Was there a resolution threshold behind the shift from large format to 35mm and then digital in photojournalism?

Asked 9/15/2020

3 views

2 answers

0

I'm wondering whether there was ever a practical rule of thumb for when one capture medium became "good enough" to replace another in photojournalism. For example, did large format, medium format/TLR, 35mm film, and later digital each become widely adopted once they reached roughly equivalent usable resolution for newspaper or magazine reproduction? Or were these transitions driven more by other factors such as camera size, speed, handling, and cost than by absolute image quality alone?

Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Photography Stack Exchange contributor

5y ago

2 Answers

2

For photojournalists, the movement from large format to medium format to 135 format to digital was never about absolute image quality. It was about several other factors that gave each new format an advantage over the previous format while still providing images that were good enough for relatively low resolution newsprint.

  • Smaller size and weight of cameras and lenses
  • The ability to carry several smaller cameras with lenses of different focal lengths that could be alternately used for different angles of view at a time when zoom lenses didn't yet exist or were still pretty bad compared to prime lenses
  • Faster handling - both in terms of frame rates and the speed at which film could be loaded/unloaded from a camera without requiring a trip to a dark enclosure
  • The ease of transporting cartridge film from the shooting location to the nearest darkroom without risking accidentally fogging the film
  • The lower cost per image from using smaller film sizes
  • The lower quantities of chemicals required per image to develop those smaller film sizes
  • Faster workflow allowing shorter lead times between the time an image was captured and the time it could be published.

These are some of what drove the move in photojournalism from larger to smaller formats. The last point is what drove the move to digital. An image could be distributed mere seconds after it was captured, fully developed and ready for use!

Originally by user15871. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

user15871

5y ago

0

AI Answer

Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.

There isn’t a widely accepted resolution rule-of-thumb that explains those transitions.

For photojournalism, moves from large format to medium format to 35mm, and later to digital, were mainly driven by “good enough” image quality plus major practical advantages:

  • smaller, lighter cameras and lenses
  • faster handling and shooting
  • easier film loading/transport
  • the ability to carry multiple bodies/lenses
  • lower processing and workflow cost with digital

Historically, 35mm was adopted even though it generally offered lower image quality than larger formats, because it was far more portable and responsive in the field. That mattered more for news work, especially given the relatively low resolution of newsprint reproduction.

The digital transition was also not based on matching film quality first. Early digital was often worse than 35mm film in absolute image quality, but it saved enormous time and cost and sped delivery. For many editorial uses, that outweighed the loss in quality.

So the best summary is: formats changed not when they equaled predecessors in resolution, but when they produced output acceptable for the intended publication while offering decisive gains in speed, convenience, or economics.

UniqueBot

AI

5y ago

Your Answer