Why Medium Format?

[GrahamBy]

That's why I'm so nervous about any attempt to say "this is all crap." Standing in front of a Pollock I feel something. Standing in front of a lot of more recent conceptual art, including photography, I don't. But how can I be sure someone else doesn't?

Anyway, we seem to have strayed far from the topic, and I'll be interested to read the results of Eric's experiment. My guess is that the difference between MFD and and micro 4/3 up to A2 will only be due to psychological effects... but that those might be important 

[Rob C]

Well, I used both MF and 135 formats in my pro life, and I can still remember myself thinking, at the time: do you want it sharp, or do you want it good?

After I let go the Rollei TLR and went into Hasselblad, 120 became a tripod-based exercise. Why? Mirror bounce, far worse than I had imagined.

I often had to come up with 60 x 40 inch prints for fashion show stands, and had absolutely no fear of using the Nikon to get there in black/white. Colour was something else, and then I went square. Why? At the time, Kodachrome didn't exist in 120 in the UK; Ektachrome didn't have the fineness of grain needed for 135, and using Kodachrome meant sending the material off to southern England and hoping for the best. The only realistic way out was 120 Ektachrome processed locally.

So even back then, life was a trade-off between formats. But, even if grain sometimes came into the equation, it didn't offend as do pixels.

Rob

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't have micro 4/3, just APS-C and up to MFD. What is interesting that we have a group that will choose the images to print and hang and those making the choice are not aware of what equipment was used. So, it is a blind test.

Best regards
Erik

That's why I'm so nervous about any attempt to say "this is all crap." Standing in front of a Pollock I feel something. Standing in front of a lot of more recent conceptual art, including photography, I don't. But how can I be sure someone else doesn't?

Anyway, we seem to have strayed far from the topic, and I'll be interested to read the results of Eric's experiment. My guess is that the difference between MFD and and micro 4/3 up to A2 will only be due to psychological effects... but that those might be important 

[Theodoros]

That's why I'm so nervous about any attempt to say "this is all crap." Standing in front of a Pollock I feel something. Standing in front of a lot of more recent conceptual art, including photography, I don't. But how can I be sure someone else doesn't?

Anyway, we seem to have strayed far from the topic, and I'll be interested to read the results of Eric's experiment. My guess is that the difference between MFD and and micro 4/3 up to A2 will only be due to psychological effects... but that those might be important 

It's not "away from the topic"... in fact I believe it is THE topic.... Tools are tools and art is art... Tools are tools as to serve the technique... Jackson (Pollock) had his own and used his own tools (much different to others) as to fully develop the technique behind HIS visualization of his art... But nobody ever questioned if it was painting what he was doing... No one ever questioned Gursky's work if it is photo-graphy or not... Nobody ever questioned their tools either (LF film digitized in the case of Gursky) as being the tooling behind his work... Nobody questioned Ctein's choice to use ultra compact sensors either... It's people in forums insisting that their "findings" are the tooling one should go for that is the problem and then their relation (or knowledge) on if what they are using their "toys" for, or the results they find, has any relevance with photo-graphy at all.... Most people forget that a photo-graph is the only thing that MAY be a photo-graph...

Photo-graphs, can be relevant to resolution or not, depending on the artist's aim to include resolution (or not - or how much of it), or color, or DR, or grain, or anything else as a parameter of his photo-graph...

A photo-grapher, will choose the best tool he can get as to achieve the LOOK he want on his photo-graphs.... then, he will develop a "style" of presentation that retains the same look, this is what makes his LOOKs recognizable from other styles that other photo-graphers with different LOOKs at their photo-graphs have aimed for....

Fundamental behind photo-graphy (as A.Adams describes in his very first chapter on his very first book) is visualization... Visualization is the principal behind all art... In photo-graphy, it means that one has to visualize the final photo-graph (meaning the print - with all its looks) before he ever captures any of the information he will include into it... Tooling is just what he will use as to make the photo-graph...

[Theodoros]

Why MF then? ....because it provides a different tool for those that need it as to achieve the looks they want in their photo-graphs is one thing, one tries a tool, then decides if it is what he is looking for... There are (EDIT: other) reasons too, (or the opposite - "why not MF") but hardly related to photo-graphy.... like people comparing different tools on tasks that are not compatible for one of the tools, or some times, on tasks that are for a third tool...

