So Gigabitfilm, now we al know which film to use.… But could you explain in more detail why the late Kodak Technical Pan, which in a way belongs to the group of high definition films, though not achieving the resolution of your films, is more prone to blurr effects due to camera shake or object movement than his successors?
And what does "depending...of the structure of the motive" refer to?
f64, and be there.
AgX, please go to
and see the text.
JBrunner and Agx with your question "depending...of the structure of the motive" you are right, with stop 64 (and its more diffraction of light and the resulting dramatic lower resolution) even a 10x12" TMax100 could be compared with 35mm. In my life I had done three shots with 40x50cm (around 12x15"), to get a minimum of depth of focus I need stop 64, and a pray that the wind will not blow in this moment.
To explain the blur and the negative effect of edge-effects:
You photograph with a tripod a circle, the edge effect enhance the sharpness. Is the enhancing too strong, it looks not real - today in digital time you knew this from "oversharping". When you photograp without tripod, the circle will be oval by shacking, the circle gets bigger. This "bigger" detail will -seen in statistic- be more enhanced like the normal little circle without blur. Now you will ask yourself, the edge effect will reduce any blur, NO - the opposite will happen - it ENHANCE your blur.
This had been with the old TechnicalPan and preferable with the in German common Neofin-Doku from Tetenal. When I was a student, it was difficult to get a real sharp picture. Often it is diffucult, to disavoid edge effects in a chemistry. As more you will have resolution, as more this effects occur. This happens not with Gigabitfilm, thats why I use for myself no more tripods (as example: only under 1/10 sec and 50mm). Of course, when I have some motion in my negative, the full sharpness is not there, but the negative looks like a normal negative with normal unsharpness, and not with unnormal enhanced blur.
In literature like Anchell-Troop -The film developing cook book- you find on page 3 the sentence: "... the high micro-contrast of smaller negatives can give the impression o biting clarity to a negative. But this impression is achieved at the expense of smooth gradation in small areas."
Without any edge effects all Gigabitfilm will this show not - the opposite is true - the gradation even in extrem small areas are more smooth than in larger negatives. In emulsions with mix dispersed grains, only the sum of all grains will enable a gray tone. This leads to a lot of problems for a stable gray tone in small areas. In Gigabitfilm every grain of the monodispersed film will give the full gray scale information.
your story reminds me of something a photochemist once told me.
first, he was one of the people who did all the testing for the darkroom data guides
( wish i could remember the name! ) that came out every year for a long long time.
he had notes on all sorts of developers and films and all that fun stuff.
he used to invent developers, and one in particular a monobath
developer he liked very much. it was high def ...
and he processed submini film in it.
one day he took his film, and enlarged it BIG, and it was beautiful.
ansel adams himself was there ( they knew eachohter and all ) ...
and thought the images on the wall were all done with a large format camera ...
but like in your story, the film was much smaller
Thanks jnanian, these are the little historian anekdotes, I am collecting for my history of high resolution photography. Please, sniff a little bit at on your fixingbath , perhaps you will remember more.
Indeed I have a collection for that, starting with Stereoslides in 9x18 cm from Ferrier et Soulier, Paris, made from collodion negatives copied on ultrahigh resolution AgHal, in literature only these from that company are described as Niepcotypien, from 1855 up to 1870. By some opportunities I showed them to the emulsion-making people, asking them - "What have you done your whole life here in emulsion-making?" Once in 1996 a professional photographer (master examples for several photokina for Agfa) said to me: "Thank you, that I am allowed to see that quality. I cannot do a job like this quality, because I have not the film material for that." Some remarks to these glas slides - the silver is perfect, but the transport of the thin glas is critical, because very old glas can gets fragil. The same fragil problem I saw in Meydenbauer-Archiv in Berlin (inventor of photogrammetry with glasplates up to 40x40 cm - Preussische Messbildanstalt - prussian photogrammetie-institut), when I wanted to see the originals from 1890. The emulsion was good, but the plan-polished glas gets brittle. Meydenbauer used in his time a Pantoscop from Busch for his photogrammetrie and sometimes the Goerz-Hypergon. He used stop 64 - I saw in the original negativplates a resolution not over 8 linepairs/millimeter. Today I would get a better quality, when I use instead that f/64 in 40x40cm a 35mm camera. This was done in 1994-98 with a little project called Low Cost Aerial Mapping with Contax RTS III Metrica, I was engaged for that camera as adviser and for the film etc.
Some technical informations: At the moment, you use high resolution, you must use another kind of densitometer. In science people know that, but not in common practise. The same had been in collodium time 1850-1880 - a correct negative looks thin, like dust. At the moment, gelatinesilver appear in 1880-90, grain got very clumpsy (until today) and you grow up until today with the measuring tools for that grain structure.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by Ian Grant
Loren, why not scan that negative and then you'll probably find that enlarger alignment is the main culprit.
[however, I stand by my assertion that the Nikkor 35s are not a fine example of what 35mm can do!]
Not to hi-jack the thread, but Gigabitfilm: Where can we get this amazing emulsion in the U.S.?
Reading this is getting me salivating to do some testing myself! :-)
Mr. Smith, until now I have no reseller in US. Once I had have a company JandC as a distributor, but I canceled him, because they were making google-advertising with my name for low-level plagiat-products, but do not offer my films at this time. I am not interest in downtown business methods.
Regardless of the film format, I believe that a fine print is the product of thoughtful consideration and understanding of materials, chemicals, and of course technique tailored to the materials, chemicals, and the intended result. I know through experience that the same combination of materials, chemicals, and technique does not necessarily produce the intended result with all formats. I work in all formats, and have produced equally fine and equally bad prints in each format.
Follow up to print softness
Keith, I tried the scan suggestion, but my scanner will not render the detail needed for checking edge sharpness. So, I checked my enlarger alignment out as Jason and Ian suggested and sure enough it was out of alignment left to right. I then reprinted with both regular and glass negative carriers.
There is significant improvement to the edge sharpness left to right. This is where the misalignment was. However, there is still a bit of softness, especially in the corners. Both ends of the roof support I beam are very soft in the corners of the photos, about the same regardless of which negative carrier was used.
After checking further, this was Plus-X developed in HC110 dilution B. Again, it was hand held under roof. Perhaps the f stop was wider open than I suggested earlier. I always thought my 35mm Nikon F2.0 lens was very sharp. Maybe not in the corners? Or, maybe the corners of this photo are that much further from the camera and therefore out of focus.
I have gotten so attached to working with sharp, larger, medium format negatives that I need a very good reason to shoot b&w with my Nikon equipment. I would be more motivated to use 35mm if I shot sports or quick moving street photography. I do very little of either.
Thanks for the suggestions and comments. My enlarger did need to be aligned.