If Medium Format and Large Format are Better, Why Do We Bother with 35mm?

Sirius Glass · Nov 20, 2009

nsouto said:
As soon as someone defines "better" and "bother", I'll know the answers.
Until then, I just care about the camera I have with me: that's the best one.

Steve Stills: If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you are with.

I posted before that I use 35mm when time or movement is limited, otherwise I use the MF cameras. I should have added that I prefer the MF cameras because the Zeiss lenses are so much sharper. Note that my signature states that there is nothing like a good piece of glass.

Steve

Thomas Bertilsson · Nov 21, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
I should have added that I prefer the MF cameras because the Zeiss lenses are so much sharper. Note that my signature states that there is nothing like a good piece of glass.

But that glass is useless unless you know how to take advantage of it. Know your equipment, know your process. Then use it.
I'm not sure that my Hasselblad lenses are any sharper than my 35mm Pentax, for what it's worth. But I don't care much about sharpness either. It's usually sharper than I need it to be anyway.

Pumal · Nov 21, 2009

Sharpness is not everything.

David A. Goldfarb · Nov 21, 2009

Sharpness is not everything, and large format isn't necessarily about sharpness.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2007/12/large-format-re.html

df cardwell · Nov 21, 2009

David A. Goldfarb said:
Sharpness is not everything, and large format isn't necessarily about sharpness.

Of course not. You know that, I know that.

AND YET folks ASSUME this is true: 'the bigger the negative,
the better the sharpness, and the better the picture'.

So, what does LF really offer ?

In my studio, an 8x10 sits on a stand,
aimed toward an illuminated place where subjects
live and move and have their being.

Without the camera in my hand,
my role is completely different,
and the pictures are completely unlike the images from a small camera.

But I establish the quality of the picture,
not the camera, and it is an emotional depth
we hope to record, possible by the formality of the event,
not the pixel count on 80 sq inches of TMY2.

Q.G. · Nov 21, 2009

Always that sharpness thing...

The job of an optical system (camera, lens and film) is to project an image of what it is presented with.

But how is not being able to convey what there is to convey ever a laudable quality of optical systems?
Small formats, bad lenses... all very fine, if and when we need them. When we don't want to see all there is to see. But what if we do?
If we do not want to see all of there is to see in the images we produce of a scene, we can dumb down an optical system. No problem. The other way round just doesn't happen.

Sharpness is not everything.
Being able to decide ourselves when we want some if it, and when not, is.

So the poor quality of some systems and formats is fine, as long as we can decide to use or not to use them.
When you're stuck with it, because it is all you have, you're really up the stream of smelly brown effluent without a propelling device.

"Sharpness isn't everything" is a rather meaningless statement.
It's a bit like saying that the qualities that make a hammer a good hammer aren't important when you want to use a screwdriver.
Sure. Absolutely right. No argument.
But what if you need a good hammer?

A truly good optical system can be both a good hammer and a screwdriver. We decide.
A poor optical system is a screwdriver, and nothing else. No matter what we want, need, or decide.

In my view, people who think it doesn't matter, and that miniature format is good enough, are essentially no different from consumers using cell phone digital cameras.

Thomas Bertilsson · Nov 21, 2009

You speak as if everything you say is true for everybody.

You're also very elitist in the way you translate your thoughts, because there are lots of people that can't afford the best glass there is, that have no choice.

If I look at a Salgado, Cartier-Bresson, Kertesz, or Brett Weston photograph - I really don't look at how sharp they are. I mean, do you? I look at content and expression. I feel what the picture does to my emotions. It has nothing to do with sharpness.

keithwms · Nov 21, 2009

I have a problem with the word 'sharpness' even at the most fundamental level of definition... there are so many frequencies at which contrast can be measured. Anyway, I tend to agree with Thomas and this bring to mind the popular Anselism about sharp images of fuzzy concepts. If the concept calls for incisive critical sharpness and high-freq detail, then fine... but not every concept calls for nor requires that... and some concepts would even suffer when piped through the highest contrast, neutralmost, 'sharpest' glass. If 'sharpness' were the whole story then we'd look back in pity, not in admiration, at all those poor brass-wielding simpletons who worked prior to aspheric ED/ULD apo glass.

removed account4 · Nov 21, 2009

the thing is we need to know how to use the hammer or screwdriver
or 11x14 or cellphone .. if we don't they are useless ..
all too often we buy something thinking that it will make us that much better
"i really gotta have it "
afterwards it didn't make us better ( maybe more ... or LESS confident )

it is just gets in the way ...

Q.G. · Nov 21, 2009

Thomas Bertilsson said:
You speak as if everything you say is true for everybody.

Youy got that (nearly) right.
We are discussing the merits of different formats, different tools.
Considering the (simple) task these tools are made to perform, there is only one conclusion.

Thomas Bertilsson said:
You're also very elitist in the way you translate your thoughts, because there are lots of people that can't afford the best glass there is, that have no choice.

Now you're confusing matters rather seriously.

When you say that "there are lots of people that can't afford the best glass there is", are you saying that that fact makes the less good things they can afford good enough for them?

I don't care what you or i can afford: the better stuff is the better stuff.
What is good or not is mot a matter of how much money you can spend.

So you should really ask yourself if you really are that "elitist".

If I look at a Salgado, Cartier-Bresson, Kertesz, or Brett Weston photograph - I really don't look at how sharp they are. I mean, do you? I look at content and expression. I feel what the picture does to my emotions. It has nothing to do with sharpness.

I do know how sharp it is, because i have seen it, yes. I have seen their work, and not just in books.
And then you notice. You should notice, else you're just browsing a collection of images, and not looking at their work.
Especially that of Salgado is quite unsharp at times.