It's like if one compares a bicycle wheel with a car wheel on a bicycle, or even (sometimes) if one tries to compare track wheels with bicycle wheels on a car... and then, if one compares car wheels with other car wheels, it is necessary to make sure that "slik" race tyres don't work on snow and that "winter" tyres can't race... By the way, one has to remember that "all weather" are good only for conservative transportation and not for the purpose of "active driving"...

[N80]

That's why I'm so nervous about any attempt to say "this is all crap." Standing in front of a Pollock I feel something. Standing in front of a lot of more recent conceptual art, including photography, I don't. But how can I be sure someone else doesn't?

I don't think that the measure of art is whether or not it makes me feel something, especially when that feeling is vague or undefinable. Almost any experience or object can make us feel something.

I think it is undeniable that art will always be interpreted different ways by different people. There is a subjectivity that cannot be overcome. However, I think it is the weakest form or art and the weakest type of artist who says "I will do this and that and let everyone find their own meaning." Who needs that sort of art? I think it is lazy and exposes lack of meaning rather than breadth of meaning. I most respect art that has something very specific to say and says it very effectively whether or not people bring their own subjective impression of not. With this level of art, which I consider the highest plain, there are objectively right and wrong ways to interpret and experience it. To misinterpret is not a crime or a moral or ethical issue, it is just off base.

In this regard I find Pollock's work to be meaningless. Now 'meaninglessness' is the point of some modernist and postmodern art. I find meaningless art designed to express meaninglessness as pathetic. So then we have to ask why Pollock is so famous? Why his work sells for millions. I think knowing his history helps. He was a character. He captivated a certain group of people who made his work stylish, more because of who they were and who he was than what he did. I am also moved by his work, but it has much more to do with the history of it that the work alone. I do not feel that his work, taken completely alone, has any merit. I would not say the same of Caulder or Picasso.

I would agree that there is another realm of art which is that which produces pretty objects, sentiments or sounds. I think this type of art borders on craft (which is not derogatory).

Of course, in my mind, art that is beautiful AND effectively conveys meaning is the grand slam.

Yes, this is off topic, but as the OP I feel my original question has been well answered.

[Theodoros]

I don't think that the measure of art is whether or not it makes me feel something, especially when that feeling is vague or undefinable. Almost any experience or object can make us feel something.

I think it is undeniable that art will always be interpreted different ways by different people. There is a subjectivity that cannot be overcome. However, I think it is the weakest form or art and the weakest type of artist who says "I will do this and that and let everyone find their own meaning." Who needs that sort of art? I think it is lazy and exposes lack of meaning rather than breadth of meaning. I most respect art that has something very specific to say and says it very effectively whether or not people bring their own subjective impression of not. With this level of art, which I consider the highest plain, there are objectively right and wrong ways to interpret and experience it. To misinterpret is not a crime or a moral or ethical issue, it is just off base.

In this regard I find Pollock's work to be meaningless. Now 'meaninglessness' is the point of some modernist and postmodern art. I find meaningless art designed to express meaninglessness as pathetic. So then we have to ask why Pollock is so famous? Why his work sells for millions. I think knowing his history helps. He was a character. He captivated a certain group of people who made his work stylish, more because of who they were and who he was than what he did. I am also moved by his work, but it has much more to do with the history of it that the work alone. I do not feel that his work, taken completely alone, has any merit. I would not say the same of Caulder or Picasso.

I would agree that there is another realm of art which is that which produces pretty objects, sentiments or sounds. I think this type of art borders on craft (which is not derogatory).

Of course, in my mind, art that is beautiful AND effectively conveys meaning is the grand slam.

One has to remember that among the reasoning for "like" and "dislike" of a piece of art, one of the reasonings can always be that one may luck the codes of communication that the artist is using... Therefore words like "meaningless" have to be avoided as one can turn to like something that he previously disliked as soon as he develops his "approaching codes" (it has happened to all of us I believe).

Yes, this is off topic, but as the OP I feel my original question has been well answered.

Indeed.... in an unusual to forums and very detailed extend too I believe... I really enjoyed participating, thanks!

[N80]

One has to remember that among the reasoning for "like" and "dislike" of a piece of art, one of the reasonings can always be that one may luck the codes of communication that the artist is using... (it has happened to all of us I believe)

Agreed. And yes it has happened to me many times.

