Quote Originally Posted by Noble View Post
Why do people make these statements on the internet? I was going to museums and looking at various kinds of art long before this website existed. I had to come here to learn a) no one approaches art b) if you are standing four feet away from a detailed Renaissance mural you are a "brush stroke snob."

Sorry guys I had to do a bit of clean up. What I said was mischaracterized and some flat out false quotes were attributed to me. This business of contacting printing 35mm negatives and "brush stroke snobs" is just way too hyperbolic.
Who's spouting hyperbole now?

Quote Originally Posted by Noble View Post
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.
The basic assumption of the argument you make here is that the characteristics of a step up in format size, more detail, less grain in relation to the subject, better tonality, whatever... is better and that people will appreciate prints from larger formats a bit more.

As far as I'm concerned, that assumption is nonsense.

Would Guilliaume Zuili's work be "improved" by availing himself of the characteristics of a larger format film?

IMO, absolutely not. In fact I think a step up in format might just ruin it.

The choices we make as artists using photography; of lens, film, format, lighting, filters ... simply imparts certain characteristics on the prints we are trying to get to.

None of the characteristics that our tools or materials impart on a print are intrinsically better or worse than their alternatives.