Can't argue with that but I keep to the view that if a 35mm photographer is chasing the same criteria as a medium format user, especially with static/tripod/landscape imagery, he's barking up the wrong negative. The difference between quality brands (especially at the 50mm focal length) is insignificant compared to the overall miniature camera aesthetic of visible grain, higher contrast, 3 x 2 ratio, etc. That is what the viewer will see.
On your boat picture the right hand side of the picture, the out of focus area, is mushy. It's not an aesthetic criticism of your photography or your processing technique, it's simply what happens when a 35mm negative encounters a textured, unfocussed area. It wouldn't do that in 120 and in 5 x 4 the 'creaminess' would be quite pleasing. The viewer accommodates the general look of a 35mm negative and in the camera's usual terrain of hand-held street photography those characteristics have become the aesthetic.
I'm only pressing the point as a response to 35 years of magazine reviews that have attempted to distinguish the practically indistinguishable for commercial reasons, which leads to a camera culture as opposed to a photographic one. Like I said, I'm sure the Heliar is a nice lens.
Last edited by blockend; 10-31-2010 at 05:48 AM. Click to view previous post history.