Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,915   Posts: 1,556,365   Online: 1040
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 33 of 33
  1. #31
    scootermm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,867
    Images
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky
    MASSIVELY overrated. What do you think? Everyone's so hung up on this. I spent COUNTLESS hours trying to figure out which lenses had the biggest coverage - even to the point of considering a 150 grandagon for my normal lens on 4x5. I'm an architectural photographer, too - so you'd think it would be important to me. When I do lens rises - they tend to be pretty subtle - rarely more than 10-20mm. And QUITE often I use 5mm or less. I even think it's quite refreshing not to use ANY. More than 10mm on 4x5 just starts to look kind of silly IMHO. Others' opinions?
    thought maybe Id spark the initial flames on this conversation...
    speaking from my experience in 4x5, then 8x10, and now 7x17 (along with much 8x10) I like lens coverage. one of the downfalls of my one and only 7x17 lens (14" Kodak Commercial Ektar) just doesnt give me the coverage I wish it would. although Im fine working within the constraints but having some more of an image circle would be gladly appreciated. so to state its massively overrated is something I couldnt disagree with more. Id much prefer to have excess coverage thats never used then not enough coverage that vignettes negs.


  2. #32
    Murray@uptowngallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Holland, MI
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    1,028
    If it's typical for edge resolution to be worse than central resolution with many lenses, is 'excessive' coverage a blessing in disguise with regard to resolution deterioration at edges?

    I suppose degree of enlargement trumps this supposition. Is there any connection between physical aperture diameter and edge resolution? It would seem that they necessarily interact but might be independent in theory. Diffraction-limitation and ab errations are discussed in totally different 'chapters' both both coexist in an exposure.

    Murray
    Murray

  3. #33
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    Well, I don't know QUITE how to answer that except that the extra image circle only seems to be available with increasing aperture number - and the trade off is image circle vs. diffraction - the greater your image circle the greater the amount of diffraction overall. Apart from inherent aberrations/effects native to off-axis use, the entrance pupil seen from the edges is distorted (american football shaped) and I suspect you're getting increased diffractive effects there in addition to off-axis aberrations. But anyway - that part of the image would not exist at a lower aperture number. So I suppose it is what it is - and there's no improving on it that I can see - but yes, lower magnification enlargements would certainly help matters!

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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