Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,515   Posts: 1,543,728   Online: 891
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    409

    What's the weaker link for resolution/sharpness?

    These days is 200asa 35mm colour film (say Fuji superia) good enough to check a lens out, or what breaks down first the film or image from an excellent lens, when enlarging/scanning a negative.
    Which could lead to a topic of:- which is the best colour 200asa film for enlarging/scanning.
    Last edited by Excalibur2; 06-16-2009 at 02:12 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #2
    EASmithV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,874
    Blog Entries
    4
    Images
    122
    I like cheese!
    www.EASmithV.com

    "The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera."— Dorothea Lange
    http://www.flickr.com/easmithv/
    RIP Kodachrome

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by EASmithV View Post
    I like cheese!
    HuH!......It's not about a film's colours, contrasts or exposure latitude, storing ability and anything else I have missed.........just a plain old neg's ability to enlarge or it's resolution capabilities for an image.
    Maybe all 200asa colour films are similar and an excellent lens is better than the film and Ektar at minimum is needed for checking out a lens......someone must know otherwise I'll have to buy some Ektar or FP4, when I've got about 80 rolls of 200asa Fuji superia in the fridge.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by EASmithV View Post
    I like cheese!
    First fried spam. Now cheese... what else is on the menu?

    Quote Originally Posted by Excalibur2 View Post
    ... otherwise I'll have to buy some Ektar or FP4, when I've got about 80 rolls of 200asa Fuji superia in the fridge.
    The wise thing to do is first finish those rolls, then ask the question.

  5. #5
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    The weakest link is always between the shutter finger and the brain

    There aren't too many notable entries in colour 200 speed- let me suggest trying ektar 100 and the kodak and fuji 160 films. But actually superia is suprisingly good and you have absolutely nothing to worry about as you long as you like what you are getting. Good stuff. Be happy.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,052
    Sharpness is pretty much psychological, and a lot of things are involved. Resolution is an important part of the sharpness issue, but high resolution can still result in the impression of poor sharpness. Contrast and edge effects help give the impression of high sharpness, and the scene itself is a big factor. Some pictures don't need great resolution to quite effective, or even to look sharp. (Certain portraits and scenes with large blocks as the principal subjects come to mind. Things that involve you emotionally, like many photojournalism shots, also cause you to ignore a lot of sharpness issues.) Other things demand high sharpness. In choosing a film, getting one that keeps a high MTF (modulation transfer function) at higher frequencies (line pairs per mm) is more important than just high resolution values in and of themselves. It tells you that contrast, which is important to the impression of sharpness, is maintained in the fine details. You will notice that some films have MTF values that go a little above 100 percent somewhere in the plots. That is evidence of enhanced edge effects, which also contribute to the impression of sharpness.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by nworth View Post
    Sharpness is pretty much psychological, and a lot of things are involved. Resolution is an important part of the sharpness issue, but high resolution can still result in the impression of poor sharpness. Contrast and edge effects help give the impression of high sharpness, and the scene itself is a big factor. Some pictures don't need great resolution to quite effective, or even to look sharp. (Certain portraits and scenes with large blocks as the principal subjects come to mind. Things that involve you emotionally, like many photojournalism shots, also cause you to ignore a lot of sharpness issues.) Other things demand high sharpness. In choosing a film, getting one that keeps a high MTF (modulation transfer function) at higher frequencies (line pairs per mm) is more important than just high resolution values in and of themselves. It tells you that contrast, which is important to the impression of sharpness, is maintained in the fine details. You will notice that some films have MTF values that go a little above 100 percent somewhere in the plots. That is evidence of enhanced edge effects, which also contribute to the impression of sharpness.

    Thank you, well I agree with your reply, but people post questions about lenses, and people reply that one lens is sharper than another...and I'm sure anyone here buying a lens would like to know if they have a lemon (or whatever). So the best solution is to have an excellent lab to process the film and produce a 16X20 print of your lenses you own (or have bought) and compare.......erm ok for money no problem guys.
    So how do you prove to yourself and produce proof to others which lens is better, in a cheap way...............well I use a good scanner at 4800dpi plus for negs and enlarge in Photoshop, and yes I know I'm viewing results on a computer screen, but finding quite a few lenses (primes and zooms) are giving similar results (after blowing up) and am just wondering are the lenses better than the film (200asa).

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Stavanger or Trondheim, Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    771
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Excalibur2 View Post
    ... finding quite a few lenses (primes and zooms) are giving similar results (after blowing up) and am just wondering are the lenses better than the film (200asa).
    Perhaps you need a better tripod & mirror lock?

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete H View Post
    Perhaps you need a better tripod & mirror lock?
    Well of course you are correct in that you should use a tripod for every shot, but would have thought 1/250 or 1/500 sec for a lens under 50mm should avoid camera shake, and maybe 1/500 sec for lenses about 70-200mm is not good enough for my supposedly steady hand (w/o tripod).

  10. #10
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete H View Post
    Perhaps you need a better tripod & mirror lock?
    And a cable release.

    Steve
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin