Practical 35mm enlargment sizes???
James ORourke
I was reading some interesting articles the other day about the guys that
use large format 8x10 cameras and how much they love making contact prints
of their negs of the same size. I am shooting 35mm B&W film right now and
getting ready to print. Since I need to enlarge, I was wondering if there
was an optimal print size for a 35mm neg??? Currently my plans are to
enlarg to a 5x7 print with an occasional 8x10. I would like to experiment
with going higher but I am wondering if it would be a waste of time with
35mm negative. What is the point where the return investment in image
quality compared to print size is diminished???
Thanks in advance.
james
Jorge Omar
image quality. That's why of LF photography.
There are, however, some paractical aspects that make life of 35mm (and
even more of the subminiature - Minox) possible, the main one been the
human eye.
As a rule of thumb, 10X enlargements (dimension wise) would be the
practical, high quality limit.
I've done in the past almost 20 times enlargements, but then the quality
loss was quite visible.
Jorge
James ORourke <analog...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:ycPtb.270265$0v4.17...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
Nick Zentena
> 35mm negative. What is the point where the return investment in image
> quality compared to print size is diminished???
At the point YOU aren't happy any more. Don't let anybody tell you any
different. Personally I like 5x7 and 8x10s but I'll also crop sometimes so
that 8x10 might represent a larger photo.
Nick
--
"It is a mistake, however, to assume that the Zone System therefore 'does
not work' with roll-film cameras; since it is a practical expression of
sensitometric principles, the Zone System remains valid, even though its use
is somewhat different." Adams _The_Negative_
Tom Phillips
The image quality is related to optics. Image *detail* is related to
format. One goes to large format in order to capture larger detail, but
the quality of that detail is controlled by several factors, starting
with the camera, tripod, lens (the system MTF), the resolving abilities
of the film, the type of developer (in b&w), and at the printing stage
the optical quality of the enlarging lens. Contact prints from large
format are preferred by some because they bypass optical systems that
can reduce image quality. When you see detail begin to look fuzzy and
"break down," especially with small format enlargements, that's an
optical issue (whereas graininess is strictly a grain size issue.)
Anything that comes between the film and the paper, including
internegatives made by projection (standard method of making
enlargements from 35mm color slides in most labs) reduces the image
quality even further.
8x10 or possibly 11x14 is generally a standard enlargement limit from an
average 35mm optical system. But it can also depend a good deal on the
subject matter. 35mm landscapes or architecture, usually containing fine
details desirable to reveal through enlargement, can suffer due to both
the lack of large detail and the greater enlargement sizes desired.
Softer focus images, like close ups, head shot portraits, wildlife,
etc., where the depth of field is limited and detail (large or small)
isn't the overriding componant of an image, can actually enlarge quite
well from 35mm. I've seen quality 16x20 and even larger of these types
of 35mm subjects -- usually on fine grained, high resolving power films
like Kodachrome, Tech Pan, etc., and using quality cameras and lenses
like Leica that offer high system MTF (modulation transfer function.)
Leicaddict
equipment. I'm in the process of printing out a 48 b&w print portfolio of
9-11, full frame, on 11x14 Oriental Seagull G, FB (Selenium toned). The
camera is a Leica RF with 50mm lens; the film is T-Max 400; the enlarging
lens is a Rodenstock 50mm APO. The results (at least to my eye) are
stunning. But this is why I've invested in this level of equipment.
Generally I feel that 11x14 is really the max size for 35mm. When
professionally matted and framed, I feel nothing does justice to 35mm like
8x10 or 11x14. I use 5x7 for a portfolio book that I carry with me.
--
THE REAL LEICADDICT
"The Gonzo God of SnapShots"
"James ORourke" <analog...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ycPtb.270265$0v4.17...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
jjs
> The image quality is related to optics. [...]
Oh! Sorry. Wrong room. I thought this thread might have something to do
with esthetics.
"Very few great pictures are technically correct."
jjs
James ORourke <analog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Everybody,
>
> I was reading some interesting articles the other day about the guys that
> use large format 8x10 cameras and how much they love making contact prints
> of their negs of the same size. I am shooting 35mm B&W film right now and
> getting ready to print. Since I need to enlarge, I was wondering if there
> was an optimal print size for a 35mm neg???
The optimal enlargement for 8x10 depends upon what you want or need. If
you want grainless prints regardless of size, small prints are a must. If
you want to LIVE A LITTLE then print whatever size you like and figure it
out for yourself. Grain is not a Bad Thing. Besides, if it's too grainy
and tones aren't what you like, just step back until it is.
Michael Scarpitti
When your technique is good enough, 11x14's are no problem.
Tom Phillips
Get a life. Then get a new quote.
Any 'ol piece of crap can be considered "art." A good photograph is much
harder to achieve -- especially if you don't even understand the process.
Tom Phillips
jjs wrote:
>figure it out for yourself.
With advice like that why bother to ask a question.
jjs
> jjs wrote:
> > "Very few great pictures are technically correct."
>
>
> Get a life. Then get a new quote.
>
> Any 'ol piece of crap can be considered "art." A good photograph is much
> harder to achieve -- especially if you don't even understand the process.
You are baiting, right? You can't be serious. If you applied your
intelligence to Art you would be dearly surprised.
And thanks, but I have a life. A very good life. But I'm afraid that if
you are a metrics fanatic, there's no way to quantify just how good it is,
so you would not understand.
jjs
You can sit down with a machine, pen and pencil, and make all the
calculations you like, but at some point you have to make the pictures.
When you do, then you have to decide whether they do anything but reflect
your perfect metrics. In other words, does the photograph exploit the
technique to 'say' anything important to anyone but those I will mention
in the next paragraph.
Perfect metrics have a tightly constrained course of discourse limited
largely to stamp collector mentalities, scientisms, military
reconnaissance practitioners, persons desperate to rationalize their
spendy hardware purchases, and vision impaired assholes.
Have at it.
Tom Phillips
couch your benighted knowledge in verbose prose of amour-propre.
Anyone here would be glad to answer that which you do not know. MTF, for instance.
jjs
> If you don't understand photography, just say so. You don't have to
> couch your benighted knowledge in verbose prose of amour-propre.
Jeeze, already! Will you stop top-posting?
I understand photography. I also understand that I don't have to be an
optics scientist to make pictures. I know that making a print of, for
example, 20 lp/mm isn't going to be the end of the world, and making one
that's of higher resolution isn't going to save it.
David Nebenzahl
> In article <3FB816EB...@aol.com>, Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> jjs wrote:
>> > "Very few great pictures are technically correct."
>>
>> Get a life. Then get a new quote.
>>
>> Any 'ol piece of crap can be considered "art." A good photograph is much
>> harder to achieve -- especially if you don't even understand the process.
>
> You are baiting, right? You can't be serious. If you applied your
> intelligence to Art you would be dearly surprised.
