Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,568   Posts: 1,573,506   Online: 713
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47
  1. #21
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,538
    Images
    46
    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

  2. #22
    Marco B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,983
    Images
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by outwest View Post
    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
    Last edited by Marco B; 02-06-2011 at 03:02 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    My website

    "The nineteenth century began by believing that what was reasonable was true, and it wound up by believing that what it saw a photograph of, was true." - William M. Ivins Jr.

    "I don't know, maybe we should disinvent color, and we could just shoot Black & White." - David Burnett in 1978

    "Analog is chemistry + physics, digital is physics + math, which ones did you like most?"

  3. #23
    23mjm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Rocklin, California
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    450
    Images
    9
    This is nearing a digital type thread!!!! Lets talk specs not results.

  4. #24
    Marco B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,983
    Images
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by 23mjm View Post
    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...
    My website

    "The nineteenth century began by believing that what was reasonable was true, and it wound up by believing that what it saw a photograph of, was true." - William M. Ivins Jr.

    "I don't know, maybe we should disinvent color, and we could just shoot Black & White." - David Burnett in 1978

    "Analog is chemistry + physics, digital is physics + math, which ones did you like most?"

  5. #25
    outwest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    319
    Images
    3
    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.

  6. #26
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,361
    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.

  7. #27
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,420
    Quote Originally Posted by ralnphot View Post
    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
    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.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    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.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  9. #29
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,719
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    ... 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.
    Regards

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

  10. #30
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,719
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    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.
    Regards

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

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