Therefore words like "meaningless" have to be avoided as one can turn to like something that he previously disliked as soon as he develops his "approaching codes" .

I agree in that we can find meaning, even if just internally, in almost anything. So maybe I should have said "meaningful". In this regard, in my opinion, there is plenty of what passes as art that while we might project meaning onto it, remains far less than "meaningful".

[bcooter]

I don't think that the measure of art is whether or not it makes me feel something,

I mean this in a kind way . . .  but this is the only thing you have written that means anything to me out of 2700 posts. 

I like this forum but post less and less because it's all words and no images.

Honestly I love Chris, he moderates well, very much miss Michael because he loved to show beautiful photographs, but for this to continue, people posting should produce something to prove their point or just write something no one cares about like I LOVE the Sony DR.  What does DR mean?  In reality Michael didn't give a shit.  He cared for what he produced and honestly didn't care about his critics.

Good on him.

[Rob C]

"I like this forum but post less and less because it's all words and no images.

Honestly I love Chris, he moderates well, very much miss Michael because he loved to show beautiful photographs, but for this to continue, people posting should produce something to prove their point or just write something no one cares about like I LOVE the Sony DR.  What does DR mean?  In reality Michael didn't give a shit.  He cared for what he produced and honestly didn't care about his critics."

Hi BC,

There's the problem: Michael could walk the walk, and earned his living walking for quite a few years before, as I understand it, going off in a different direction.

You can't hope for the same attitude from people who have no actual working experience of the pro photographic lifestyle at a decent level. You can be the best amateur in the world, do all the workshops, all the trips, but until you have put in a series of invoices over the years, depended on them getting paid for you to survive, that you will know what makes that particular little world tick. Yep, I've been away from it for quite a few years now, and don't imagine it to be as it was on the day I took down my shingle. But insofar as the balance between work and tools goes, you are as 100% right today as you would have been in my time: the end result is what pays the bill, and the pair of scissors you used to cut the cloth matters bugger all to the client in his brand new suit.

This is carried through, or should I say reflected in the point of view that refuses to understand that taking away the sterility of digital perfection can often improve an image because it makes it more than a clean window through which you are observing a moment in time: it is the attaining of a mood, the injecting of some personality into the ordinariness of the scene before the camera. I guess it's called the character of an image, and marrying the right character and subject is an art in itself.

I guess it's the same psychology as moved the Impressionists off their butts: there had to be more than the obvious.

Keep on truckin' and don't stop posting pix!

Rob C

[N80]

I mean this in a kind way . . .  but this is the only thing you have written that means anything to me out of 2700 posts. 

You quoted me, N80. I have 70 posts here. Not sure how you could mean that in a kind way, regardless of who you were replying to.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I feel that the discussion sidetracked a bit. These threads always do…

One issue I see is that the discussion suddenly turned into one of those professional discussions, that is OK but it is a bit out of context.

Many MFD users are amateurs, wealthy or not. Nothing on this thread says anything about professional and those amateurs actually buy a lot of gear. Not sure MFD would be around without the amateur/enthusiast market.

Any picture you can show on LuLa could be shot with an early Digital Ixus. It will be a bit difficult to explain how a web size image can illustrate the advantage of 20/40/60/80/100 MP medium format. It seems that there is a lot of ecstasy when a new 80 or 100 MP sensor is released, but those developments are more incremental. Going from 60 MP to 80 MP is a 15% improvement, probably observable, but nut much than that.

The 100 MP sensor is a new game, if you want CMOS. It offers good live view, high dynamic range and good high ISO capability. But, the big news is that it is full frame 645 CMOS, without the crop factor.

I don't think that a larger sensor makes anyone a better artist. For amateurs a new system may offer some new incentive to explore, for true professionals it is more of a tool.

Clearly, some tools are more suited to some tasks, like leaf shutters working with high speed flash sync. But, it seems that demand for leaf shutters is not that high, else we would have a lot leaf shutter systems in the smaller formats.

Another side of the coin is that professional can mean many things. The way it is mostly used it means earning a substantial part of total income by photography. Some operations are large, like Russel Ratherford and some are small. Regardless size of the operation investments need to make financial sense.