Unfortunately, he's absolutely right: in fact, I'd go farther, to say that
much crap is glorified as "art" nowadays.
For anyone having trouble with this concept, I suggest a reading (or a
re-reading) of Tom Wolfe's most excellent _The Painted Word_. A very small
book that explains a lot of the absolute drek that's declared to be "aht" by
the poohbahs in New Yawk.
Basically, it's a very bad case of naked emperors and their fawning courtiers.
--
Any fool can tell the truth, but it requires a man of some sense
to know how to tell a lie well.
- Samuel Butler
Gregory W. Blank
nos...@nospam.xxx (jjs) wrote:
> and vision impaired assholes.
Now John you shouldn't be so hard on your self. :-D
--
jjs
<Whowill-...@Hortons.net> wrote:
> In article <nospam-1611...@ip-0-251.sprint-rev.hbci.com>,
> nos...@nospam.xxx (jjs) wrote:
>
> > and vision impaired assholes.
>
> Now John you shouldn't be so hard on your self. :-D
Who said that? Jeeves, my glasses!
Oh, Greg? That's MISTER Asshole to you.
nick
If you do the math it looks like no way. 4X5 to 8X10 is 20 square
inches to 80, a factor of four. 2 1/4 and 5mm dont fit quite but the
math works out to about a factor of 15 for 2 1/4 and about 50+ for
35mm. As I don't like grain, my personal esthetic, when I switched to
35mm with good lenses as I got tired of lugging the medium format
about, I hated the results and had a trash barrel full of rejects. Now
that I use TCN400(a terrible pain compared with regular BW processing)
the grain is essentially nonexistant which pleases me. I then went out
one day, set up tripods and did the same scene with both formats, TMX
in the 2 1/4 and TCN in the 35. The 8X10s were not distinguihable to
the naked eye. Well not exactly naked as I wear glasses. I could, of
course, see the difference in sharpness with the magnifying loupe. So
from my point of view it is quite doable, and if you like or don't
mind grain its a snap. I've seen enough bigger enlargements by others
that I won't go beyond the 8X10
Nick
Jim Phelps
"James ORourke" <analog...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ycPtb.270265$0v4.17...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Hi James,
A lot of the advice given here is really good, and some of it has -as
usual- gone off on tangents. One thing I see missing in all the responses
and comments is you never told us what type of film you'll be using.
For B&W and taking pictorials, then the use of Tech-Pan (you'll have to
develop it yourself (not too hard) or find a pro-lab), will allow you at
least 11X14 from 35mm. If you're using Tri-X, then 8X10 is about the limit.
Most lenses will exceed the capability of Tri-X and even Plus-X (and both
T-Max 100 and 400). Most lenses cannot exceed Tech-Pan. These are just the
Kodak flavors of film. Ilford has wonderful films as well, I'm just not as
well versed in their characteristics as others. I'm a drone to Big Yellow
and I need help;~)
Some of your results will be dependent upon your processing techniques.
If you process your film in Rodinal, you'll get better tonality, but at the
cost of somewhat larger grain structure. Tonality may be a higher priority
for your prints than grain. If grain is a real issue, then D-76 1:1 would
be a better choice. I however would choose a finer grain film than leave it
up to the developer. Your processing of film can have major impact on the
way the film comes out. Find a technique that works for you and works well.
It should be easy to do, as anything that's tedious or difficult will soon
become full of shortcuts.
Nick Zentena is correct and saying it's what you find acceptable. I
won't deny Tom Philips is also correct and saying some of it is optically
related, but even average optics will out perform most films, unless
something goes really wrong. And for once, I agree with Mike Scarpitti
(well, I have in the past, I'm just stating it now). Technique is very
important. A print will look better for the most part if taken with a
camera using a tripod. The film will look better if thought and care is
given to it's processing. A screwed up negative will only give you a
screwed up print.
Good luck.
Jim
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Tom Phillips
Jim Phelps wrote:
> A lot of the advice given here is really good
yes, worthwhile despite recent trolling. What the troll doesn't realize
is the purpose of posting a question is to get a variety of responses...
> Nick Zentena is correct and saying it's what you find acceptable. I
> won't deny Tom Philips is also correct and saying some of it is optically
> related, but even average optics will out perform most films, unless
> something goes really wrong.
Optics isn't only a matter of the lens or film, though. What I meant
(maybe wasn't clear enough) was that "optics" is anything related to the
visual recording system. Of course as some say it all boils down to what
you find acceptable. :-)
Here's a useful way to evaluate your enlarging limits if you want to go
to the trouble: If you shoot a test target (of increasingly smaller line
pairs per millimeter -- see
http://www.efg2.com/Lab/ImageProcessing/TestTargets/) and enlarge, you
can easily determine the resolution capability of your system and what
your acceptable enlarging limit's are. Film resolution has limits, but
optically perfect lenses don't exist either (unless you willing to pay
several thousand dollars for a pragmatically "perfect" lens.) Something
as simple as shutter or tripod shake, or stopping down to far
(diffraction), can impair the sharpness of an image no matter how good
your lens/film is. Then, when you get to the enlarging, there's further
degradation of the image through projection. With a test target you can
trouble shoot, try different developers, and arrive at a quantifiable
definition of "image quality" for your equipment and proceedures.
Tom Phillips
"Gregory W. Blank" wrote:
>
> In article <nospam-1611...@ip-0-251.sprint-rev.hbci.com>,
> nos...@nospam.xxx (jjs) wrote:
>
> > and vision impaired assholes.
>
> Now John you shouldn't be so hard on your self. :-D
Are you saying jjs is a pseudonym for John S.?
David Nebenzahl
"jjs" = John Stafford.
"John" is the other guy, who proclaims himself webmaster, darkroom "pro", etc.
Collin Brendemuehl
How "good" it is will depend on your tastes and what you compare the
results to.
There's a guy here in Columbus, OH, Bill Neiberding,
who makes outstanding 20x30-range prints from 35mm negs.
But it takes a LOT of good work to accomlish it.
Accurate development, specific film/developer combinations, cold light
enlarger head, etc.
Yes, you can get a good enlargement. But nothing excellent is easy.
And sitting by a medium or large format print made by the same
methodology, no matter how good the 35mm, it won't compare.
But at least with a sound practice you can make very acceptable
prints beyond 8x10.
Consider using Fuji Acros with Kodak T-Max developer and spend
some time perfecting the processes. That might be a good starting
point.
Collin
James ORourke <analog...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<ycPtb.270265$0v4.17...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
Michael Scarpitti
> There's a lot involved in getting a quality enlargement.
> How "good" it is will depend on your tastes and what you compare the
> results to.
>
> There's a guy here in Columbus, OH, Bill Neiberding,
> who makes outstanding 20x30-range prints from 35mm negs.
> But it takes a LOT of good work to accomlish it.
> Accurate development, specific film/developer combinations, cold light
> enlarger head, etc.
