Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
I think us photographers often fall ill with the disease of criticizing ourselves based on ultimate print quality, and my experience (as an observer at museums) is that only photographers care.
I think if you put a 40"x60" made from a 35mm negative and one made from an 8x10 negative in front of the average person they will be able to tell them apart. If they can't then they have a medically diagnosable disease. Medical visual acuity tests are far subtler. As far as do they care I have to ask what is the audience you are aiming for. I would say in any given year 95+% of people don't step into a museum or art gallery in the United States. Those people are not the final arbiter of whether my work has made the grade or not. Their idea of photography is a noisy picture from an iphone with a cheesy Instagram filter applied heavy handedly. Even having said all that I don't know how one would ascertain merely by observing whether people care. I care and I don't announce it as I look at photographs. I usually walk through entire museums and galleries without saying a word.

When I make a print I try to at least do the easy stuff to add extra layers of depth. For some of my work shooting large format would enhance things further, but life is full of trade offs. I stick with medium format. I pick the trade offs I'm willing to live with. But that doesn't mean a large format negative won't produce a discernibly better print that people will appreciate a bit more. It may only be a 10% gain for a lot more effort. That may not be worth it to you. But it doesn't mean there is no perceivable and appreciated gain.