Just to make some noise, it may be interesting to check out the meaning of professional on say wikipedia:

A professional is a member of a profession or any person who earns their living from a specified professional activity. The term also describes the standards of education and training that prepare members of the profession with the particular knowledge and skills necessary to perform their specific role within that profession. In addition, most professionals are subject to strict codes of conduct, enshrining rigorous ethical and moral obligations.[1] Professional standards of practice and ethics for a particular field are typically agreed upon and maintained through widely recognized professional associations, such as the IEEE.[2] Some definitions of "professional" limit this term to those professions that serve some important aspect of public interest [3] and the general good of society.[4][5]

Best regards
Erik

[Rob C]

Hi,

I feel that the discussion sidetracked a bit. These threads always do…

One issue I see is that the discussion suddenly turned into one of those professional discussions, that is OK but it is a bit out of context.

Many MFD users are amateurs, wealthy or not. Nothing on this thread says anything about professional and those amateurs actually buy a lot of gear. Not sure MFD would be around without the amateur/enthusiast market.

Any picture you can show on LuLa could be shot with an early Digital Ixus. It will be a bit difficult to explain how a web size image can illustrate the advantage of 20/40/60/80/100 MP medium format. It seems that there is a lot of ecstasy when a new 80 or 100 MP sensor is released, but those developments are more incremental. Going from 60 MP to 80 MP is a 15% improvement, probably observable, but nut much than that.

The 100 MP sensor is a new game, if you want CMOS. It offers good live view, high dynamic range and good high ISO capability. But, the big news is that it is full frame 645 CMOS, without the crop factor.

I don't think that a larger sensor makes anyone a better artist. For amateurs a new system may offer some new incentive to explore, for true professionals it is more of a tool.

Clearly, some tools are more suited to some tasks, like leaf shutters working with high speed flash sync. But, it seems that demand for leaf shutters is not that high, else we would have a lot leaf shutter systems in the smaller formats.

Another side of the coin is that professional can mean many things. The way it is mostly used it means earning a substantial part of total income by photography. Some operations are large, like Russel Ratherford and some are small. Regardless size of the operation investments need to make financial sense.

Just to make some noise, it may be interesting to check out the meaning of professional on say wikipedia:
Best regards
Erik

Hi Erik,

It's called the human part. Of course things get moved a bit sideways now and again - how predictably dull did they not!

But anyway, Cooter is entitled to his opinion as I to mine and you, of course, to yours.

"Many MFD users are amateurs, wealthy or not. Nothing on this thread says anything about professional and those amateurs actually buy a lot of gear. Not sure MFD would be around without the amateur/enthusiast market."

Probably not, after its original flush of receptive enthusiasm, and in reality, would it make photography any the better or worse if digital MF didn't exist? Personally, I think it wouldn't make much difference at all beyond to the pockets of the makers and the minds of those who can afford the products. In an age where less and less ends up viewed on paper, where motion seems to be taking over, ultra-high 'quality' seems pretty redundant when small cameras already provide overkill, and people complain about the size of the files they have to handle. I'd suggest that it just points out another difference between film and electronic capture. At least with an 8x10 transparency your held in your hand something that took your breath away. With digital, you really hold nothing but maths you can't even see. And a pile of additional processing steps you really wish you didn't have to face.

My conclusion? Great for those who make them, great for those who crave and can afford them, redundant for the rest of the population. I care neither way - neither part of my lust nor of my need.

Which has little to do with Cooter's point, which was about the dearth of interesting images here. Instead, we get page after page of almost unreadable tech-talk. Which is also fine, but doesn't dispute Cooter's point, and don't forget, he already knows what there is to know about most of that stuff and a helluva lot more. It's not like he speaks from ignorance (which for all I know I may do) but from the understandable wish that the eyes could get some gratification too, even if from the super-cameras, but they don't: we just get more large images of not a lot that didn't get snapped on Kodachrome to equally good effect. One Haas or Riaan wave beats every MF digital shot of similar material I've even seen.

Do you see? Techical possibilites have moved on, but photography has not. One without the other is pointless.

Rob

[Bo_Dez]

Just look at 135 and Medium Format and you see the difference. It comes from a combination of things but the larger sensor size generally makes things smoother and less choppy. 135 is catching up, sure, but Medium Format has the physiological head start and modern iterations will always have more to offer, at least for some time, over 135 formats. Then there is the extended argument for 135 formats though. It's only photographers that see the difference and the average person couldn't care less, let alone even see it. Does it matter? Well that's up to you. I swing in between two answers. Some times it matters sometimes it doesn't. One thing is for sure, I'm very interested in seeing a well executed 60MP 35mm camera. 60MP, for me, has been the sweet spot, serviced by Phase One in my use. But a 35mm camera us undeniably very usable and could easily take it's place.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Rob,

My posting was more of response to the thread.On the other hand I often feel that the threads are a bit kidnapped by pro talk and there is no way these threads are reserved for 'pros'.