Cold? No way, Jose....
You need condensers with a thin neg to get the best quality. Have him
contact me. I live Columbus, Ohio too.
Gregory W. Blank
Gregory W. Blank
David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> "John" is the other guy, who proclaims himself webmaster, darkroom "pro", etc.
John Douglas: a fine upstanding individual who is quite knowledgeable and has helped
me many times.
--
Frank Calidonna
bad form. I assume it was because of the way newsreaders were limited. Every
newsreader that I have seen in the last few years will sort by thread and I am
assuming ( bad-I know) that most sort their messages by thread. That being said it
is so much nicer to read what a person has to say rather than scrolling through
often many paragraphs to get at the actual conversation. If you read the post and
still are not sure what one is talking about then scroll down. I like top posting.
Seems to keep the flow of conversation going. The other stuff is just reference.
Frank Rome, NY
Dick
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.0311...@posting.google.com...
TheYankeeSnapper
>From: James ORourke analog...@yahoo.com
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Why not compromise and enlarge to 7x10 full frame. The print quality will be
similar to 5x7 and better than 8x10.
IMO, print quality in 35mm begins with the selection of a fine grain films like
Tmx, Delta 100 or Fuji's Acros. With developer's like D-76, Xtol, Microdol X
and FX-39 to name a few, they will generally give you the the best grain-free
images up to 9x12 or so, but the're not the last word in films. I love the look
of the old line films like, Plus X, and Apx-100 in Xtol, Hp5 in PMK and Tx in
either/or developer. These films are grainier than the modern one's in 35mm; in
6x7 they're better (to me) than the modern ones if you stay 16x20 and smaller.
Regards.
Bob McCarthy
theyanke...@aol.com
jjs
<fra...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> [...] I like top posting.
> Seems to keep the flow of conversation going. The other stuff is just
reference.
If you see the other material, then consider trimming the previous post.
Top posting is a pain in the butt because the next person has to find the
end of your post and insert in the middle, so then it's middle-posting and
becomes a mess.
Tom Phillips
Frank Calidonna wrote:
>
> I have heard that since the beginning of the internet top posting was considered
> bad form.
But serves a useful and rewarding purpose in certain instances :)
> I assume it was because of the way newsreaders were limited. Every
> newsreader that I have seen in the last few years will sort by thread and I am
> assuming ( bad-I know) that most sort their messages by thread. That being said it
> is so much nicer to read what a person has to say rather than scrolling through
> often many paragraphs to get at the actual conversation. If you read the post and
> still are not sure what one is talking about then scroll down.
> I like top posting.
> Seems to keep the flow of conversation going.
Yep. And trumps troll talk :)
>The other stuff is just reference.
And sometimes worthy of being snipped completely, as in...
> > In article <3FB82A94...@aol.com>, Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > If you don't understand photography, just say so. You don't have to
> > > couch your benighted knowledge in verbose prose of amour-propre.
> >
> jjs wrote:
> > Jeeze.....<SNIP> !!
Tom Phillips
"Gregory W. Blank" wrote:
>
> In article <3FB903E2...@aol.com>,
> Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Are you saying jjs is a pseudonym for John S.?
>
> Nope/as David states its John Stafford.
Well, he didn't *sound* like John Douglas. Too Bohemian and esoteric --
boringly so :0)
geo
news:ycPtb.270265$0v4.17...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Hello Everybody,
>
> I was reading some interesting articles the other day about the guys that
> use large format 8x10 cameras and how much they love making contact prints
> of their negs of the same size. I am shooting 35mm B&W film right now and
> getting ready to print. Since I need to enlarge, I was wondering if there
> was an optimal print size for a 35mm neg???
There is no optimal print size. Aesthetics, grain, sharpness, viewing
distance all play a roll. Kodak regularly makes huge enlargements from 35mm
on the Kodarama photo screen in Times Square. Looks great from a block or
two away.
Natural Light Black and White Photography
http://mysite.verizon.net/geost/
-George-
HypoBob
The degree of practical enlargement from a 35mm negative may also depend
on subject matter. I have an 11x14 enlargement from a handheld Tri X
shot of an old wood-framed window that exhibits no grain or other
"beakdowns" simply because the rich texture of the wood camouflages all
faults.
On the other hand, I remember reading that a tree on a distant ridge
line that may be clearly distinguishable as a tree to the human eye,
could be at the ragged limit of 35 mm optics and film and therefore
appear as a blurry protuberance, even if enlarged only a few times. A
medium format negative of the same scene will reveal a clear, sharp,
distinct tree.
When working with 35mm, I try to restrict myself to medium distance
photography. ;-)
Bob
----------------------
Jim Phelps
"Tom Phillips" <nosp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3FB8FFFE...@aol.com...
[SNIP]
>
> Here's a useful way to evaluate your enlarging limits if you want to go
> to the trouble: If you shoot a test target (of increasingly smaller line
> pairs per millimeter -- see
> http://www.efg2.com/Lab/ImageProcessing/TestTargets/) and enlarge, you
> can easily determine the resolution capability of your system and what
> your acceptable enlarging limit's are. Film resolution has limits, but
> optically perfect lenses don't exist either (unless you willing to pay
> several thousand dollars for a pragmatically "perfect" lens.) Something
> as simple as shutter or tripod shake, or stopping down to far
> (diffraction), can impair the sharpness of an image no matter how good
> your lens/film is. Then, when you get to the enlarging, there's further
> degradation of the image through projection. With a test target you can
> trouble shoot, try different developers, and arrive at a quantifiable
> definition of "image quality" for your equipment and proceedures.
Tom,
Thanks for the advise. I have done end to end resolution testing of my
systems (both 35 mm -Canon FD, MF - Rollei 6008, and APO-Rodagon-N's in the
D/R). Optics do play a role in the final image, the contrast, the
resolution, etc., but not as major a role with the way a B&W print looks on
paper as we tend to think (IMHO). I'm talking about the graininess, the
tonality and the microcontrasts (the last two are a bit redundant, but not
entirely so). Grain the enlarger lens can project just that much sharper
and well defined is just better defined grain. Would it not be more correct
to say the aesthetics of the final print is a product of the film/developer
and technique than the lens resolution numbers (and negative size, but
we've limited that to 35mm)? This is what I was (not so clearly?) speaking
of.
Theoretical system resolution gives you wonderful numbers to play with, but
it all comes down to the final print. A 35mm print from Tech Pan will rival
a MF print from Plus-X in almost all ways except microcontrast. I recently
printed some MF shots taken on Plus-X and developed in PMK (first time I
used PMK and have since thrown away my D-76!). I enlarged them to 16X20, or
about the same as a 35mm at 8X10. No grain and due to the enhanced edge
effects, there's a vividness and sharpness that goes beyond anything I've
done to date with Plus-X (Tech Pan is another story).
Anyway you look at it, we're both right. I hope the OP has taken something
from both of our comments and has learned. That's what it's all about!
