Lower & upper limits of acceptable image quality

batwister · Sep 17, 2012

TheFlyingCamera said:
Pictorialism began 40 years before Ansel Adams started formulating his ideas that culminated in the Modernist/f64 school of thought about sharpness. In various ways and forms, Pictorialism lasted into the 1940s, but it peaked in the first decade of the 20th century and was on its way out by the 1920s. Edward Weston began his career as a semi-pictorialist, printing in platinum. And there are platinum prints by St. Ansel out there as well, but they're rare birds. Not that printing in platinum per se makes an image pictorialist. Adams, Weston, the f64 school and the Modernists were all reactions against Pictorialism because they felt photography should revel in its own inherent qualities instead of rejecting them to try and be more like another medium.

Burtynsky and Kander are two of the biggest names in photography today and their work is unashamedly pictorial - oh, and sharp (!). It's really strange/worrying how many still think the two have to exist in separate spheres of image making. Photography today is largely about appropriating the strengths of movements long exhausted. Which is actually a disconcerting thought for those who are convinced photography is dead.

"There's nothing worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy concept."
For those who believe the last word on photography is The Print, I think the concept of sharpness is what remains elusive.

It's really not that difficult to make a sharp picture, whatever your gear! To make a good one, pictorial or not, is... a bit harder. Let's concentrate on this. Step 1: know where to stand

batwister · Sep 17, 2012

The limited resolution/sharpness of the 110 format doesn't automatically mean you have to be a pictorialist. If this was the case, everyone other than large format photographers might still conceivably be practicing pictorialism. In actual fact, in contemporary photography, it seems to be the other way round.

Mainecoonmaniac · Sep 17, 2012

I remember years ago while still in college when a student that was retired taking a photography class. She was in the lab taking scissors cutting her 4x5 negatives in half from a photo trip in the American Southwest. I was horrified and asked her why. She said "They weren't sharp". She puts a loupe on each neg to see if they're "tack" sharp. She's a great admirer of Ansel Adams and a f/64 practitioner. In my opinion, she's too rigid in her view on what is good shot. To me sharpness is just another creative tool like lighting. I don't use it all the time. It depends on what I shoot.

Diapositivo · Sep 17, 2012

Mainecoonmaniac said:
I remember years ago while still in college when a student that was retired taking a photography class. She was in the lab taking scissors cutting her 4x5 negatives in half from a photo trip in the American Southwest. I was horrified and asked her why. She said "They weren't sharp". She puts a loupe on each neg to see if they're "tack" sharp. She's a great admirer of Ansel Adams and a f/64 practitioner. In my opinion, she's too rigid in her view on what is good shot. To me sharpness is just another creative tool like lighting. I don't use it all the time. It depends on what I shoot.

She wasn't sharp as well

Brian C. Miller · Sep 17, 2012

Bill Burk said:
A Pentax 6x7 sounds like a good camera to pick up early on...

What really got me into this line of thinking... I'm shooting 4x5 mostly now. And I enjoy printing from 4x5 negatives. Earlier this summer I shot some 35mm and some 6x9 as a diversion (and to check my commitment to 4x5).

I didn't find out what I expected. I found I can take pretty decent pictures with anything. I thought I was going to discover 4x5 was really special and everything else was rot.

I have found that once you have a certain base minimum for the tool, what's created with it is in the hands of the artist.

Let's say that for years you used the Instamatic for everything, and never cleaned the lens, until 110 wasn't available for it anymore. Then you picked up a 4x5 with a clean, modern Rodenstock lens, and shot a bunch of sheets of Techpan. At that point, you'd be thinking, "everything I've done is rot!" But you probably wouldn't be thinking that if you'd been using a Pentax Auto 110 Super, and cared for the glass. You'd be thinking, "this rocks, and the stuff I've done before is good, too."

Brian C. Miller · Sep 17, 2012

benjiboy said:
I notice on most photographic forums these days the majority discussions are about equipment not pictures, and I often wonder that when painters discuss painting if all they talk about is brushes and easels.

I just checked the discussions. It's mostly about equipment and paint instead of cameras and film, and about the same percentage of self-ridden angst about art as photography forums. (But the forums about house and commercial painting didn't have any angst at all)

Bill Burk · Sep 18, 2012

Brian C. Miller said:
I have found that once you have a certain base minimum for the tool, what's created with it is in the hands of the artist.

Let's say that for years you used the Instamatic for everything, and never cleaned the lens, until 110 wasn't available for it anymore. Then you picked up a 4x5 with a clean, modern Rodenstock lens, and shot a bunch of sheets of Techpan. At that point, you'd be thinking, "everything I've done is rot!" But you probably wouldn't be thinking that if you'd been using a Pentax Auto 110 Super, and cared for the glass. You'd be thinking, "this rocks, and the stuff I've done before is good, too."

I could test the theory. Though I started with the lowly model 20, I now have a black Kodak Pocket Instamatic Model 60 ... I have a few rolls of Verichrome Pan... And I have a small wooden adapter that holds 3 A76 batteries in the shape of a K battery.

Today I was shaken in my theory... Driving to pick up the kids from school, I saw a dad and his son. Dad's a carpenter and he had two bookcases or something in the front yard, one stained and one plain. His boy was putting on gloves and picking up a paintbrush. They were just starting to stain the second one together.

