Quote Originally Posted by ralnphot View Post
I resloved years ago to not bother myself with resolution, only results.
Yes itīs the results that count. Everywhere and everyday. If you donīt like the technical terms resolution or lpm, which I also donīt want to overstress, then just tell how much you can enlarge your negs until you would say they could be sharper.

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.