Collin Brendemuehl
condensor work I've seen in the past. (Stupid assumption on my part?)
Anyway, go into Midwest Photo Gallery & look @ his stuff.
Collin
mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message news:<2fd2ff8c.0311...@posting.google.com>...
jjs
dpcw...@excite.com (Collin Brendemuehl) wrote:
> I may be mistaken as to what he's using but it doesn't look like
> condensor work I've seen in the past. (Stupid assumption on my part?)
> Anyway, go into Midwest Photo Gallery & look @ his stuff.
Just purged my killfile so I may have missed the URL. Got one for the
photos in question?
Jorge Omar
condensers' with point source light - and AFAIK only subminiature
enlargers use it.
The typical condenser enlarger, with an opal lamp, is midway between the
two.
Jorge
dpcw...@excite.com (Collin Brendemuehl) wrote in
news:10c1a061.03111...@posting.google.com:
Tom Phillips
I'd say it depends on the lens Jim. Some are better, some not so. I
mean, is there a difference between a cheap 50mm Beseler and a 50mm
Componon? You tell me :)
> Theoretical system resolution gives you wonderful numbers to play with, but
> it all comes down to the final print.
Aesthetically what you say is correct of course. Aesthetically, even a
fuzzy, unsharp image can be what someone wants. Camera shake and cheap
optics can be a good thing, if that's one's aesthetic. But what if you
want or need to have fine, sharp detail? What if you're photographing
Egyptian hieroglyphics and want the largest, sharpest enlargement
possible? You can only do that if you know what your camera-optics-film
system is capable of. If I were shooting in 35mm and didn't know the
resolution I'd get, I'd err on the safe side and shoot Tech Pan, with a
leica if possible.
> A 35mm print from Tech Pan will rival
> a MF print from Plus-X in almost all ways except microcontrast. I recently
> printed some MF shots taken on Plus-X and developed in PMK (first time I
> used PMK and have since thrown away my D-76!). I enlarged them to 16X20, or
> about the same as a 35mm at 8X10. No grain and due to the enhanced edge
> effects, there's a vividness and sharpness that goes beyond anything I've
> done to date with Plus-X (Tech Pan is another story).
>
> Anyway you look at it, we're both right.
I'd never disagree with that :)
Tom Phillips
HypoBob wrote:
>
> Tom,
>
> The degree of practical enlargement from a 35mm negative may also depend
> on subject matter. I have an 11x14 enlargement from a handheld Tri X
> shot of an old wood-framed window that exhibits no grain or other
> "beakdowns" simply because the rich texture of the wood camouflages all
> faults.
Quite right, Bob.
Jim Phelps
> I'd say it depends on the lens Jim. Some are better, some not so. I
> mean, is there a difference between a cheap 50mm Beseler and a 50mm
> Componon? You tell me :)
>
Fully agree. I noticed a pleasant change going from an El-Nikkor 50/2.8 to
the APO Rodagon-N. And let's face it, the El-Nikkor is no dog! Most of the
change was in color transmission and contrast. Resolution stayed about the
same, but my eyes are getting older!
>
> Aesthetically what you say is correct of course. Aesthetically, even a
> fuzzy, unsharp image can be what someone wants. Camera shake and cheap
> optics can be a good thing, if that's one's aesthetic.
Does anyone take Lomo-heads serious? I'm asking this as a valid question,
but admittedly tongue in cheek.
>But what if you
> want or need to have fine, sharp detail? What if you're photographing
> Egyptian hieroglyphics and want the largest, sharpest enlargement
> possible? You can only do that if you know what your camera-optics-film
> system is capable of. If I were shooting in 35mm and didn't know the
> resolution I'd get, I'd err on the safe side and shoot Tech Pan, with a
> leica if possible.
>
Ah Leica, I've never used one. Heard all the wonderful comments about them
and don't know if they're true. I use Zeiss and Schneider lenses on my
Rollei and can't believe anything can be as good as the Schneider's. But
then again, that's comparing apples to oranges with a Leica. The Rollei has
the format advantage!
Tom, Thanks for the wonderful discussion. It's proof that all threads
don't have to deteriorate into a name calling, tit-for-tat, hard headed
flame war.
Hemi4268
>format.
Wrong. Image detail has only 3 imputs. Distance, resolution and focal length.
The size of the film is NOT a factor.
Each of the three imputs can be traded. Example you get exactly the same
detail with a 50mm lens at 20 ft as a 100mm lens at 40 ft using the same film.
Larry
chmc
"Hemi4268" <hemi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031121134044...@mb-m16.aol.com...
That would seem to make sense, otherwise whatever you took a picture of with
a telephoto lens would be fuzzy.
Tom Phillips
Wrong. Distance has zero to do with it. Focal length has zero to do with
it. BTW, that 50mm is 165 - 180mm on a 4x5 (same angle of view) but no
matter how good your 50mm lens and how great your "resolution," you're
still only capturing detail in 35mm format -- a 1.3x.9 inch negative or
barely 1&1/4 inches square. The same scene and and same angle of view in
4x5 is nearly 20 times greater area for the same detail. Bigger negative
= bigger and better defined detail for the same angle of view.
Tom Phillips
Now you've done it. You're on the verge of making Usenet a better place :)
John
I have to disagree. Larger films can capture and reproduce most detail.
This is very obvious in prints from contact sheets to wall-sized murals.
IMO the only three significant factors are lens resolution, media
resolution and format. Of course lens resolution would be for both the taking
and enlarging lenses and the media resolution would be for all media used.
Format is simply the container for all if the image information. A large format
negative will capture more image information than an image from a small format
camera as it is less limited by the media.
There have been many works published to the net which can provide some
really good insights on the technical issues. My favorite is
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/lenslpm.html
Regards,
John S. Douglas - Photographer, Webmaster & Computer Tech
Please remove the "_" when replying via email
Website --- http://www.darkroompro.com
Hemi4268
>= bigger and better defined detail for the same angle of view.
So your saying if you cut the negative in half and you get half that better
defined detail.
I tried that. I took a 4x5 negative showing detail of numbers on the wall. I
cut it in half and the numbers still show the same. I cut it in half again and
the numbers still had the same sharpness. Seem that no matter how much I cut
down that negative, the numbers on the wall still have the same detail.
Larry
Hemi4268
>resolution and format.
Well think of it this way. Two photographers taking a wedding party picture.
One is using a Nikon with a 50mm lens and standing 20 ft away using 160 ASA
film The other using a Hasselblad with a 50 mm lens also 20 ft away and 160
film.
How much more detail will the Hasselblad photographer record of the wedding
dress then the photographer using the Nikon.
Answere, the detail will be the same. The only real difference is the
Hasselblad will have a larger angle.
Again
1 Resolution
2 Focal Length
3 Distance
Larry
Hemi4268
>4x5 is nearly 20 times greater area for the same detail. Bigger negative
>= bigger and better defined detail for the same angle of view.
