my own personal opinion, Bruce (and it's just between the two of us), having shot a few miles of MF and a few more miles of 35mm, is that a good photo will overcome its format.
Doug At 9:53 PM -08002/10/03, Bruce Dayton wrote, or at least typed: >Doug, > >Yeah, I was trying to figure out exactly what he was saying. Seems >like a piece of crap shot (out of focus, badly exposed) on medium or >large format wouldn't be compared to anything. > >I was commenting based on actual experience of taking high quality >35mm shots with good films and good lenses and good technique compared >to the same thing done with medium format. Before I shot medium >format I was always trying to justify to myself that 35mm was good >enough for enlargements (beyond 8X10), but finally having made the >move, I can say for myself that MF is significantly better looking in >the larger prints. That doesn't mean there isn't a time and place >where 35mm is the best choice, just that a bigger negative makes for a >better bigger picture. > > >Bruce > -- Douglas Forrest Brewer Ashwood Lake Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alphoto.com
