On Apples and Oranges

July 12, 2009

This weekend I’m going to take a Cambo 4×5 out for a test drive.  This is the first time I’ve touched a large format camera and I’m hoping that using a polaroid back and referring to largeformatphotography.info as well as Horenstein’s celebrated B&W 102 text, Beyond Basic Black and White Photography will be enough to get me a few usable photos.

I’m excited as I can now switch back and forth between the three major formats, 35mm, medium format, and large format.  I tend to take Mr. Natural’s approach to photography in that I like to use the right tool for the job.  There are however often grey areas where the right tool is not immediately appearent.  I recently shot the NYC Pride Parade with a Hasselblad.  Most would have used a 35mm to capture a rapidly moving street parade and afterparty but my personal approach is to focus on individuals so I feel that using the medium format allows me to work in my preferred 6×6 format as I’m okay with taking my time with each shot.  My reasoning for using the Hasselblad has nothing to do with the image “quality” (although the lens has the best “look and feel” out of any lens I’ve ever used) or the ability to print BIG (if I wanted that I wouldn’t be developing with rodinal now would I?), its based on purely qualitative feelings.   The trouble is the advent of the 15+ megapixell full frame sensor has spawned the dread “quality” wars.

The quality wars ask if the new Canon or Nikon top of the line cameras can compete with medium format.  The conventional wisdom that a 35mm sized sensor could never meet or exceed the quality of a medium format sensor.  More area is more area and more area means higher quality.   Yet the numbers  thrown around by manufacturers often present a confusing series of contradictions.   If Nikon and Canon have more megapixels and reported higher dynamic range than the medium format backs offered by Leaf or PhaseOne does that mean those stuck up pro photographers are a bunch of dummies for investing $20,000 in a digital back when they can get similar peformance from a $2600 35mm body?   Are those snotty film people finally going to sit down to a steaming dish of crow?  Will those 4×5 people loose their claim to “ultimate image quality”.  And yeah, if the numbers say that 35mm is better, why hasn’t Leaf and PhaseOne started waving the white flag?     Why are we even shooting film if the quality of digital equals or surpasses it?

I lament the continued lack of scientific education among the general populace.  The point of learning chemistry in high school is not to prepare you for a career as a crystal meth on-demand producer but to introduce you to the concepts of approaching a problem and finding a solution through a logical, repeatable, and easily communicated process.   Its about looking at available data and drawing conlusions.

This would be perfect for questions like, “how does the Canon 5D compare to Velvia 50 shot through a Mamiya RB67″.    This is a very real problem for the photographer in the quest for maximum performance per purchasing dollar.   The Canon 5D does feature an extremely high quality sensor which may provide equal results with slide film being shot through a medium format camera.   There’s a huge price differential.  A factor of 10 if you’re talking about picking up a L series lens or two for the Canon along with the body against the average $400 cost for a used RB67 setup.   How are we to stack up the two in terms of image quality?

Except Ultimate Image Quality is not important.  One of the most important steps in approaching a complex problem is to reduce variables by eliminating the unimportant ones.  If one is on the market for a car based on fuel efficiency and safety standards, the available range of colors is not a concern.  It can be bright pink and it will not get any more or less miles per gallon.

Ultimate Image Quality is important if you’re printing at 30×40 inches and plan on viewing the print from 10 inches.   Most 30×40 prints are placed so that you won’t get within 5 feet of them even if you’re feeling nosy.   Not very many people will ever be called upon to produce a print of that size yet I see countless electrons being expended in bickering over which format has the ultimate in image quality.   If you’re a landscape photographer who gains income from making extremely large prints then there is a compelling interest in knowing if its time to hang up your film camera.  Chances are you’re not going to give up the view camera because the 35mm or medium format doesn’t offer the same perspective control.   Other professional photographers are less worried about ultimate image quality as about the ability to rapidly turn around a job which makes digital a no brainer.   More factors which would outweight image quality are weight, availability of services (labs that can do E-6), cost of ownership, existing equipment, and shooting style.  Even reviews by professional landscape photographers who do reguarly print at 30×40 will cite the ease of use and low cost of ownership (but extreme cost of entry) before launching into an in-depth review of pixel peeping image quality.  For the rest of us, we just have to worry about cutting the mustard, not smiting it.

My pentax K100D produced some very nice 8×10 images with its 6 megapixel sensor and my ancient Canon 300D produced images which were spread acrossdouble pages in a magazine.    I’ve never run across a photo editor who expects to see 16×20 images except at a portfolio review, and that’s only so they can review your work within 60 seconds or less without putting on their glasses.   Gallery owners do ask for large prints but the vast majority of photographs are not sold in galleries and the vast majority of photographers will never be shown in a gallery.

The majority of photographers will never sell a print. Ever.  Why? Because no one cares about their children except themselves.  To them, their photographs are invaluable.  They’re memories.  Memories are not printed out at 30×40 inches subject to intense scrutiny.   They’re carried in wallets, placed next to monitors in the office, and clutter up the living room.  Even professional photographers will see their work printed more often on an 8×10 magazine page or on a website than on a the side of a bus.  If you closely inspect many poster sized advertisements you’ll notice that they really were not meant to be enlarged to that size.

What’s the difference between a Canon 5D and a 6×7 slide?   Who cares?   Instead of worrying about the far edge of image quality people should be more concerned about how they actually use their camera on a day-to-day basis, not how they would use their camera in a wet dream.  The largest print I’ve ever made was 16×20 and felt that its was quite frankly, excessive.   It would have been just as nice at 11×14 and it was a landscape.

Apples and oranges are meant to be enjoyed on their own terms, not forced into confrontation with each other.  Apples won’t cure scurvy and oranges make for lousy pie (but great tarts).  Asking which one tastes better is pointless.  You can compare their fiber content or their Vitamin C content but that ignores the point of consuming either of them.  You will not exclude one from your diet by choosing the other.

Personally, if pushed for an answer I will say that I will always prefer my ’57-69 vintage Hasselblad 500c over any Canon 5D Mark II on the grounds that the 5D has too goddamn many buttons.   For my purposes, I just prefer the simplicity and look and feel of Fuji Acros or Tri-X developed in Rodinal.   That’s what matters to me.

Posted in Product Review, Uncategorized