No not you were thinking this question is about, But I mean camera format / MP size. Everyone always seems to be pushing larger formats and more megapixels but does that really matter? For this forum, heckany 3MP camera or 35mm film camera will suffice and for that matter for any 4x6 print as well, even up to an 11x14 enlargement it will do pretty well if taken well and processed well.
Size does not matter to the image, but does matter to the enlargement/detail potential of the print. That's really about all it comes down to.
Beyond that, speaking the obvious here, each format does have its own advantages/disadvantages inherant to the design. 35mm in speed, weight, adaptability to changing light, etc. Large format in perpective control. Choose your poison essentially.
It's another factor in the equation of what makes a good image, though ranks much lower than the photographer's vision, skill, and creativity, composition, quality of light, etc.
So yes - it matters, but (beyond a certain minimum) not critical.
There are also the questions of subject matter and price.
If I shot only landscape, I would shoot only LF. But LF would be just about impossible for widlife, action, editorial, sports and more. Those are the forte's of 35mm film and digital, with MF being a viable option until you start trying to buy large, fast MF lenses.
If price was no object I would almost certainly be shooting MF with the best digital back exclusively, as it represents something of a compromise between 35 and LF, at least in terms of image size. But with top-end 35mm DSLRs nipping at the heels of MF digibacks in quality, it simply makes much more financial sense to stick with the 35 for now. We use 35mm mostly now, with 300-400 frames per year of LF thrown in. Our extensive collection of MF gear is now completely idle, awaiting the day when digiback prices get competitive with 35mm DSLRs.
Your question is of course open ended such that there are different answers depending on intended use of images. For web display entertainment it certainly does not. The original capture by any media or device by time it reaches our computer monitors is on a level playing field. For your sub 11x14 print size likewise most readily available small format cameras not only make images with enough resolution and detail but are often far easier to use and get the image than larger systems.
My main weapon is the 4x5 field camera, but I rarely bother with it for say closeup wildflower work because I personally don't see much value in blowing up highly magnified closeups of little flowers to sizes that are much larger than we naturally see them. Some do of course for personal use but I doubt there is much going on commercially for 33x40 inch poppy closeups. I do however shoot with large format groups of wildflowers where I can bring in a larger area. Recently made this image which is a good example where it works:
The displayed 30x38 inch print images individual flowers about the same size one would see sitting beside the scene. What about all the other subject types of nature and landscapes? Does size matter? Well I would say absolutely? There are subjects I won't bother with my 4x5 for though are appropriate with smaller formats. For instance many dim early and late landscapes with sky color and silhouettes really don't have much possible detail in them. A good 35mm shot of such will often stand up well against both MF and LF. Its easy to fix the edges of course in photoshop. Sure the larger formats do allow more magnification but I personally am not too impressed by some of such big prints I've seen at galleries that hold so little detail except at the skyline and silhouette edges. In the other direction, there are many landscape scenes with lots of fine detail that shooting a small format camera at is not going to capture a very worthwhile image. Oh it may look ok, but a large format image is just going to kill it. For instance if someone pointed a small format camera at this scene, all they'd end up with is splotches of diffuse color whereas the big transparency captured fine detail from near to far across the frame (note also check my "view detailed crop" field below the image):
Any of we larger format folk who have looked at a bunch of large prints are all too aware of how meaningful this is while I would expect others less familliar might still try arguing otherwise. The general point is that subjects with lots of fine detail cry out for camera systems capable of capturing the greater detail while those that do not have lots of detail throughout can work with any format. ...David
It really only matters to the end user! I always tell this story when this questions is brought up.
I hosted a landscape show here in Johnson City, TN. At that time I had been shooting exclusively large-format for over five years so I invited mostly LF photog's. As I hung the show I was amazed at the images, huge and full of detail large-format photos. The only non-LF guy that I invited was a 35mm film shooter and I worried that his images would suffer being displayed next to all these big LF prints. As I was hanging his prints I was troubled with the poor quality of the image detail in his big prints. I really felt that 30” (long side) was way too big for 35mm. Even though the image was strikingly beautiful overall and was one of the most striking images of the show it still, up close, looked like crap (to me)! As the patrons moved into the gallery I noticed that his hideous, soft, detail-less image was garnering all the buzz of the show. It was an awakening moment for me as a LF photographer. The people that loved the image didn’t care about what the imaged looked like 12” away! They didn’t care about the soft, detail-less image. What they noticed was the overall beautiful image. Beautiful color, perfect comp and when viewed at a normal distance I witnessed what enticed them to love this image, the image itself. That was the day I started looking into high-end digital. Large-format photogs (myself included at the time) get way to wrapped up in big detailed prints and forget to look at the entire image in front of our/your noses.
I again will mention the great 35mm photographers Art Wolfe, Tom Mangelsen, Galen Rowell, you know, the less familiar ones. Their images, regardless of format, are breathtaking.
If don't already know, I'm a digital convert from 4x5. I now only use Canon DSLR's.
