what exactly is the myth ???
is it that someone who is careful, knows what he is doing
and uses fine grained film, a developer that delivers fine grain,
and enlarging lens that does what it is supposed to do, is able to
print a bigger than 8x10 image on 11x14 paper and it will look
like a 4x5 negative, made with the same care, with the same film
the same developer and equally good enlarger lens and technique
printed to the same aspect ratio ?
and even thought i shoot unto 11x14 i won't use format size as a crutch
and insist my work must be soo good because it was made with a large format camera ...
( like so many people tend to do when they use LF ... if it is lf it has got to be good )
Well, for what it's worth I consider Bill to be one of the more creditable sources on this site. As well as a heck of a nice guy. So I look forward to seeing what he can come up with.
It's imperative to always approach problems with an open mind. Especially those where one is most certain one already knows the answers, because that's where the greatest danger of prejudice lies.
We live in a determinative universe. Nothing is inherently unexplainable. Maybe still unknown at times, but never not knowable. Usually when a system appears to be wrong it's not because the known variables are known incorrectly. It's because there are unknown variables that have yet to be correctly identified and factored into the result.
Perhaps this is a teaching moment and I can learn something...
Ken
Ok, i want to get in line to participate again in this massive dead-horse-beating...
My view of the subject is: Real Photographers (R.P.) use Large Format cameras....
Well, in this country LF sheet film is so expensive, that a photographer must make sure he/she is doing good stuff to justify the cost!
I'll probably hit a limit.
but bill, was there someone behind the red curtain ?
and if there was was he ( or she ) using an 8x10 camera ??
Which would also be a successful outcome in terms of furthering the understanding of the issue. There are no possible bad outcomes to the gathering of data.
(Except for a couple of very close calls by those boys at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project when they attempted to verify the critical mass calculations. That almost turned out epically bad...)
...My view of the subject is: Real Photographers (R.P.) use Large Format cameras...
...Plus you really get forced into thinking it twice before triggering the shutter...
thanks frank i wasn't sure what the myth was ..
i must be really gullible ...
dang, i wish i had some of that KOOL-AID ...
on second thought, i am glad i am not drinking the kool aid
becaues the enlargements i make look pretty good ... good enough that format is not an issue
if i photograph a site, structure, people do editorial work &c ...
and even thought i shoot unto 11x14 i won't use format size as a crutch
and insist my work must be soo good because it was made with a large format camera ...
( like so many people tend to do when they use LF ... if it is lf it has got to be good )
this thread has been enlightening !
I don't see anywhere where jnanian says everyone does that.
What I do often see is the assumption that people would only use large format because of the increase in "quality" - i.e. As so often, folk assume that everyone else's reasons to do something are identical to their own.
What threads like this are useful to me for is twofold really: I get to learn some interesting information (thanks Nodda Durma, bill Burk and the like), and I get to have my prejudices confirmed that some people are interested only in winning arguments ...
Are you insinuating we're experiencing a lithium deuteride miscalculation moment here?
I don't see anywhere where jnanian says everyone does that.
What I do often see is the assumption that people would only use large format because of the increase in "quality" - i.e. As so often, folk assume that everyone else's reasons to do something are identical to their own.
What threads like this are useful to me for is twofold really: I get to learn some interesting information (thanks Nodda Durma, bill Burk and the like), and I get to have my prejudices confirmed that some people are interested only in winning arguments ...
...
Personally, I'm in the camp that 35mm full frame negatives give me good enough print quality up to about 20x enlargement. I've seen enough large prints from 35mm prints in museums and collections that I know I'm not alone. ....
Are these 20x enlargements from 35mm optical prints or digitally sharpened adjusted ink jet prints?
There's a point, in my humble opinion, where technical quality is 'good enough'.
Now my challenge is to see if I can achieve that from a Minox negative.
... people pretending to ignore the blinding obvious ...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?