> this month's Shutterbug has an interesting opinion on this. define "better" > first, is what they boil down to, and then you can decide if 35mm format > good enough or not. for some people, grain or lack thereof, which is what > tonality that medium and large format photographers treasure is derived > from, doesn't matter. if in fact you want grain, then 35mm is far > preferable. translated another way, if 35mm satisfies or defines your > artistic vision, then anything larger isn't better. you see two photos > taken with different formats and choose the one you like most. it turns out > it is the larger one. someone else may say that they are different and that > is all.
Herb, I actually feel this way. I like 35mm black-and-white prints better technically. For instance, if you compare the prints in the book _Bruce Davidson Portraits_ (mostly 35mm B&W) and the prints in _Werner Bischoff_ (mostly 2 1/4) I like the look of the Davidson prints better. It's a matter of taste, so I don't argue that they ARE better, nor do I disrespect (at all) any photographer who disagrees. But I also don't easily accept it when people presume that larger is always better. That's an opinion, not a fact.... --Mike P.S. What _Shutterbug_ article are you referring to exactly?