I tend to agree with David and Jerry. A lot depends not only on the size you want to print, but also on the nature of the content. I currently have a post in the Photo Series Forum (http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=47211&b=vg11&st=0&la=8&ph=0&sid=29926&u=29926)
which comprise of 3 landscape images made with 35mm film. In these photos detail is not very important and therefore I can get away with nice 16"x24" prints that otherwise wouldn't have held up well at that size.
I do recall that you used to photograph with the Nikon F4s in 35mm before going to LF. So what made you make the move to LF? Was it a misunderstanding in what LF would do for you?
Discussion
9 repliesYour thoughts?
I see many more uninteresting 8x10 photographs than 35mm.
Beyond that, speaking the obvious here, each format does have its own advantages/disadvantages inherant to the design. 35mm in speed, weight, adaptability to changing light, etc. Large format in perpective control. Choose your poison essentially.
So yes - it matters, but (beyond a certain minimum) not critical.
Guy
If I shot only landscape, I would shoot only LF. But LF would be just about impossible for widlife, action, editorial, sports and more. Those are the forte's of 35mm film and digital, with MF being a viable option until you start trying to buy large, fast MF lenses.
If price was no object I would almost certainly be shooting MF with the best digital back exclusively, as it represents something of a compromise between 35 and LF, at least in terms of image size. But with top-end 35mm DSLRs nipping at the heels of MF digibacks in quality, it simply makes much more financial sense to stick with the 35 for now. We use 35mm mostly now, with 300-400 frames per year of LF thrown in. Our extensive collection of MF gear is now completely idle, awaiting the day when digiback prices get competitive with 35mm DSLRs.
My main weapon is the 4x5 field camera, but I rarely bother with it for say closeup wildflower work because I personally don't see much value in blowing up highly magnified closeups of little flowers to sizes that are much larger than we naturally see them. Some do of course for personal use but I doubt there is much going on commercially for 33x40 inch poppy closeups. I do however shoot with large format groups of wildflowers where I can bring in a larger area. Recently made this image which is a good example where it works:
http://www.davidsenesac.com/images/print_06-q5-3.html
The displayed 30x38 inch print images individual flowers about the same size one would see sitting beside the scene. What about all the other subject types of nature and landscapes? Does size matter? Well I would say absolutely? There are subjects I won't bother with my 4x5 for though are appropriate with smaller formats. For instance many dim early and late landscapes with sky color and silhouettes really don't have much possible detail in them. A good 35mm shot of such will often stand up well against both MF and LF. Its easy to fix the edges of course in photoshop. Sure the larger formats do allow more magnification but I personally am not too impressed by some of such big prints I've seen at galleries that hold so little detail except at the skyline and silhouette edges. In the other direction, there are many landscape scenes with lots of fine detail that shooting a small format camera at is not going to capture a very worthwhile image. Oh it may look ok, but a large format image is just going to kill it. For instance if someone pointed a small format camera at this scene, all they'd end up with is splotches of diffuse color whereas the big transparency captured fine detail from near to far across the frame (note also check my "view detailed crop" field below the image):
http://www.davidsenesac.com/images/print_05-d8-3.html
Any of we larger format folk who have looked at a bunch of large prints are all too aware of how meaningful this is while I would expect others less familliar might still try arguing otherwise. The general point is that subjects with lots of fine detail cry out for camera systems capable of capturing the greater detail while those that do not have lots of detail throughout can work with any format. ...David
I hosted a landscape show here in Johnson City, TN. At that time I had been shooting exclusively large-format for over five years so I invited mostly LF photog's. As I hung the show I was amazed at the images, huge and full of detail large-format photos. The only non-LF guy that I invited was a 35mm film shooter and I worried that his images would suffer being displayed next to all these big LF prints. As I was hanging his prints I was troubled with the poor quality of the image detail in his big prints. I really felt that 30” (long side) was way too big for 35mm. Even though the image was strikingly beautiful overall and was one of the most striking images of the show it still, up close, looked like crap (to me)! As the patrons moved into the gallery I noticed that his hideous, soft, detail-less image was garnering all the buzz of the show. It was an awakening moment for me as a LF photographer. The people that loved the image didn’t care about what the imaged looked like 12” away! They didn’t care about the soft, detail-less image. What they noticed was the overall beautiful image. Beautiful color, perfect comp and when viewed at a normal distance I witnessed what enticed them to love this image, the image itself. That was the day I started looking into high-end digital. Large-format photogs (myself included at the time) get way to wrapped up in big detailed prints and forget to look at the entire image in front of our/your noses.
I again will mention the great 35mm photographers Art Wolfe, Tom Mangelsen, Galen Rowell, you know, the less familiar ones. Their images, regardless of format, are breathtaking.
If don't already know, I'm a digital convert from 4x5. I now only use Canon DSLR's.
I tend to agree with David and Jerry. A lot depends not only on the size you want to print, but also on the nature of the content. I currently have a post in the Photo Series Forum (http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=47211&b=vg11&st=0&la=8&ph=0&sid=29926&u=29926)
which comprise of 3 landscape images made with 35mm film. In these photos detail is not very important and therefore I can get away with nice 16"x24" prints that otherwise wouldn't have held up well at that size.
I do recall that you used to photograph with the Nikon F4s in 35mm before going to LF. So what made you make the move to LF? Was it a misunderstanding in what LF would do for you?