The other side of the coin is that I don't think small images add any, for sure some folks say that there is an obvious look to MFD that is visible at all sizes. It is just that it is clearly not my experience.

Good images are good images and it doesn't matter if you shoot them on 6x7 film, a P45+, APS-c or 4/3". I wouldn't be able to tell which is which.




Best regards
Erik

Hi Erik,

It's called the human part. Of course things get moved a bit sideways now and again - how predictably dull did they not!

But anyway, Cooter is entitled to his opinion as I to mine and you, of course, to yours.

"Many MFD users are amateurs, wealthy or not. Nothing on this thread says anything about professional and those amateurs actually buy a lot of gear. Not sure MFD would be around without the amateur/enthusiast market."

Probably not, after its original flush of receptive enthusiasm, and in reality, would it make photography any the better or worse if digital MF didn't exist? Personally, I think it wouldn't make much difference at all beyond to the pockets of the makers and the minds of those who can afford the products. In an age where less and less ends up viewed on paper, where motion seems to be taking over, ultra-high 'quality' seems pretty redundant when small cameras already provide overkill, and people complain about the size of the files they have to handle. I'd suggest that it just points out another difference between film and electronic capture. At least with an 8x10 transparency your held in your hand something that took your breath away. With digital, you really hold nothing but maths you can't even see. And a pile of additional processing steps you really wish you didn't have to face.

My conclusion? Great for those who make them, great for those who crave and can afford them, redundant for the rest of the population. I care neither way - neither part of my lust nor of my need.

Which has little to do with Cooter's point, which was about the dearth of interesting images here. Instead, we get page after page of almost unreadable tech-talk. Which is also fine, but doesn't dispute Cooter's point, and don't forget, he already knows what there is to know about most of that stuff and a helluva lot more. It's not like he speaks from ignorance (which for all I know I may do) but from the understandable wish that the eyes could get some gratification too, even if from the super-cameras, but they don't: we just get more large images of not a lot that didn't get snapped on Kodachrome to equally good effect. One Haas or Riaan wave beats every MF digital shot of similar material I've even seen.

Do you see? Techical possibilites have moved on, but photography has not. One without the other is pointless.

Rob

[GrahamBy]

An amusing thought occurred to me when people were discussing viewing distances: they may depend on subject matter. Given a bus-stop size print of a landscape, I wouldn't be surprised to see people almost press their noses against the display... whether that is relevant to the photographer's intent or not. They will presumably also back away to take in the whole image.

If however the image is a nude, my guess is that at least in public, few people would approach to the same extent

[Rob C]

An amusing thought occurred to me when people were discussing viewing distances: they may depend on subject matter. Given a bus-stop size print of a landscape, I wouldn't be surprised to see people almost press their noses against the display... whether that is relevant to the photographer's intent or not. They will presumably also back away to take in the whole image.

If however the image is a nude, my guess is that at least in public, few people would approach to the same extent

Have you seen the humorous photograph of the two "Majas" in the Prado? the audience splits into two: a woman gazes at the dressed version whilst a little group of men gathers in reverence before the nude; there's no way of knowing where the viewing woman's eyes are actually looking!

Devils, details... eye of beholder.

Rob

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Rob,

Found on google…

As you can see, there is a cordon that limits pixel peeping, sorry pen stroke peeping.



Best regards
Erik

Have you seen the humorous photograph of the two "Majas" in the Prado? the audience splits into two: a woman gazes at the dressed version whilst a little group of men gathers in reverence before the nude; there's no way of knowing where the viewing woman's eyes are actually looking!

Devils, details... eye of beholder.

Rob

[Rob C]

That's the one, Erik!

Hadn't noticed the design victim closest the camera before, though.

Maybe sexist I didn't get the message right first time: perhaps he was the point of the snap all along!

;-)

Rob

[GrahamBy]

Note the difference in minimum distance.

(I'm a statistician, it's déformation professionnelle)