Peter, I have 35mm, 4x5, 127, 2 ¼, ?? and other formats to shoot with when I am in the film mode. Each format will allow for many choices of film although over the years the choices for some have diminished greatly. With each of those choices come the developing and exposure combination and which choice of papers and developers, toners etc. My point is that at many levels to really isolate format only and discuss image making at that level, you are taking a connective tissue out of the process. It just can not be talked about in isolation to print quality. At least not if you allow all other aspects of the creative process to move forward as well. That is why I said as a science/technical measure it is possible to isolate and measure that very small portion of the process of making prints. MY 4x5 prints hang next to my 35mm prints in shows and most people don?t know which which. Perhaps you can find a used 4x5 Graphic and pick up a couple of holders. But do you have an enlarger for that? Or 2 ¼? It certainly helps to make the choice of a look when you?ve had the chance to play with a variety of formats. Eric Eric Neilsen Photo 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9 Dallas, TX 75226 214 827-8301 http://ericneilsenphotography.com SKype ejprinter _____ From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Badcock Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 11:41 PM To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Tonal gradation/smoothness in 35mm negs c.f. larger formats Eric, as I have never owned larger than a 35mm camera, I have no idea about the extent of this effect being discussed. So for me I am curious because I'd like to know what I might be missing out on if I don't shoot larger formats. Up until yesterday the predominant thing for me was presence or lack of grain. Because I consider myself relatively informed and well read, I was kind of surprised about to discover that tonal smoothness is an issue too - so I'm asking these questions to try and appreciate the magnitude of its effects. regards Peter On 14/01/2008, EJ Neilsen <ej@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: There seems to be no end to the discussion that some will push to justify lugging around a big camera. Yes, the points that Bob brings up are true. If the goal of the print is to be seamless in tonal transitions that might be very important. I however, strongly believe that it is WAY down on the list of things to me concerned with as a print maker and story teller. If it is the most important aspect of your image, I suggest getting the big blank canvas and join the other intellectuals and wonder why no one "gets it". If some one is scientifically curious if there are differences that is one thing and quite different than does it really make that much difference to the statement being made by the image. One easily measured and the other a big who cares. Eric