Re: Realist vs. Medium format

[Joel.Alpers@xxxxxxxxxxx]

#May I bring the issue of viewer again in the discussion?  I have only seen
#one medium format slide in one viewer... My opinion and that of other's is
#"I don't think it's better than your (my) Realist slides".  But, the viewer
#did not have the same quality lenses and construction as the Realist.

It was probably mine, then ;)

Seriously, I beg to differ - in side-by-side test I've done, (granted
not with the same scene, but they _did_ use the same film) there is
a very noticible difference. I think we humans are bad at remembering
well how something _really_ looks once we haven't seen it for a time -
I think you cannot make a fair comparison unless it's side-by-side.

I won't argue that the quailty of the viewer lenses is a part of the
equation - not the _only_ part, though - there's no substitute for
square inches (paraphrasing a motor-head friend of mine, who likes
_cubic_ inches)!  A larger film chip, at the same viewing angle,
is enlarged much less, of course - that reduces grain, as Greg E.
pointed out, but _also_ increases the gradation.

Again, let me state I'm not bashing any format - just trying to 
compare and contrast them. I shoot VM, Realist, European, and MF,
and have tried (and will try again) twin 4x5".
They all have their strengths and weaknesses, and I love 'em all!
But on the issue of grain and gradation, the bigger the better. I think
this is especially true in 3D, where IMHO grain becomes more apparent
than in 2D, due to retinal rivalry.

Joel Alpers
Rocky Mountain Memories - Equipment and Supplies for the 3D Photographer
rkymtmem@xxxxxxxx
http://www.frii.com/~rkymtmem


------------------------------