Well 35mm to 4x5 is really not 20 times. People get area mixed up with
magnification. Area is only correct for the amount of light need to expose an
image.
Resolution is 2 directional. Example, to blow up a 35mm image to 4x5 takes a 4
times blowup. So a 35mm image needs to have only 4 times the resolution as a
4x5 negative for both to be equal.
This is why you don't see 4x5 cameras a news events anymore.
Larry'
Hemi4268
>negative will capture more image information than an image from a small
>format
>camera as it is less limited by the media.
Yes but image imformation and image detail are two different things. One is
quality measurment (image detail) and the other is amount measurment (image
information or coverage) .
Example when you cut a negative in half you do not reduce the image detail of
both halfs of the negative as both halfs remain unchanged other then a cut down
the middle. You do however reduce the amount of total information or coverage
of each half.
Larry
Nicholas O. Lindan
> I took a 4x5 negative showing detail of numbers on the wall. I
> cut it in half and the numbers still show the same. I cut it in half again and
> the numbers still had the same sharpness.
Yes, but what about the sharpness of the half of the negative you threw away?
Half the information in the negative (and half the total detail) went into
the trash every time the negative was cut.
Take the 1/8th of a negative you have left and make another negative
framing the same subject area as the 1/8th but filling the whole
negative. Enlarge both to the same size. The big negative holds
more detail, or not?
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio noli...@ix.netcom.com
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Hemi4268
>the trash every time the negative was cut.
Again information and detal are two different things. Detail is the lace on a
wedding dress. Information is the wedding party. Detail on the dress does not
change when you cut the negative in half. However total information (the
complete wedding party) might be less.
Larry
Tom Phillips
Hemi4268 wrote:
>
> >IMO the only three significant factors are lens resolution, media
> >resolution and format.
>
> Well think of it this way. Two photographers taking a wedding party picture.
> One is using a Nikon with a 50mm lens and standing 20 ft away using 160 ASA
> film The other using a Hasselblad with a 50 mm lens also 20 ft away and 160
> film.
>
> How much more detail will the Hasselblad photographer record of the wedding
> dress then the photographer using the Nikon.
>
> Answere, the detail will be the same.
Wrong.
> The only real difference is the
> Hasselblad will have a larger angle.
Also bigger detail. Same angle of view or different angle of view, makes
no difference. They're different sized negatives. The bigger the
negative and format,the bigger detail. It's just that simple.
This ain't rocket science...
Tom Phillips
Hemi4268 wrote:
>
> >The same scene and and same angle of view in
> >4x5 is nearly 20 times greater area for the same detail. Bigger negative
> >= bigger and better defined detail for the same angle of view.
>
> Well 35mm to 4x5 is really not 20 times. People get area mixed up with
> magnification. Area is only correct for the amount of light need to expose an
> image.
The area is relative to the size of the detail captured. Same scene,
same detail, but different formats. I.e., smaller format, smaller area,
smaller detail. Bigger format, bigger area, bigger detail.
> Resolution is 2 directional. Example, to blow up a 35mm image to 4x5 takes a 4
> times blowup. So a 35mm image needs to have only 4 times the resolution as a
> 4x5 negative for both to be equal.
That has to do with enlargement ratios, not resolution.
> This is why you don't see 4x5 cameras a news events anymore.
You don't see speed graphics used in journalism anymore because
journalists prefer carrying smaller, lighter weight cameras that offer
the convenience of using roll film. Been that way for decades -- ever
since 35mm SLR cameras hit the market...
Tom Phillips
"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:
>
> "Hemi4268" <hemi...@aol.com> wrote
>
> > I took a 4x5 negative showing detail of numbers on the wall. I
> > cut it in half and the numbers still show the same. I cut it in half again and
> > the numbers still had the same sharpness.
>
> Yes, but what about the sharpness of the half of the negative you threw away?
>
> Half the information in the negative (and half the total detail) went into
> the trash every time the negative was cut.
>
> Take the 1/8th of a negative you have left and make another negative
> framing the same subject area as the 1/8th but filling the whole
> negative. Enlarge both to the same size. The big negative holds
> more detail, or not?
This isn't serious, he's just trolling...
Hemi4268
RIGHT
Hemi4268
Actually it is rocket science. Focal length, resolution and distance
calculations are built into every space photo taken.
So if you need to see a detail on the ground of X size, all you need to know is
the focal length of the system, the resolution of the system and the distance
of the object of interest.
See, simple rocket science.
Larry
Hemi4268
The rocket scence says enlargments and resolution go hand and hand.
Larry
Tom Phillips
Hemi4268 wrote:
>
> >That has to do with enlargement ratios, not resolution.
>
> The rocket scence says enlargments and resolution go hand and hand.
A 35mm film can have the same resolution as a 4x5 film. Same for lenses.
The 4x5 still captures greater detail due solely to it's *SIZE*.
Tom Phillips
Hemi4268 wrote:
> See, simple rocket science.
>
> Larry
See, Killfile...
Hemi4268
Best news yet.
Larry
Hemi4268
>
No, it's due to the larger focal length used in 4x5 cameras vs the smaller
focal length 35mm cameras.
Larry
David Nebenzahl
Wait a minute: I think he's right. It's kind of a trick proposition, since
he's hyothesizing using the same focal-length lens with both cameras.
Since both lenses are the same focal length (50mm), they'll both be producing
the same size image on the film plane. The only difference will be, as you
said, the angle of view: the 50mm on the Hassy will be taking in a wider angle
of view *across the entire negative*.
But the image of any part of the image--say a part of the wedding dress--will
be *exactly the same size* on both negatives. Therefore, the Hassy will *not*
record "more detail", just more of the scene.
This round goes to "Hemi".
--
Governator Ahnold's first order of business:
Blowing a $4.2 billion hole in our state's budget.
Hemi4268
>
Thanks
Larry
Gregory W. Blank
David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> Wait a minute: I think he's right. It's kind of a trick proposition, since
> he's hyothesizing using the same focal-length lens with both cameras.
>
> Since both lenses are the same focal length (50mm), they'll both be producing
> the same size image on the film plane. The only difference will be, as you
> said, the angle of view: the 50mm on the Hassy will be taking in a wider angle
> of view *across the entire negative*.
>
> But the image of any part of the image--say a part of the wedding dress--will
> be *exactly the same size* on both negatives. Therefore, the Hassy will *not*
> record "more detail", just more of the scene.
>
> This round goes to "Hemi".
Actually they are both wrong, because both have valid points but can't see
that the others view point as a piece of the completed puzzle.
--
Hemi4268
>that the others view point as a piece of the completed puzzle.
Actually photography is art, science and a religion. Discription of different
terms may need to be done first in order to discuss photography.
Even the difference between the word detail and details can be a big deal. A
larger negative may have more details but no more detail if the focal length,
distance and resolution are all the same.