Of course there is more than sharpness.
The thing that makes me throw my hands up in disbelieve time and time again is how often (as here once again) the fact that you do not always need the best possible sharpness is confused with what quality equipment is.
And the lack of recognition that (as i said above) you can get unsharp photos with equipment that is capable of producing sharp results, but not the other way round.
Sharpness not being the begin all end all of good photography does not turn bad equipment into good equipment.

You should know and not forget that, even though he is not using the biggest format, Salgado too bought and uses the best equipment he can get. Not a Lomo action sampler, but a Leica. And he too is trying his best to focus the thing.
Chew on that for a while. See if you think that, just because he is able to discern between good and less good equipment, and decided to decide himself what the technical quality of his work should be, you should call him elistist too.

keithwms · Nov 21, 2009

Uh yeaaaah... but a picture is worth a thousand words.... and brevity is the soul of wit.... and f/22 usually gives maximum coverage while f/11 usually gives maximum sharpness...

Mike1234 · Nov 21, 2009

My goal is to get the very best image possible on the largest film I'm capable of carrying the gear for. By "best" I mean razer sharpness, high resolution, low noise, high band width, etc. This way I can do top quality scans and then do whatever I "originally envisioned" in the (all folks sensitive to blashemy please stop reading now) digital world. Some will argue the point but pretty much anything that can be done in the analog realm can be emulated in (blasphemers rejoice) Photoshop using relatively simple techniques. I don't need the portability or conceilability of smaller formats. I could definitely live easier with the cost savings though.

But these are my goals and my techniques and my wants and my opinions... no one else's.

Q.G. · Nov 21, 2009

Mike1234 said:
But these are my goals and my techniques and my wants and my opinions... no one else's.

Exactly.
Not your equipment's goals, techniques, wants or opinions either.

Mike1234 · Nov 21, 2009

No, Q.G., my equipment has no goals, desires, needs, wants, etc.

Q.G. · Nov 21, 2009

Indeed.
And you can only feel that way because it does not stand in your way of pursuing "razer sharpness, high resolution, low noise, high band width, etc."

BrianShaw · Nov 21, 2009

jnanian said:
the thing is we need to know (is) how to use the hammer or screwdriver or 11x14 or cellphone ...

... and when to use which.

Mike1234 · Nov 21, 2009

Q.G. said:
Indeed.
And you can only feel that way because it does not stand in your way of pursuing "razer sharpness, high resolution, low noise, high band width, etc."

You are correct. I'm assembling my camera kits with my personal goals in mind. One will be a 5x12in and the other a 4x5in dedicated solely for 6x12cm roll film. The former is about as big/heavy as I can handle these days and the latter, with everything scaled down, is for when I don't feel like carrying the monster.

I haven't used 135 for a very long time except at work and even then it's been at least fifteen years since we went entirely (sensitive eyes overt, please) digital.

Again though, my goals are my own.

Q.G. · Nov 21, 2009

And again: you can only feel that way because [your equipment] does not stand in your way of pursuing "razer sharpness, high resolution, low noise, high band width, etc."

Mike1234 · Nov 21, 2009

My horse just died so I guess I'll stop beating it now. Okay... just one more whack for spite.

Rol_Lei Nut · Nov 21, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
I should have added that I prefer the MF cameras because the Zeiss lenses are so much sharper. Note that my signature states that there is nothing like a good piece of glass.

Steve

Having used both, I don't find the Zeiss glass for 35mm any less sharp (apart from the advantage a larger negative size will give).

Also Leica and other companies make lenses which are comparable in sharpness and signature to MF Zeiss ones.
Even Canon occasionally does! ;-)

Sirius Glass · Nov 21, 2009

Pumalite said:
Sharpness is not everything.

I can take a sharp lens and soften the photograph.

I cannot take a fuzzy image and sharpen it.

Therefore sharpness is important, unless you are Mortensen who never learned to focus a lens.

Steve

keithwms · Nov 21, 2009

Rol_Lei Nut said:
Leica M6 + 15, 21, 35 & 90mm lenses: 1.274 Kg.

Pentax 6x7 + 45, 75 & 165mm lenses: 3.9 Kg.
(without an ultrawide comparable to a 15mm lens with 35mm)

Mamiya 7ii+ 43/80/150 lenses: 2.1 kg

Ian David · Nov 22, 2009

Q.G. said:
A truly good optical system can be both a good hammer and a screwdriver. We decide.
A poor optical system is a screwdriver, and nothing else. No matter what we want, need, or decide.

In my view, people who think it doesn't matter, and that miniature format is good enough, are essentially no different from consumers using cell phone digital cameras.

You seem to be talking about "optical system quality" without regard for context, QG.

I think the point that a number of people have been making in this thread is that, for some purposes, anything bigger than 35mm is, in terms of getting the image you want, simply not the best tool for the job (in fact sometimes useless).

Ian

Ian David · Nov 22, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
I can take a sharp lens and soften the photograph.

I cannot take a fuzzy image and sharpen it.

Therefore sharpness is important, unless you are Mortensen who never learned to focus a lens.

Steve

I think when people say that "sharpness is not everything", they are mostly referring to sharpness of images, not sharpness of lenses.

Q.G. · Nov 22, 2009

iandavid said:
You seem to be talking about "optical system quality" without regard for context, QG.

I think the point that a number of people have been making in this thread is that, for some purposes, anything bigger than 35mm is, in terms of getting the image you want, simply not the best tool for the job (in fact sometimes useless).

You'll find i'm not.
Have a look at for instance: "So the poor quality of some systems and formats is fine, as long as we can decide to use or not to use them."

If Medium Format and Large Format are Better, Why Do We Bother with 35mm?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency