Herb, Boy, how to put this...The skill of the photographer is of upmost importance in producing great images. His choice of equipment will always be based on compromise. Cost, maneuverability, features, negative size, etc. He will arrive at what make the most sense to use for the given set of circumstances. He will also produce great images no matter the equipment. The same photographer, given a bigger negative, will continue to create great images, but now they will carry more detail, tonality, able to be blown up larger or cropped more, etc.
Your argument as why not go up to a 20X24 falls back into this compromise area. For many people, 35mm is a reasonable compromise. For some, medium format is a reasonable compromise and for a few, large format is a reasonable compromise. In my case, it wasn't that medium format wasn't the right choice as much as just never having really tried it or considered it. With some prodding from list members I finally tried it. I can say that the quality of my images has improved noticeably and my family, friends and clients all notice. So in most cases, that is where I make my compromise. You could be in totally different circumstances and 35mm could be your best compromise. I can tell you from looking at your work (which is very nice) that your images would look even better on medium format. It wouldn't make any difference from an artistic perspective, but they would look even better. I hope some of this makes sense. I'm not even trying to say one format is best as much as each format has strengths and weaknesses. Negative size is a strength as you move up in format and speed and mobility are weaknesses as you move up. Picking the right point on the scale is the real trick. I am very thankful to those who encouraged me to try a bigger format. I don't know if 4X5 would be going too far up the ladder for me or not, but medium format has proved to be a good choice for me. Bruce Friday, December 13, 2002, 11:33:53 PM, you wrote: HC> Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Mastering one format or the other is pompous crap. HC> Larger negatives are about superior image quality (granularity, HC> definition, etc), and ease of getting quality results. HC> Nothing else.< HC> what does granularity and definition have to do with quality? if sharpness HC> is your only measure of quality, why stop at medium format? why not, as i HC> said earlier, shoot 20x24 inch glass plates and make only contact prints? HC> all the technical recommendations in the world will not make an image HC> without artistic content into a quality image. HC> i object to your blanket statement that all pro photographers shoot junk HC> because they all shoot 35mm nowadays and implied that in the good old days HC> when everyone shot 4x5 and 8x10, all you got was stellar performances. HC> sorry, but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. ever see an exhibit HC> of George Bernard Shaw photos? HC> Herb....
