Originally Posted by Nicholas Lindan
Though i have some. But it isn't resolution or lack thereof that screwed those up.
Blooom and fill are not the same. I won't relate the details of this, but it is related to the mass of the dark (or light) surround that creates edge effects or overwhelms them, particularly as the subject matter becomes smaller. This is, in some ways, related to macro and micro contrast.
Originally Posted by Q.G.
As for making prints directly from the charts, well, you measure the response of the printing process alone (enlarger or contact - and the paper). If you photograph a chart and then print it, you measure the camera lens, flare and film. That print will be the overall system response.
When I need to do some comparison testing, I just use some fresh and crisp dollar bills. Take out a form core board, tape one dollar bill in the center, one at each corner. It has enough font sizes for good reference, prints are crisp and size and quality are very uniform. Enough for my purpose....
Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?
The link did not work for me either, but here is another alternative:
Originally Posted by ic-racer
You can print these yourself, but depending on your print quality, you may want to use a distance, which makes you independent of the smallest bars. High-resolution alternatives can be purchased for little money from Edmund Scientific.
All the sites worked fine for me, I really appreciate the efforts. I'm using box stock IE 8 and xp fully patched BTW, and did not need to do a refresh or anything. Your mileages obviously varied ;-)
Boy,,, I was on the Edmond Sci site,,, inexpensive is something I didn't even think about when looking at most of their prices. I'll go check again.
quote: "Shooting hand held, wide open, at medium/low shutter speeds, on high speed film or using an 'acutance developer' degrades the system performance to such an extent that lens performance is largely irrelevant. Which is as it should be"
A little out of context for sure,,, but I think I'd add,,, "for me" (actually for you), at the end of your sentence. Different folks, different directions in the hobby. I enjoy the technical side of the hobby, and have just begun (like since I joined apug), to appreciate a little grain visible in the final print. My usual combination in the 70's was Pan X and microdol x 1:3 with an ASA of less than 25. For some folks, being able to previsualize perspective and a particular lens barrel distortion or bow is totally irrelivent to the picture. For me,,, its an important (and fun) part of the process,,, unless I'm just snapshotting the 6 year old "alternative process" pocket thing which does any number of bad things in the corners. (and in the middle for that matter).
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
snip: "A little out of context for sure,,, but I think I'd add..."
Sorry about that,,, not your comment out of context,,, it was out of context after I snipped it. I think I understood what I tried to write, but when I read what I wrote wasn't what I meant to write???
Both however are the result of one and the same thing.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
If you have a measure of that (spread), you'll know about both bloom and fill.
The OP asked about a way to test a lens.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
I have used these, and at $3 a piece, you don't need to re-mortgage the house.
Originally Posted by Grif
Hey,,, good job. I finally went thru most of them,
Is also an affordable item I'll likely add to the order with the small resoulution target.
Resolution represented by the lines on the target is a function of distance and focal length (i.e. scale).
So one target can serve for both low and high resolution tests, just by altering distance.