Herb, I base better on my own taste - which is, as you say, tonality and detail. I have never been one that is that interested in grain as a positive factor in my images. Also, my clients prefer my MF stuff over my 35mm stuff (when they have a choice).
Certainly as Doug put it, the image itself is most important. Also, how/where the image will be used can make a big difference too. Bruce Tuesday, February 11, 2003, 5:53:56 AM, you wrote: HC> Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>I can say for myself that MF is significantly better looking in HC> the larger prints. That doesn't mean there isn't a time and place HC> where 35mm is the best choice, just that a bigger negative makes for a HC> better bigger picture. HC> Bruce< HC> this month's Shutterbug has an interesting opinion on this. define "better" HC> first, is what they boil down to, and then you can decide if 35mm format HC> good enough or not. for some people, grain or lack thereof, which is what HC> tonality that medium and large format photographers treasure is derived HC> from, doesn't matter. if in fact you want grain, then 35mm is far HC> preferable. translated another way, if 35mm satisfies or defines your HC> artistic vision, then anything larger isn't better. you see two photos HC> taken with different formats and choose the one you like most. it turns out HC> it is the larger one. someone else may say that they are different and that HC> is all. HC> Herb....
