Large formats suck (sharpness-wise, not grain-wise) if you keep the
aperture miniscule. Wider is sharper.
<rant mode>
Duh. Sorry to be rude, but is this supposed to be some sort of revelation?
I'll be the first to agree that the best 35mm work can exceed sloppy
large format work, but what the one-sided Photodo story leaves out is
how to get the most from large format. I suspect the author has not
actually used large format outside of the tests he did. If you use a
screwdriver to pound nails, you're bound to come to the conclusion
that hammers are superior tools!
So it states, "With a shorter depth of field and wider apertures, we
notice large format's superiority," but goes to great lengths and
formulas to "prove" that you need to use smaller apertures with large
format to get the same depth-of-field that you get with 35mm --
further proof that the author lacks large format experience.
What tips me off is the Photodo article's complete lack of mention of
basic camera movements! In fact, in the apologist's section (cleverly
disguised as "objective journalism"), he cites only three reasons why
large format is perceived as superior: 1) use of a tripod, 2)
settling for less depth of field, and 3) more time devoted to
composition -- completely ignoring basic Scheimpflug theory.
It is true that I always use a tripod for large format, and always
spend more time (but with camera movements, NOT composition), but I
don't "settle for a shorter depth of field," and I can't remember the
last time I stopped down smaller than f22. Indeed, I get greater
depth-of-field than would be possible in 35mm at ANY aperture! What's
a "circle of confusion?" -- I can get feet-to-infinity with a
"normal" 150mm lens at f3.5! Pssst! It's the movements!
My favorite LF shots are with a foreground and background subjects in
sharp focus, but with a soft, bokeh-filled middle-ground -- try that
by stopping-down a 35mm lens!
35mm is a hammer; large format is a screwdriver. While it is true
that it's a poor craftsman who blames his tools, I think it's a
poorer one who can't tell them apart, and know which situation fits
which tool, and thus believes that the one HE uses is superior in all
situations -- that's simply called "self delusion." I suppose it's
possible to do inches-to-infinity landscapes with 35mm, and it's
probably possible to do photojournalism with a 4"x5". Either approach
is for masochists!
Tom, why don't you and the Photodo author go grab a couple David
Muench books, and tell me those shots could have been taken with
35mm. (Then look at some early Weegie photos, and tell me you can't
do photojournalism with a Speed Graphic 4x5! :-)
</rant mode>
Requisite OM content: I'm still planning to butcher a bellows into
doing at least rear tilt, and then seeing how the Zuiko 80mm and
135mm macros behave before slapping some awful enlarging lens on it.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled mailing list... :-)
--
: Jan Steinman <mailto:Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
: Bytesmiths <http://www.bytesmiths.com>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|