Re: [Leica] M/lens -vs- MF/set?

[chefurka@sympatico.ca (Paul Chefurka)]

On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 10:51:54 -0400, Paul Schiemer
<schiemer@magicnet.net> wrote:

>A 645 neg is three times+ the real estate of a 35mm neg.
>That alone is worth the price of admission- if your goal is to produce
>quality prints at size. 

This idea (judgement, objection aspersion, etc.) comes up regularly on
the rec.photo ng's.  I have always violently objected to it for one
reason, and that reason is the chauvinistic assumption that
photographic "quality" is to be judged solely on the basis of
resolution, tonality and grain.

The quality of a photograph in the eye of the beholder has to do with
how well the image communicates the intentions of the photographer.
While this communication may in some cases be enhanced by technical
excellence, it can never ever be created solely by technical
excellence.

As an example of how communication is not hindered by technical
imperfections, consider Capa's shot of the dying Republican soldier.
'Nuff said.

The issue of 35 vs MF is not primarily one of negative size; it's
about the type of photography each format best enables.  If your
objective is wall-sized landscapes, then MF is obviously the better
choice.  If you want to document the lives of the homeless after dark,
I'd suggest that an M with a Noctilux might be the better tool, and
grain size be damned.

Now obviously this isn't meant to suggest that 35mm photographers
don't value technical excellence - if this were so, we wouldn't be
investing such relatively extravagant sums in Leica equipment.  In my
case the goal of this investment is simply to maximize my ability to
do the things that 35 (especially Leica's version of it) does best.

There is a great overlap in the types of photography that cameras of
different formats can do.  A Pen F can take the same landscape picture
as a 4x5 for instance, and if the enlargement factor is very low :-)
the results may be indistinguishable.  What sets the formats apart is
the things they do well that the other format does not at all.

For landscapes, for architecture, for some general-purpose
photography, the Fuji folder may indeed do as well as or better than
the Leica.  But as soon as the light levels drop and you need to carry
a few pieces of high-speed glass to get the job done - the Fuji is out
of its depth.

Ask Ted Grant if he could have shot "This is Our Work" with a 6x7
folder...

The question is not simply whether your goal is to produce quality
prints at size, but also what the content of that image is to be.

Paul Chefurka