Re: Getting serious

[hmphoto <hmphoto@delphi.com>]

>Take the photographer, as a variable, out of the equation. Put the same 
>photographer behind the formats for the shoot, assume equal skill of 
>that photographer with the various formats, the best optics available 
>for the various formats, equal films etc., and, the results will favor 
>the larger formats every time!

Perhaps true, but what Ted and Donal were getting at was that art 
directors often request MF when in many instances 35 actually works 
better.  When the finished product is running 1/2 to 1/4 of a magazine 
page there is no quality loss with 35mm.  The printed page holds only so 
much detail.  Anyone who thinks 35mm does not work in print has obviously 
never looked at National Geographic.  Almost all of that is shot 35mm and 
looks great.  I have had a photo shot on 1600 Fuji chrome pushed 1-1/2 to 
2 stops run double truck full bleed in the London Telegraph magazine (the 
old LIFE format size book) and the photo looked very nice.

You also have to admit 35 is easier to work with than MF is.  This often 
makes a shot better because there is less fussing with equipment during 
the shoot and the shoot can go faster so the subjects are more relaxed. 
And you can shoot more film increasing your chances of hitting the 
perfect expression.

I have done shots with both 35mm and MF for the same publication and the 
photos were used in the same spread run side by side and you could not 
tell the difference in the 35 and the 2 1/4.

Now if you are doing show prints on a large scale then yes the MF will 
give noticeably better results, but when talking about standard magazine 
reproduction, well IMO it really doesn't make that much of a difference.

I think perhaps many of the art directors still think 35mm films will be 
grainy when enlarged the slightest bit, not realizing that modern films 
are vastly superior to those produced 7-10 years ago.

Harrison McClary
http://people.delphi.com/hmphoto