Larry
Gregory W. Blank
hemi...@aol.com (Hemi4268) wrote:
> >Actually they are both wrong, because both have valid points but can't see
> >that the others view point as a piece of the completed puzzle.
>
> Actually photography is art, science and a religion. Discription of different
> terms may need to be done first in order to discuss photography.
> Even the difference between the word detail and details can be a big deal.
Makes all the difference, I use to have a survey boss who would repeatly
state watch for the details.
>A larger negative may have more details but no more detail if the focal length,
> distance and resolution are all the same.
> Larry
Correct. With one consideration, a wider angle will show slightly more edge
softness than a flat, appearing telephoto image.
--
Dana Myers
> Hello Everybody,
>
> I was reading some interesting articles the other day about the guys that
> use large format 8x10 cameras and how much they love making contact prints
> of their negs of the same size. I am shooting 35mm B&W film right now and
> getting ready to print. Since I need to enlarge, I was wondering if there
> was an optimal print size for a 35mm neg??? Currently my plans are to
> enlarg to a 5x7 print with an occasional 8x10. I would like to experiment
> with going higher but I am wondering if it would be a waste of time with
> 35mm negative. What is the point where the return investment in image
> quality compared to print size is diminished???
You'll get a million different opinions.
I once made a few 16x20 prints from XP-1 (yeah, it
was 18 years ago) that looked *great*. Really great.
TMY in dilute Xtol, 16x20s are also great looking to my
eye.
Viewing distance is a huge factor. People that stand up
close and inspect large prints are being too fastidious,
unless, like me, they're thinking about larger prints.
The best thing you can do is try making some enlargements
and see what you like. A cheaper way of experimenting is
to make 8x10s of portions of prints that would be 16x20
(or more) and view them "normally".
I'm close to falling into a major B&W retro kick and
shooting a pile of TMY/Xtol and making large prints to
hang, uh, I dunno. Thanks for pushing me closer to the
edge.
I'm also about to buy my family a G5 or Digital Rebel
for normal snapshot use. Talk about dichotomies, right?
Dana
Dana Myers
>
> jjs wrote:
>
>>In article <3FB7EB9D...@aol.com>, Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>"Very few great pictures are technically correct."
> Get a life. Then get a new quote.
>
> Any 'ol piece of crap can be considered "art." A good photograph is much
> harder to achieve -- especially if you don't even understand the process.
Say whatever you want, I've long said a technically perfect, boring photograph
is a boring photograph. Full stop.
Interesting images tolerate a great range of technical imperfections.
Do you inspect 16x20s from 3 inches away? :-)
Dana
Dana Myers
> Unfortunately, he's absolutely right: in fact, I'd go farther, to say
> that much crap is glorified as "art" nowadays.
That's non-sequitor. "art" is whatever someone thinks it is and there
is no better definition that isn't a shove down a slippery slope. Amusingly,
none of that changes that fact that technically perfect boring photos are simply
boring photos, but an interesting image is always interesting.
Dana
P.S. I used to inspect 16x20s from 3 inches away and talk about the
film. Then I learned... no one gives a flying f*ck about film. It's the
image. Most people would look away from nude photos of me in horror, even
if they were perfectly produced on Tech Pan, but everyone will look at
nudes of Giselle, even if they were shot on old Tri-X pushed two stops in
Rodinal.
Tom Phillips
Sure, it might help if one could figure out what hemi is actually
talking about. Instead, he's simply challenging a known photographic
fact: bigger film means bigger detail. If he's right, why the
meaningless nonsense about cutting up a 4x5 negative and then claiming
"but the detail stays the same size." Of course it does, A cut up 4x5 is
still a 4x5.
jjs
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, he's absolutely right: in fact, I'd go farther, to say
> > that much crap is glorified as "art" nowadays.
>
> That's non-sequitor. "art" is whatever someone thinks it is and there
> is no better definition that isn't a shove down a slippery slope.
It is not a slippery slope to the informed. Put your intellectual ice
creepers on and enjoy. Or slide.
jjs
> Say whatever you want, I've long said a technically perfect, boring photograph
> is a boring photograph. Full stop.
Correction: It is a _perfectly_ boring picture.
James Meckley
> Do you inspect 16x20s from 3 inches away? :-)
But, of course! Doesn't everyone? :-)
James Meckley
Tom Phillips
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> Wait a minute: I think he's right. It's kind of a trick proposition, since
> he's hyothesizing using the same focal-length lens with both cameras.
>
> Since both lenses are the same focal length (50mm), they'll both be producing
> the same size image on the film plane.
But that's not the issue, and it's a pointless abstract issue IMO, not a
practical, pragmatic issue. One, the image is not the same size
regardless. Two, to obtain the ***same*** image on different formats
(which relates to angle of view, not focal length) you must use an 80mm
on 2&1/4, not a 50mm.
Changing the focal length for a given format increases or reduces the
angle of view and alters the lens to film distance. But it doesn't alter
the film format-size. What this means is the subject may change in size
on a given format when changing focal length, but it doesn't change the
film size. They're different sized negatives. Bigger negative and
format, bigger detail. It's still just that simple.
> But the image of any part of the image--say a part of the wedding dress--will
> be *exactly the same size* on both negatives.
Enlarge both and see which shows more detail in the dress, if you're so
inclined to test hemi's arguments. But photographers who shoot
professionally don't sit around and contemplate such pointless
arguments. They know larger format captures greater detail. That's why
they use a hasselblad instead of a point and shoot :) They don't say,
"I'm shooting this in wide angle on the 2&1/4. Guess I should instead
use my point and shoot with a normal lens since the quality and detail
will be the same." It's not going to happen, since hemi's theory is one
thing, practical application is another.
> Therefore, the Hassy will *not*
> record "more detail", just more of the scene.
But irrelevant. No one shoots a scene in 35mm and then decides to change
to a larger format for the purpose of altering the composition and
"losing" detail in the process. You use a comparable lens to achieve the
same angle of view. Also, I guarantee if I shoot a scene in 35 format
with a 100mm lens and then shoot the same scene with a 90mm super
anglulon in 4x5, a 16x20 enlargement is still going to favor the the 4x5.
> This round goes to "Hemi".
Sorry, he appears to me to be just trolling for an argument...
Tom Phillips
Dana Myers wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> >
> > jjs wrote:
> >
> >>In article <3FB7EB9D...@aol.com>, Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>"Very few great pictures are technically correct."
>
> > Get a life. Then get a new quote.
> >
> > Any 'ol piece of crap can be considered "art." A good photograph is much
> > harder to achieve -- especially if you don't even understand the process.
>
> Say whatever you want, I've long said a technically perfect, boring photograph
> is a boring photograph. Full stop.
Tell that to Ansel Adams, Bret Weston, Timothy O'Sullivan, etc., etc.,
etc. All were masters of technique as were all great photogrpahers. Case closed.
