I'm more the artist and know enough the science of photography to be dangerous.
I'm interested to know what people have to say on this, though I cannot say that I would know how to apply it practically.
If there were a big fat cash bonus for personally maximizing resolution on every single pic of mine, though, I might be willing to learn....
i would love to know the resolution of the lenses and methods i employ
but i have never been educated in the black art of resolution tests,
so i just shrug my shoulders.
it is interesting ralph that your 35mm system seems to blow the doors off of your other camera-systems ..
( or maybe i am reading your graph wrong ? )
Since resolution of the camera system is dependent on target contrast, it is impossible to know what resolution I get in the field. Test are a controlled environment which allows you to evaluate a system, but the number is a relative one. You need to understand what will happen under different conditions.
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?
I also think, that it is hard to ruin a picture from good scenery with good light by any technical deficiency. First of all the composition and the display of b/w tones or colours make a good photograph.
But that sharpness or resolution donīt make a good picture is a commonplace that is always heard if someone cares (too much) about them. Donīt misunderstand me - I neither want to start a resolution competition nor I want to burden photography as a creative art with a technical overkill.
I know if I would enlarge my 5x7 inch negs to a size of 12x16 inch, all resolution problems would be solved forever and focal length and largest aperture would be the only things I would have to think of when I had to decide between lenses. Yet one but not the only reason why I shoot 5x7 inch is that I want to make really large prints that are perfect sharp. The reason why I asked for your lines per millimeter is that I think about changing from LF to MF for convenience and to be more flexible. Since I usually can not enlarge LF negs more than 4 times when I critically look after the printīs sharpness I wonder if I can produce the same results in the same print size with the same fine details using MF. My impression is that in LF the sharpness you can achieve is limited by many accidental, small influences. To say it clearly: If I usually end at 30 lpm in 5x7 inch then maybe I should take a MF camera (6x7 cm or 6x9 cm) where it could be easy to produce the double resolution or even some more. A 6x9 cm neg that I can enlarge 8 times because of its higher resolution creates the same maximum print size as a 5x7 neg that I can enlarge (only) 4 times.
Therefore I wanted to hear from you, if your everyday LF results regarding the resolution are usually the same, lower or higher as mine. If the latter was the case I should increase my craftsmanship or maybe fine tune my equipment.
P.S. I have a 12 x 16 inch print of one of my sharpest 35 mm negs shot with Technical Pan that has got beautiful rich and smooth tones, practically no visible grain and is sharp enough for my taste. If I enlarge Adox / Rollei ORTHO about 8 times I still have very pleasing and smooth tones. So please donīt argue that I should stick to LF because of the grain or the beauty of the tones.