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

[creadick@mindspring.com (Nowell Creadick)]

>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

Wonderful post Alf!!!!!!