Tom Phillips
Often my clients do. When they order mural sized prints and pay several
hundred dollars, they pay for perfection.
jjs
> > Say whatever you want, I've long said a technically perfect, boring
photograph
> > is a boring photograph. Full stop.
>
> Tell that to Ansel Adams, Bret Weston, Timothy O'Sullivan, etc., etc.,
> etc. All were masters of technique as were all great photogrpahers. Case
closed.
Their pictures aren't boring. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Your agenda is making you stupid. Please put me back into your killfile.
jjs
Show us some of these pictures, Tom! Seriously. Interested.
Tim Daneliuk
><SNIP>
> The image quality is related to optics. Image *detail* is related to
> format. One goes to large format in order to capture larger detail, but
> the quality of that detail is controlled by several factors, starting
> with the camera, tripod, lens (the system MTF), the resolving abilities
> of the film, the type of developer (in b&w), and at the printing stage
> the optical quality of the enlarging lens. Contact prints from large
Uh, I usually stay out of these discussions, but the above isn't quite
right because "image quality" is too impreceise a term to have much meaning.
Instead, I would say:
1) Image _resolution_ (in the final print) is a function of the optical
chain, the degree of magnification, the film, the developer(s) and
the paper.
2) As a practical matter, if everything else is held constant, a print of
a given size will *always* have less resolution from a small negative
as compared to the same print from a larger negative. The reason is
that the final print resolution is the resolution of the negative
divided by the magnification ratio. It takes roughly an 10x magnification
to make an 8x10 from a 35mm negative and only 2x to make an 8x10 from
a 4x5 negative. _If everything else is the same_, the 8x10 made
from the 35mm negative will have about 1/5 (2x/10x) the resolution
of the print from the 4x5 neg.
3) But .. all things are *not* equal. Recognizing the problems of 2)
above, 35mm camera manufacturers go to great lengths to improve the
resolutions of their optics. It is counterintuitive, but most modern
good 35mm lenses have _more_ resolving power than the lenses on, say, a
Hasselblad or 4x5 view cameras. This is possible, in part, because
a lens designed for 35mm use need cover a much smaller area than a MF
or LF lens and thus are (much) easier to optimize. To keep weight and
cost under control, MF and LF lens designers optimize resolution to
the degree necessary with their larger negative size in mind.
4) As you point out, many other things can affect overall image quality
having nothing to do with the resolving power of the lens used.
Various lens aberrations inherent in the design, vibration, flare,
and so forth can all degrade the final image even if there is plenty
of resolution in the optical/film/paper/developer chain. For example,
you can have a very "sharp" picture which is inferior because of
internal lens flare (due to poor coating or insufficient shading).
5) The OP wanted to know how big one could practically enlarge a 35mm
negative. The answer is, "as big as you like." I have seen stunning
16x20s from 35mm negatives. BUT ... they will _never_ be as good
as those shot on a larger format camera. That's why a 30 year old
used Mamiya TLR can be made to consistently outperform (better final
prints) the best new Nikons, Canons, and Leicas. Obviously, there are
places where _only_ 35mm is usable and there are also other limitations
to consider with the larger formats: more weight, loss of spontanaeity,
less depth-of-field for a given angle of view and so forth are all
part of the tradeoffs one encounters when using larger formats.
6) Image resolution or quality is not the whole story by a long shot.
Being able to even shoot the image is the first priority. Underwater
photography is essentially impossible with a view camera. Sports with
a MF SLR is tortuous (though not impossible). Street photography
with anything other than a small camera is usually impractical and so
on.
7) Final percieved image quality has as much to do with how the print
is lit and the viewing distance as anything else. Ctein has written
extensively (and well) on this subject. All of the technical
perfection in the world cannot overcome a print that is poorly lit,
seen too close or too far, or hung against a lousy background.
I have shot in very major format from 16mm Minox to 4x5 large format on- and
off for over 30 years. With good exposure discipline and careful darkroom
technique, it is possible to get excellent prints from any of these formats.
I have handheld shots from 35mm blown up to 11x14 that are absolutely tack
sharp, contrasty, and well defined ... or so I think until I go look at
prints made with an ancient Mamiya TLR or one of my 30+ year old Artar lenses
with a view camera. In short, if image quality is your prime concern,
"there ain't no substitute for square inches."
P.S. In case anyone cares, these problems do not go away with digital, they
merely take on a new name. It is entirely practical to put very high
resolution optics on a digital camera precisely because the lens only has
to cover a small CCD - typically substantially smaller than even a 35mm neg.
However, the resolving power of a digital system is typically limited by
the resolution of the CCD itself (measured in megapixels) and overall image
quality is bounded by the noise of the electronics in the system. On top of
that you have the problem that the entire reproduction chain has to be calibrated
for consistency: the monitor, printer, inks, and paper have to be set up so
that "what you see is really what you get". Much of the disciplines learned
in wet photography like Zone System calibration have analogs and utility in
the digital world. That said, I mostly stay away from digital precisely because
I have yet to see a camera/ccd/printer/paper combo that even remotely
approximates what I get with Afgapan 100 4x5/PMK Pyro/Bergger VC NB split
print. As I say, it ain't even close yet...
I-Love-The-Smell-Of-Hypo-In-The-Morning-ly Yours,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Tim Daneliuk
>>The image quality is related to optics. Image *detail* is related to
>>format.
>
>
> Wrong. Image detail has only 3 imputs. Distance, resolution and focal length.
> The size of the film is NOT a factor.
>
> Each of the three imputs can be traded. Example you get exactly the same
> detail with a 50mm lens at 20 ft as a 100mm lens at 40 ft using the same film.
>
> Larry
Not even close to right. The final resolution of the print
(measured in line pairs per millimeter - lpm) assuming a lossless
enlarging chain and no degradation in the paper used, is:
print resolution = film lpm
--------
Enlarging Ratio
Say we want to make an 8x10 print with from a 35mm neg (10x) and a 4x5
neg (2x). Let's say each negative contains 60 lpm of resolution:
Print res made from 35mm: 60/10 = 6 lpm
Print res made from 4x5: 60/2 = 30 lpm
For a thorough explanation of all this, see Ctein's book, "Post Exposure"
--
Tim Daneliuk
That's true as far as it goes, but is insufficiently defined. A good
part of the question is _why_ there are technical imperfections. If the
imperfections are a consquence of the circumstances of shooting, they
can indeed be overlooked. For example, we tolerate less than perfect
16x20 or 20x24 photos of sporting events shot on a 35mm camera because
the image would typically not even be possible with other cameras - we're
used to that "sports picture" look and can see beyond its technical limitations.
Similarly, we can overlook a myriad of technical problems when we see a
"once in a lifetime" shot often seen in photojournalism or street photography.
However, when the technical imperfection is a consequence of lousy, sloppy,
or non-existant technique on the part of the photographer, it is unforgivable.
