Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
My opinion is that one camera format isn't better than the other. Only that the best camera is the one that:
A. Allows us to get the shot we want and need.
B. The one we are familiar with and isn't an impediment to our work flow.

I still can't understand why people are so opposed to big enlargements from 35mm. Is the little bit of grain that's there really that detrimental to the picture? My own opinion is that it's just silly to get hooked up on something like grain. A print that is deliciously well crafted will look amazing regardless of film format, and I feel that those who say they can't get a good print from 35mm because of the small negative simply isn't a good enough printer.

Just go make some more freaking prints. Become better printers. Look at masterpieces by those who DO know what they're doing, by visiting museums, galleries, auctions, art shows, etc. Learn. If 35mm was good enough for some true masters such as Ralph Gibson, Sebastiao Salgado, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Elliot Erwitt, William Eggleston, Harry Guyaert, Alex Webb, how about Charles Harbutt, and Max mentioned Vivian Cherry. The list goes on and on and on.

The question should instead be - how can I make the best print that I possibly can, regardless of what camera I love to use?
My learning came with experimenting different print/paper sizes without changing the film format.

Higher the size of the print/paper demands more control, yielding better printing skills if not better prints.

Upto to my experience printing 35mm neg on 8x10 and 16x20 is not the same, ignoring the grain.