Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,938   Posts: 1,557,314   Online: 992
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lower Earth
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,054
    Right, 35mm lenses are optimized for sharpness. As you go up in format size, they are more optimized for coverage.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by momus View Post
    Right, 35mm lenses are optimized for sharpness. As you go up in format size, they are more optimized for coverage.
    I have a xenotar 80mm f2.8 that begs to differ in 6x9 and 2x3, in both sharpness and coverage potential

  3. #23
    Chris Lange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    764
    Images
    33
    stochastic grain patterns give the illusion of increased sharpness. the more visible the grain, the more apparent sharpness the print will have, until you look closely.
    See my work at my website CHRISTOPHER LANGE PHOTOGRAPHY

    or my snaps at my blog MINIMUM DENSITY
    --
    If you don't have it, then you don't have it.

  4. #24
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,772
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by BetterSense View Post
    "sharp" is a fuzzy concept.
    I like that BetterSense.

    Nathan King, while there are certain things in photography that are "straight forward and simple", I would not classify "visual effects" or "comparing shots from different formats and lenses" in that category.

    A single lens is even hard to compare to itself because the characteristics of most any given camera lens varies between f-stops and in relation to extraneous light. The corners may get soft as you open up, the effect flare changes, the propensity for ghosting changes... I had been using a 50mm AF-D Nikon lens for my main studio lens for a while and picked up a 35mm Nikkor "O" lens and was having great fun with it in the field and needed to shoot a small group so I slapped it on the camera for a few test shots well ahead of time thank goodness. That Nikkor "O" without a hood turned properly exposed shots into visions of a snowstorm because there was so much flare.

    The point I'm getting at is that shots from different setups and situations will look different for a variety of reasons.

    With that said, it is important for me to remember that all the issues I've ever had with lack of sharpness have been traceable back to my use or my choice of the tools.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  5. #25
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Vic., Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,631
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan King View Post
    I have noticed when enlarging my 6x7 negatives they show far less grain than my 35mm prints; however, the 35mm prints still appear slightly sharper. I am using the same enlarger for both, and lenses used for each format are the same Rodenstock model lens with only the obviously differing focal length. It's difficult to judge from the small contact prints if the negatives themselves are sharper or if something is going on during enlarging. I use the Mamiya with a tripod and mirror lock up, so I can't imagine technique is an issue. Out of curiosity I had a pro lab do some scans, and the results were in line with what I have been seeing from the darkroom. What gives?

    Could it be that my Leica camera lenses are simply noticeably sharper than those for my Mamiya RZ67? I'm not sure if it's a film flatness issue because within each print every area is uniformly sharp.

    P.S. Yes, I know sharpness isn't everything. I'm just really curious.


    Sharpness isn't everything, true, but in medium format, it is an inherent quality far and above what is achievable in 35mm.

    That said, the "far less grain" you are noticing in the 6x7 negative is a product of that format being 400% bigger than 35mm. If the 6x7 images have clear and obvious sharpness when viewed on the lightbox, then the problem is at the enlarger. Film flatness is very rarely a problem in medium format, but it is critical in astrophotography (e.g. fitting a vacuum back). The use of a tripod and mirror lock with these big cameras is standard good practice and will alleviate most incidences of mirror/shutter-induced vibration, but the risk increases the larger the lens used.

    When an image is scanned (even by a pro lab), it will lose at least 50% of its inherent sharpness until USM is applied in post. I don't know if the lab you deal with has a policy of not making any change to the scanned image ('as is') when presenting it back to you; anything added to the scan is usually specified by the photographer, including baseline sharpness, contrast etc.


  6. #26

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,928
    I have RB and Nikon. I've seen quite a difference in sharpness between lenses of the same format. I've also seen significant differences between samples of the same lenses, and pre and post calibration by the manufacturer of the same lens. It would be difficult for me to say which is sharper IF we are talking about per-square-cm of film sharpness.

    Also, I had my camera body calibrated for focus. It made difference, too.... Maybe, just maybe, OP's RZ could use calibration? Or, if we are talking of lenses of different vintage, maybe difference in technology, such as design technique making difference? Some of my Nikon lenses are QUITE good....

    Just some random thoughts by me....
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,908
    To make my RB67 more sharp, I will shoot razor blades.

    Jeff

  8. #28
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,623
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    I like that BetterSense.

    Nathan King, while there are certain things in photography that are "straight forward and simple", I would not classify "visual effects" or "comparing shots from different formats and lenses" in that category.

    A single lens is even hard to compare to itself because the characteristics of most any given camera lens varies between f-stops and in relation to extraneous light. The corners may get soft as you open up, the effect flare changes, the propensity for ghosting changes... I had been using a 50mm AF-D Nikon lens for my main studio lens for a while and picked up a 35mm Nikkor "O" lens and was having great fun with it in the field and needed to shoot a small group so I slapped it on the camera for a few test shots well ahead of time thank goodness. That Nikkor "O" without a hood turned properly exposed shots into visions of a snowstorm because there was so much flare.

    The point I'm getting at is that shots from different setups and situations will look different for a variety of reasons.

    With that said, it is important for me to remember that all the issues I've ever had with lack of sharpness have been traceable back to my use or my choice of the tools.
    Surely is and nothing is worse han a sharp picture of a fuzzy concept (AA)
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    area 76
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan King View Post
    I have noticed when enlarging my 6x7 negatives they show far less grain than my 35mm prints; however, the 35mm prints still appear slightly sharper. I am using the same enlarger for both, and lenses used for each format are the same Rodenstock model lens with only the obviously differing focal length. It's difficult to judge from the small contact prints if the negatives themselves are sharper or if something is going on during enlarging. I use the Mamiya with a tripod and mirror lock up, so I can't imagine technique is an issue. Out of curiosity I had a pro lab do some scans, and the results were in line with what I have been seeing from the darkroom. What gives?

    Could it be that my Leica camera lenses are simply noticeably sharper than those for my Mamiya RZ67? I'm not sure if it's a film flatness issue because within each print every area is uniformly sharp.

    P.S. Yes, I know sharpness isn't everything. I'm just really curious.
    Lenses can be corrected for abberrations in proportion to their focal length - so, all other things being equal, a lens of shorter focal length can made optically better than a similar lens of longer focal length. So you may well expect your relatively short focal length Leica lens to be better corrected than your Mamiya RZ lens.
    A characteristic of enlarging small format negs compared to larger ones is that for any given print size, the micro-imaging properties of the small film will be relatively more obvious. This would include the inter-image effects, caused by local development exhaustion that can raise the contrast locally at image edges, giving rise to a sharpening effect - not unlike the unsharp mask filter in Photoshop.
    So taking the two effects together, small format photography can appear to produce sharper looking pictures than larger formats if the print size is not too large. What it cannot do is match the superior tone reproduction possible with larger formats - and it's this ability to convincingly reproduce subtle changes in tone that help to make larger format photography produce results showing a more three-dimensional quality.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    Light tables are great, but a blank, white computer screen web page is a decent substitute until you get one.

    Try this one: http://blank.org/
    I have a lightbox app for my android tablet which works quite well. It's a good deal more portable than a desktop PC monitor, too. The downside is that when looking through a loupe, I see pixels. YMMV.
    ME Super

    Shoot more film.
    There are eight ways to put a slide into a projector tray. Seven of them are wrong.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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