Tom C. wrote: > I understand your point...I would guess that these are all exceptions to the > rule.
Okay. I don't agree. > My point is that for YEARS and YEARS AND YEARS a larger negative/film > size has been seen as way to increase the quality (I know you resist that > term) of one's work, in mainstream photography. I don't believe that has > changed. I don't believe a larger format AUTOMATICALLY makes one's work > better. I believe it CAN make ones work better. I've seen plenty of lousy > 6 X 7 shots. The bigger the camera, the better the technical quality, and the harder it is to get dynamic, interesting pictures. Most large format pictures I've seen (and believe me, I saw them endlessly at _PT_) put me to sleep. It's a lot tougher to take good pictures with a 6x7 than with a 35mm. That's why the vast majority of us use 35mm. > With my 2438ppi Minolta scanner, I can get a max pixel count on 35mm film > around 8mp. So in essence, in some respects, I have an 8mp digital camera > for around $400. If one were to move up to one of the 4000ppi 35mm film > scanners, then you have a pixel count over 21mp. So even if there was a 6mp > Pentax MZ-D out there, I could easily outperform it (in raw numbers) with > 35mm film and a cheap scanner. If there's anything I rant on and on about consistently, it's photography by the numbers. Raw or otherwise. Pixel count ISN'T everything. > I agree that more information is not a prerequisite to a good photograph, > but it doesn't hurt. I disagree. Sometimes, it CAN hurt. Trivial but common example: a photographer makes the decision to throw the background in a portrait out of focus. Less information; better picture. > I've tossed and turned over whether I would purchase a 67 II or > the AF 645N. I came to the conclusion that if the main reason I wanted MF > was to increase media size, then a 6 X 7 was the way to go, why stop at 645? Good point. As I said in a recent post, I think 6x7 is probably the best compromise between shooting convenience and printing craftsmanship. If I could have everything I wanted, I'd have a Mamiya 7II. > You must admit that's an extreme exception to the rule, a novelty. I do admit it. I used it as an example to point out that even extreme lack of "information" still doesn't disqualify photographs from working as art. > we may be more of the same mind, than we > think (of course this has mostly been mental exercise). :-) Well, in arguing for the position I've been arguing for, I'm certainly not arguing in favor of it above all else. I'm far from being "against" excellent lenses, good film, context, good definition, extended tonal range, color accuracy, and sharp detail. I'm merely saying that these things are a CHOICE, rather than a Universally accepted DEFINITION of what "good photographs" must be. --Mike - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