I had to drive on by, since I didn't have the 4x5 in the car with me. Didn't have the Spotmatic F either. Didn't even have the Pocket Instamatic.

markbarendt · Sep 18, 2012

Bill Burk said:
Didn't even have the Pocket Instamatic.

Dang Bill, leaving home without a camera is against the law I think, lucky you didn't get a ticket.

Bill Burk · Sep 18, 2012

markbarendt said:
Dang Bill, leaving home without a camera is against the law I think, lucky you didn't get a ticket.

Getting closer to the goal... Have been carrying the Spotmatic F around today with Kodak Plus-X and orange filter... Took off the front cover and lens cover so I'd be ready to shoot...

One active idea I have is to catch bullies in the act. Saw some kids acting a bit mischevous, one of them plopped down in some tall grasses (as if to ambush someone else)... And I didn't lift the camera. Because it wasn't hurting anybody. Next time though, I am going to shoot that picture. Progress in the right direction anyway. I knew to take off the "never ready" case cover and preset the shutter and f/stop.

Thomas Bertilsson · Sep 30, 2012

MaximusM3 said:
Quality and size of negative are simply a choice of the photographer but intrinsically they are meaningless. I have stopped worrying about such trivia a long time ago. I shoot 35mm, medium format, and now a Leica Monochrom as well. I worry about content and finding moments, light, things worth photographing, not whether a 4x5 or 8x10 negative would give me an edge in any respect. It doesn't. Viewers don't care, buyers don't care. Mostly, I don't. We can all use any of the tools we chose to use, but at the end of the day, it is the print of an interesting image that matters, regardless of the medium used. As an example, I just paid $3,000 for these prints, taken by Vivian in 1955 with her Contax and Tri-X, on the 3rd avenue El train and during the dismantling. Could not have been taken with a 4x5, 8x10 (fleeting moments, not posed shots), it would not make a difference, and no one really cares. http://www.thelionheartgallery.com/Artwork-Detail.cfm?ArtistsID=694&NewID=3488, http://www.thelionheartgallery.com/Artwork-Detail.cfm?ArtistsID=694&NewID=3495

You speak the truth, Max.

Bill Burk · Oct 1, 2012

Prof_Pixel said:
There is an interesting effect noted by researchers in the '40s. The eye (and visual system) is much more willing to accept out of focus closeup photos of the human face as acceptable than other out of focus content...

I thought about this Saturday while parading with my 4x5. Last year I focused on people closest to me and some shots didn't feel right. So I reshot. It's hanging up to dry now, I'll soon see if the shot which has the leaders out of focus "works" according to this principle.

It remains difficult for me to express my desire to shoot LF knowing it isn't the right tool for some situations where I use it anyway. Today when I showed her the prints, my sister gave me grief about missing the shuttle, telling me I'm shooting with a fork.

Massimo and Thomas, I appreciate and accept your opinions. You keep me from doing something rash like renouncing my vintage work on smaller formats. Of course the image is what matters, and the choice of format is only relevant to the photographer who takes the photograph.

TheFlyingCamera · Oct 1, 2012

Format only "matters" if it gets in the way of getting the image you want. I agree that Vivian Mayer's El train work would have been impossible with an 8x10 (even with a Hobo), but 4x5 would not have prevented her from shooting that work- look at Weegee's reportage, or sporting event coverage from the first 65 years of the 20th century - there's a famous picture of I believe an early Muhammad Ali fight, and almost every photographer ringside is holding a Speed or Crown Graphic.

Bill- as regards your street shooting with the 4x5, that's just a matter of practice to get it right. A few hundred more frames and it will become second nature

I've been going back through my old negatives recently, and scanning a bunch of stuff to either add to an online portfolio or send images to folks in email. I keep being pleasantly surprised by the small-format stuff I find, so I'm not renouncing that work by any means - if nothing else, I'm rediscovering how good it can be, and it's drawing me back into using it more. I'll be taking my Rolleiflex with me to Cuba in March - I want the quality of the bigger negative, but with the shooting speed of something hand-held.

batwister · Oct 1, 2012

TheFlyingCamera said:
I agree that Vivian Mayer's El train work would have been impossible with an 8x10 (even with a Hobo), but 4x5 would not have prevented her from shooting that work...

The thing I find most surprising about her work is that she did shoot medium format, when 35mm would have been the obvious solution - by conventional standards. Maybe that says something about how out of touch she was with the prevailing trends. The odd format is a factor that shouldn't be ignored when considering the uniqueness of her work. Vivian Maier that is, not Cherry.

Jim Jones · Oct 4, 2012

I remember two slide shows from the 1970s, both projected on a fairly large screen. One was of the Holy Lands, taken with an Argus C3 and accompanied by an informative and smooth monologue. The other was from an extensive tour of Red China when that country was closed to most outsiders. A 110 format camera was used. The projected images were very grainy and poorly detailed, but illustrated the accompanying talk quite well. Images from both shows would not have compared with photos by technically and artistically proficient amateurs. However, for the intended purpose, they were fine. Photos that awed the audience might have even distracted from the more important messages of the presentations. We should consider context when judging some photography.

Lower & upper limits of acceptable image quality

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency