs, and ask her to say which she prefers, which she thinks is better ... and she, glory be, says she prefers my photographs and that they are better than those dull rocks/ugly vegetables/stupid people in the street/horrid grainy tits ...

Now, we've established that she likes my pictures better - she has an aesthetic preference - but we certainly haven't established that I am a better photographer than Ansel or Edward or Henri or Bill ...

 

[markbarendt]

If I use a bigger format I expect technically better optical quality in terms of resolution and clarity. If I use a smaller format I expect technically less optical quality in terms of resolution and clarity. Whether that means a potentially better photo is subject to the values of the viewer or photographer. Technical quality does not equate aesthetic quality. Technical quality is measurable, aesthetic quality is in the eye of the beholder.

Not trying to pick on you here dpurdy, and I'm sure that in your world that statement is true; you have though provided a perfect example to demonstrate what I was talking about earlier, why I try to avoid using words like better and quality.

With larger formats you can expect "more detail". Similarly lower ISO rating films provide the same basic "characteristic".

With smaller formats you can expect "less detail". Higher ISO ratings also provide this same basic "characteristic" too.

It is our personal expectation for the final print (the job specs) that determines which "characteristic" is more important, which is of better quality.

It is relatively common advice in the portrait industry to shoot men with low ISOs (say 100) and women with higher ISOs (say 400). It is purely sexist but the idea is to portray the men more rough and rugged, the women smooth and soft.

So which is "better"?

 

[cliveh]

It's certainly true that different people might like different things, but that isn't the same as saying aesthetic quality (using "quality" in the "bad-mediocre-better-best" sense) is relative to the beholder.

So, for instance, say I pick an acknowledged "master" photographer - Adams or Weston or Cartier-Bresson or Brandt, for instance.

Then I show a wide selection of their photographs to a friend, and show the same friend a wide selection of my own photographs, and ask her to say which she prefers, which she thinks is better ... and she, glory be, says she prefers my photographs and that they are better than those dull rocks/ugly vegetables/stupid people in the street/horrid grainy tits ...

Now, we've established that she likes my pictures better - she has an aesthetic preference - but we certainly haven't established that I am a better photographer than Ansel or Edward or Henri or Bill ...

pdeeh, I wish I had friends like that.

 

[pdeeh]

Yes, I only wish she existed ...

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If I use a bigger format I expect technically better optical quality in terms of resolution and clarity. If I use a smaller format I expect technically less optical quality in terms of resolution and clarity. Whether that means a potentially better photo is subject to the values of the viewer or photographer. Technical quality does not equate aesthetic quality. Technical quality is measurable, aesthetic quality is in the eye of the beholder.

Actually, and I think someone else already said this in this thread, but I'll repeat it for it bears repeating, optical quality (as far as the lens goes) INCREASES as you go down in size. There are 35mm lenses that can resolve more line-pairs per millimeter than film can record. There is a Zeiss lens for 35mm with a maximum resolution of something like 150-175 lp/mm. You get up to the lenses for ULF cameras and at optimum aperture, optimum focusing distance, and in the center of the image circle, they're resolving 40 lp/mm. They make up the difference by, to paraphrase an old Detroit saying, "there's no substitute for (square) inches". The lower resolution, spread over many more square inches, yields a more pleasing image because the image recorded is smoother.

 

[removed account4]

When did you start using punctuation?

not sure, something must have been in the water cause i have stopped ..

 

[removed account4]

The lower resolution, spread over many more square inches, yields a more pleasing image because the image recorded is smoother.

huh

i have never heard of that before ... but i don't know if i buy it because i have heard about holga photographs (low resolution plastic lens) enlarged huge
that look extremely smooth and pleasing. victor milin holga images are what i am talking about, and from all reports they are beautiful ...

 

[markbarendt]

huh

i have never heard of that before ... but i don't know if i buy it because i have heard about holga photographs (low resolution plastic lens) enlarged huge
that look extremely smooth and pleasing. victor milin holga images are what i am talking about, and from all reports they are beautiful ...

I have, just not in the same words.

I think what TheFlyingCamera is getting at is that even though large format lenses can't match the lp/mm resolution rating of say a Leica, Canon, or Nikon lens, LF lenses can still produce prints of the same size that have more detail and smoother tones because the film is so much larger.

Short side 135 film 25mm x 200 lp/mm = 5,000 line pairs

Short side 4x5 film 100mm x 100 lp/mm = 10,000 line pairs

So in this example 4x5 can bring twice the detail and transitions that are twice as smooth.

Also the grain on the LF negative is about 1/4 the size it is on 35mm film when compared to the print size/subject matter so detail competes less with the grain.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I have, just not in the same words.

I think what TheFlyingCamera is getting at is that even though large format lenses can't match the lp/mm resolution rating of say a Leica, Canon, or Nikon lens, LF lenses can still produce prints of the same size that have more detail and smoother tones because the film is so much larger.

Short side 135 film 25mm x 200 lp/mm = 5,000 line pairs

Short side 4x5 film 100mm x 100 lp/mm = 10,000 line pairs

So in this example 4x5 can bring twice the detail and transitions that are twice as smooth.

Also the grain on the LF negative is about 1/4 the size it is on 35mm film when compared to the print size/subject matter so detail competes less with the grain.

What Mark said. Actually, the lower resolution of the Holga looking smooth and pleasing makes sense - if you're recording less detail, when you print it big, it's going to look smoother.

 

[removed account4]

I have, just not in the same words.

I think what TheFlyingCamera is getting at is that even though large format lenses can't match the lp/mm resolution rating of say a Leica, Canon, or Nikon lens, LF lenses can still produce prints of the same size that have more detail and smoother tones because the film is so much larger.

Short side 135 film 25mm x 200 lp/mm = 5,000 line pairs

Short side 4x5 film 100mm x 100 lp/mm = 10,000 line pairs

So in this example 4x5 can bring twice the detail and transitions that are twice as smooth.

Also the grain on the LF negative is about 1/4 the size it is on 35mm film when compared to the print size/subject matter so detail competes less with the grain.

what you are suggesting is that because the film is larger and the grain is less apparent
but as i suggested with victor's holga images, even if the grain IS apparent ( and it is ) blown up to 20x24 &c
the film looks just as smooth and tonal like a LF negative.
maybe i am just not understanding what you are saying because a holga lens is plastic
and has no where near the resolving power as a leica lens might have but
still will create an image that might match it, or a 8000K schneider xxl ...

i guess what i am getting at in the original post is that it really doesn't matter the format, the lens the film the developer the paper the chemistry
the final image can have just as much impact, be just as tonally smooth, and still have "quality" ...

 

[MattKing]

John:

You are correct that a grainy enlargement from a Holga negative can have high quality, but just as a low quality musical instrument can make magic in the right hands, the user of the Holga neeeds to be able to use it in the right way to take advantage of its strengths, and needs to use something else in those situations where the qualities of the Holga would be most likely to get in the wzy.

 

[pdeeh]

that's what I need to make better photographs: a wzy
I'm heading straight down to Calumet tomorrow and get myself one. Two, even.

 

[NedL]

I'm exactly in the same place as pdeeh... I made some big cameras because I wanted to make bigger contact prints from paper negatives. They look fine and are more than I was hoping for and the comparative "quality" with something else is beside the point. So a lot has to do with your goal and motivation, rather than this "quality" vs. that "quality"....

Also it is just flat out fun to make and look at a huge paper negative ... I was blown away by the detail the first time I made a good one with a lensed camera... spent about an hour looking at it with a magnifying glass... amazing! Those little details don't show up in a contact print viewed at normal distance, but the contact prints also don't look like an 8x10 enlarged from a 35mm negative either... to me it's apples and oranges and I'm not really interested in a comparison: I like both!

 

[removed account4]

John:

You are correct that a grainy enlargement from a Holga negative can have high quality, but just as a low quality musical instrument can make magic in the right hands, the user of the Holga neeeds to be able to use it in the right way to take advantage of its strengths, and needs to use something else in those situations where the qualities of the Holga would be most likely to get in the wzy.

can't this be said about anything matt ?

even extremely high end cameras + lenses.
they don't necessarily make extremely good photographs
if the user has no idea what they are doing ...

i have seen people buy 50K bmw's thinking they will be a better driver in a better car
but the problem was they drove like $-it even in their chevette. people always buy
expensive " better " equipment or go up in formats thinking it will make them better
but in the end it just made them broker, not better ...
that said, i have made some photographs with a 4x5 box camera i can't compose with, can't focus with "I" shutter speed
that i was told are better than photographs ( the commenter made ) made with his 8x10 camera ...
his camera and lens cost him thousands mine cost 26$ shipped.

 

[markbarendt]

what you are suggesting is that because the film is larger and the grain is less apparent

Yes. There is no question about this, assuming the same subject and same print size the bigger the negative the smaller the grain looks in relation to the subject and the paper.

but as i suggested with victor's holga images, even if the grain IS apparent ( and it is ) blown up to 20x24 &c
the film looks just as smooth and tonal like a LF negative.

This is also very possible, the tonality and the grain are separate issues. My math simply to acknowledges that reality.

Large film really can technically give us more detail and smoother transitions.

i guess what i am getting at in the original post is that it really doesn't matter the format, the lens the film the developer the paper the chemistry
the final image can have just as much impact, be just as tonally smooth, and still have "quality" ...

Maybe, maybe not.

That Holga example, requires the Holga. A Hasselblad would give you a different look.

It isn't that one look or the other is better, or that one of these cameras can get the shot and the other can't it's that the photographer chose to take a shot, and made a choice to use a certain camera, and certain film, to get a certain look.

The choices/decisions I make about what to go out to shoot, what camera and film to use, all those things add up to the photos I take.

 

[Bill Burk]

I just had a thought that would fit this thread...

I know there are times when I want definition and resolution, clarity and detail in a shot. For that I would wish for it to be shot on 4x5 film.

There are other times when a Kodak Pocket Instamatic shot is better than a 4x5 shot. The shot I submitted to Monthly Shooting Assignment, Cheap Camera: Oak and Mistletoe, Black Diamond Mines is a perfect example where the much lower "quality" image is the much better photograph.

I feel very fortunate to be able to live on both sides of the street.

 

[markbarendt]

Bill I don't disagree one iota with the general idea you are trying to get across. I think it's essentially what John is saying too, just from a different point-of-view.The words, the English language and all the unsaid context we each bring to the conversation, is getting in the way.

Words like "best" and "quality" are not absolutes. They require other words, sometimes even an entire manifesto, to make them meaningful. That's ok.

One thing I hear John saying loud and clear is that his standard for success lies in "if the photo has a significant impact on the viewer". John's standard for quality appears to be defined more by "did I get my audience's attention and motivate them?" rather than "can I count the needles on that pine tree?".

It's not that being able to count the needles on a pine tree is bad, it's just not relevant in John's world, and generally not in mine.