First, Mark, thanks for the remarks about black backdrop materials. I have a vision about what I want to create and have been working with the background and lighting to make it happen. I don't have intermediate or advanced "studio" work experience; what I've done in the past has been very basic. It has proven to be quite a learning curve discovering exactly how various modifiers can be used to control the light. At 03:50 AM 4/19/2005, Mark Rabiner wrote: >To me the advantage of 4x5 over medium format is the same thing. >4x5 has amazing creamy smooth high tones. Highlights. >The lighter tones are thicker and more solid. >That's the only way I can describe them. >Better than medium format and much better than 35mm. >Crispy as the small format stuff is. >It's also crunchy. > >That's how I like my peanut butter not my prints. > >Mark Rabiner >Photography >Portland Oregon >http://rabinergroup.com/ I can tell the difference between small, medium and large format with larger prints (8x10 and bigger; sometimes a 5x7) . . . if the photograph and print are well executed. Just organized a non-professional photo show for the local art association here (that has been a very rewarding experience; as its organizer I cannot enter it myself though). Minimum print size is 8x10 and well over 80% are in the 11x14 size class (and "gallery presentation" is required or they're rejected). There aren't any that look to be made using large format, but there are several clearly made with medium format. Some of it is the level of detail and some of it is the smooth value transition from highlight to midtone that you mention. I have several 5x7 prints made from some of my own medium format work in which I can see a difference compared to same print size using 35mm. Among my own mix of work, the 35mm prints need to be 8x10 or 8x12 to be comparable at normal wall viewing distances with my 11x14 and 16x20 medium format work. There are some disadvantages to using each format. I don't use large format for a number of reasons, not the least of which is its size, weight and lack of agility. I don't have the time it requires to work a large format system properly; my photography is wedged in around my "day job" and being able to set up a photograph and tear everything down again efficiently has some priority. Running a close second is the cost in equipment, film and developing. Not that I wouldn't like to be able to work large format (or at least try it), at this point in time it would inhibit what I'm trying to do with my photography much more than enhance it. I do have medium format equipment, and it has proven to have sufficient agility and portability to use for many of my photographs. If I need high portability and agility, I use 35mm equipment but must trade that off with something a bit less in resolution, crispness and the smoother value transitions in larger prints. I couldn't have done what I did shooting candid "blues jams" in a dimly lit small club, or documenting the work done in an opalescent glass factory and hot glass studio with my medium format system using available light. The coarseness of TMax P3200 at EI 1600 which I used for shooting in the dimly lit club and for some of the glass works photographs resulted in an interesting appearance that seems somewhat fitting for the subject material. I do have shift lenses for both 35mm and medium format, and there have been a few times I've wished for tilt capability (lack of which has forced some modifications of a few compositions). One additional thing I've noted is difference in depth of field. Medium format loses about 1.5 stops worth for the same field of view and focus distance . . . meaning I must remember to stop down 1-2 more stops when using the medium format gear to get the same apparent field depth as I would with 35mm . . . for which I have a "feel" for what I'll get most of the time with apertures and critical focus distances. I just did a 1:1 macro last night and used the 35mm gear for it. Reason? The subject material has some depth in which I wanted to maintain apparent sharpness and I couldn't get enough light on the subject material (in the manner I wanted it illuminated) for the extra stop-down the medium format gear would have required. I was able to generate enough light to fully stop down the 35mm lens (1:1 magnification is two full stops of light loss from infinity focus using lens extension]). If 4x5 is working well for you, more power to you! Right now its disadvantages outweigh what I might gain from using it. Regarding medium format, I'm trying to use it more than I have in the past . . . more along the lines of whether or not it's actually possible to use it (and have a decent chance of success) than what is easiest to use. -- John Lind