It's more than a format question ... (was: Print Quality ...)

[ABreull@aol.com]

I see 2 additional aspects also:

To me, it's not so easy to compare Leica format to MF (or larger), specially
in b/w. There are lots of famous photographers, who published b/w pics, that
makes one wish to be able to handle wrong-side-head-down 4x5 in screen pics
with the same ease as the visiual imprint from the M Leica viewfinder.

OTH, even if a photographer is extremly familiar and "good" with both formats
(Leica and MF), the content of both format looks different, and - at least in
my mind - you see almost immediately where his true skills/ abilities are:
e.g. while the M Leica SA or Elmarit (90) pictures of Jean Loup Sieff are
absolutely great, his MF (Hasselblad) pics are - I hardly dare to say it - a
loss, although still good and he even always wanted to create Hasselblad pics
& books; Helmut Newtons MF pics are great, his 35 mm pics fall off; Ansel
Adams large format pics are wonderful, his MF Hasselblad pics fall off,
a.s.o. Don't misunderstand me: When I say "fall off", I mean in comparison to
his other pics.

Second, it depends on the content of the pic also: When you take a pic (e.g.
color slides)  in bright sunshine or well 'illuminated' still lifes, you
expect or at least hope to see all the MF qualities, and the 35 mm film falls
off. OTH, when you compare available light b/w pics, the supposed
"disadvantages" of the smaller format add an aditional touch of 'exitement'
to your pic, while the small grain of the MF looks a little 'inbalanced' to
me. But, it's just my way to see it.

- -Alf