I´d like to start a little poll to see what resolutions are possible for you in LF. It would be interesting to compare what is your peak result under "laboratory conditions" using a test chart and how much of that you can realize in the field. I´m aware that almost nobody will shoot test targets in the field, but perhaps you can interpolate from small details how much resultion you usually achieve outdoors or at least if your outdoor shots are nearly as sharp as the test shots or significantly less.
It would be nice of you to use that proposed chart. If that is too much for you, but you would like to attend in the poll anyway, just fill out the fields that you like to.
test shots
peak resolution (lpm):
negative format:
lens used:
aperture used:
exposure time used:
film:
developer:
used light (flash or lamps):
in the field
usually achieved percentage of your peak resolution (only a rough estimation):
usually used lens(es):
usually used apertures:
usually used exposure times:
your standard film:
your standard developer:
prefered light conditions (direct sunlight or shadowed sunlight or dull weather):
Maybe we all could learn something from the contributions. Thanks in advance to all that join in.
My shots are never as sharp as I want them to be. Fortunately sharpness isn't all that matters. I had a couple of shots taken with my Perkeo II (I know, 6x6 isn't LF) printed and the prints please even though they won't bear close scrutiny.
I resloved years ago to not bother myself with resolution, only results.
That's how I roll, too. LPM isnt too important for me; the final image is all I care about. Obviously, LPM plays a part in the final image, but so does composition, contrast, and artistic style.
Obviously, you need the camera for the job you want. If you're doing a job that requires uber LPM, then make sure you have a setup that can deliver. If all you have is a Holga, then you need to limit yourself to what a Holga can do. I dont have a lens for my recently aquired 5x7 camera yet, but when I wont obsess over LPM when I do get shooting with it. (hell, I might even make a pinhole for it )
"Gotta little problem with personal space, and I've been pounding the Jager. My breath and behavior have been driving the patrons away" -"Whipped Cream" by Ludo
I resloved years ago to not bother myself with resolution, only results.
I should have said that although I know sharpness isn't all, I do shoot comparable lenses against each other to decide which one(s) not to use. Making these decisions doesn't require formal resolution testing. I sometimes shelve the slightly sharper lens because the not-quite-so-sharp one is sharp enough and has better contrast or is less prone to flare or is simply easier to use.
"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."
I resloved years ago to not bother myself with resolution, only results.
That's all well and good, and many will agree with you. However, it seems to be important to the OP. So, let's deal with his question.
That said, I don't think sharpness is the only criterium either, but I'm always turned off by images that are not as sharp as they could be when they could be improved by sharpness. I'm well aware, unsharpness can be a creative tool (many good examples in the APUG library of that), but that shouldn't become an excuse for sloppy craftsmanship.
Last edited by RalphLambrecht; 02-06-2011 at 11:33 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Adv Reply
Originally Posted by ralnphot
)
