POLL - How much resolution (lpm) you can achieve?

[Bill Burk]

Ralph,

It's a very information-packed chart. Great use of graphics.

I also read off it that 4x5 exceeds critical even up to f/32. Also suggests by continuation that f/64 might be for our 8x10 friends.

I don't see the size of the print, maybe it's in the text?

Bill

[Marco B]

John, while the graph shows that 35mm lenses are capable of higher resolution than larger formats, it also seems to show that the resolution obtained barely gets the 35 into the critical image category while the 6x6 lens resolution exceeds the 6x6 critical range and the 4x5 way exceeds it. Is that what it shows, Ralph?

Maybe reformulating the statement as follows makes it a bit more clear how to interpret Ralph's graph:

While 35mm lenses are capable of higher resolution than lenses for larger formats, the necessity of greater enlargement of the negative during printing on photo paper, means the actual perceived sharpness and resolution in the print is less than in prints made from larger format films, as those latter film formats (MF and LF) require (far) less enlargement during the printing stage if printing to the same final print size.

But maybe this is a bad interpretation...

Marco

[23mjm]

This is nearing a digital type thread!!!! Lets talk specs not results.

[Marco B]

This is nearing a digital type thread!!!! Lets talk specs not results.

Why?

Talk of lens resolution and printing on photo paper is as old as analog photography is, that is, over 150 years... I don't see anything d******l in that. Lens resolution is still sometimes tested with what is called USAF 1951 resolution charts, the design of which is 60 years old by now...

[outwest]

Yes, Marco, that is exactly the way I took it to mean - viewing a comparable print which requires a lower enlargement factor from the larger film.

[ic-racer]

I'd estimate that my maximum resolution on film is with the Minox lens with microfilm. My maximum resloution on paper totally depends on the enlargement size. The theoretical maximum I can get is a reduction of 8x10 negative to 4x5 print. But the paper resolution is the limit there.

[Sirius Glass]

I resloved years ago to not bother myself with resolution, only results.

Well said.

I never am disappointed with the resolution of my Hasselblads, Speed Graphic or Graflex.

Steve

[2F/2F]

I find the info on the DX format particularly interesting. If I am understanding the chart correctly, a DX camera is just barely capable of meeting the minimum resolution required for a standard-quality print, and even then, only within a narrow range of f stops.

I agree that digital is lousy, to oversimplify heavily, but I am happy with the b/w prints I get from my 10D at 6x9 or 8x12 inches. They blend nicely with my film prints IMO. So resolution is obviously a very unimportant factor in the way I personally judge prints, I guess.

[RalphLambrecht]

... I don't see the size of the print, maybe it's in the text?

The size of the print is of no consequence as long as your viewing distance is (or at least is never less than) the print diagonal. All depth-of-field calculations based on the circle of confusion (CoC) depend on that assumption.

[RalphLambrecht]

I find the info on the DX format particularly interesting. If I am understanding the chart correctly, a DX camera is just barely capable of meeting the minimum resolution required for a standard-quality print, and even then, only within a narrow range of f stops.

I agree that digital is lousy, to oversimplify heavily, but I am happy with the b/w prints I get from my 10D at 6x9 or 8x12 inches. They blend nicely with my film prints IMO. So resolution is obviously a very unimportant factor in the way I personally judge prints, I guess.

Your interpretation of the graph in reference of DX performance is correct. The 'enlarged' performance of DX is sufficient to satisfy the resolution of our eyes at a comfortable minimum viewing distance of about 10 inches. Actually, the entire graph is only relevant for prints larger than 8x10. Even pinhole cameras can satisfy human viewing resolution if the print is small enough. With larger prints, our eyes get closer, relatively speaking (print diagonal), and at that point, DX is seriously challenged by 35mm film.