A given format/film/paper/etc. combination ought to be mastered such that
you can push it to its practical limits of performance without a lot of
thought. The "beauty is more important than technique" argument has no
more validity than the "technique is everything" argument. Making great
prints takes Hands, Head, AND Heart - focusing on one to the exclusion of
the others is foolish not to mention intellectually dishonest.
What is generally true, however, is that excellence in technique must _precede_
artistic vision. At least that was my experience. It was not until I did the
hard work of mastering technique that I was able to realize my artistic
ideas. Exposure control, darkroom consistency, and so forth are now so second
nature to me that I spend very little time giving them much conscious thought
anymore - my mind is free to remain primarily concerned with the final image
while I am shooting, and for that matter, printing in the darkroom.
I am always suspicious of "artists" who diminish the importance of technique -
they almost invariably do NOT produce "interesting" work which allows
us overlook the technical flaws. Almost without exception, I find people who
denegrate the importance of technique in their own work to fundamentally
just be lazy, not particularly creative. My first exposure to the arts
was music, not photography. Any seriously trained musician (I am not one)
is deeply steeped in technique before anything else. Technique (playing
scales, music theory, arranging, etc.) is considered the bedrock upon
which the artistic process rests. That's why world-class symphony
conductors are typically also very competent instrumentalists before they
are conductors.
Technique is a necessary precondition of full artistic expression.
John
>You don't see speed graphics used in journalism anymore because
>journalists prefer carrying smaller, lighter weight cameras that offer
>the convenience of using roll film.
And it allows them the opportunity to shoot a thousand frames.
>Been that way for decades -- ever
>since 35mm SLR cameras hit the market...
Ummm, not quite. The death knell of the Speed Graphic didn't sound until
someone made a fine grain, high speed film called Tri-X. Or was it HP-3 ?
Regards,
John S. Douglas - Photographer, Webmaster & Computer Tech
Please remove the "_" when replying via email
Website --- http://www.darkroompro.com
John
>Actually photography is art, science and a religion.
Yes but you are talking about the scientific part here. Easily defined,
discussed and conclusions drawn.
John
>I'm also about to buy my family a G5 or Digital Rebel
>for normal snapshot use. Talk about dichotomies, right?
Why ? Digital is the perfect replacement for the Polaroid.
John
>>Half the information in the negative (and half the total detail) went into
>>the trash every time the negative was cut.
>
>Again information and detal are two different things.
But they are interdependent. If you don't have the info, you're not going
to have the detail.
John
<Whowill-...@Hortons.net> wrote:
>Actually they are both wrong, because both have valid points but can't see
>that the others view point as a piece of the completed puzzle.
Exactly. But then as the saying goes "There are none so blind as those who
will not see ."
John
>Yes but image imformation and image detail are two different things. One is
>quality measurment (image detail) and the other is amount measurment (image
>information or coverage) .
Given identical resolutions then the image information would be image
detail. Of course LF lenses do not resolve as high as those on 35mm though the
difference is easily offset by image magnification during negative enlargement.
Hemi4268
>
>Print res made from 35mm: 60/10 = 6 lpm
>
>Print res made from 4x5: 60/2 = 30 lpm
>
>For a thorough explanation of all this, see Ctein's book, "Post Exposure"
>
Corrrect in every way except for magnification. The 35mm is more like 8x. Yes
I know, 10x might be used but the aspect ratio is all out of wack. Best to
even out the short side of the film. With 35mm it's 1 inch and with 4x5 it's 4
inches. So the 35mm needs to have 4 times the resolution of the 4x5 negative
to be equal. Most older images shot with 4x5 Super Pancro Press of the 1950's
runs about 30 l/mm. So a modern 35mm image needs to be about 120 l/mm to be
equal in overall image quality of that old 4x5.
I would say Plus-X pan Tmax is very close to this today.
What I am talking about is, if you had two images one with a Hasselblad using a
50 mm lens and the other with a Nikon using a 50mm lens with both images were
taken 20 feet away using 160ASA 80 l/mm type film, The wedding dress will have
the exact same detail. It would be the exact same size on both negatives and
blown up 4 times the dress would have the exact same size, detail and
sharpness.
Larry
aas...@ix.netcom.com
Not having seen nude photos of Giselle we are in no position to accept your
statement. Perhaps if you would show us some?
Bert
aasainz...@ix.netcom.com
That sounds like an interesting statement but since we have not seen nude
photos of Giselle we cannot accept it. Perhaps if you sent us some... ;-)
Bert
jjs
>
> You don't see speed graphics used in journalism anymore because
> journalists prefer carrying smaller, lighter weight cameras that offer
> the convenience of using roll film.
Some, perhaps most, major newspapers are moving to 100% digital. So be it.
Jorge Omar
contrast.
As MTF tests show, a good modern film/lens combo will have high
resolution - up to 120 lpm, but then contrast is down.
The maximum contrast/resolution point is more like 50 lpm.
That's one of the basis for 10x enlargements - at normal reading
distances, the eye cannot define more than 5 lpm.
Jorge
hemi...@aol.com (Hemi4268) wrote in
news:20031123091529...@mb-m14.aol.com:
Dennis O'Connor
<aasainz...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3FC0D051...@ix.netcom.com...
aasainz...@ix.netcom.com
Which is a reflection on the makeup of this NG, genderwise.
Bert
Dana Myers
> Dana Myers wrote:
>
>> Tom Phillips wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> jjs wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <3FB7EB9D...@aol.com>, Tom Phillips
>>>> <nosp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> "Very few great pictures are technically correct."
>>
>>
>>
>>> Get a life. Then get a new quote.
>>>
>>> Any 'ol piece of crap can be considered "art." A good photograph is much
>>> harder to achieve -- especially if you don't even understand the
>>> process.
>>
>>
>>
>> Say whatever you want, I've long said a technically perfect, boring
>> photograph
>> is a boring photograph. Full stop.
>>
>> Interesting images tolerate a great range of technical imperfections.
>
>
> That's true as far as it goes, but is insufficiently defined.
Well, it's my comment and I've completely defined it as far as I'm
concerned.
> A good
> part of the question is _why_ there are technical imperfections.
Not really. It just isn't relevant if the image is interesting.
...
> However, when the technical imperfection is a consequence of lousy, sloppy,
> or non-existant technique on the part of the photographer, it is
> unforgivable.
I simply don't agree. If an image is interesting to look at,
people will tolerate a wide range of technical imperfection. The
source of the imperfection is simply irrelevant.
Now, it's easy to spot imperfections and analyze them, and, if
we figure out the imperfections were due to poor practice, be
especially critical of the photographer. Sure, it's human
nature.
But this misses the point. If the image is interesting, what
are we doing picking it apart at a purely technical level?
...
> Technique is a necessary precondition of full artistic expression.
I don't fundamentally disagree. But, it's somewhat orthogonal from
my original point, which might be restated "
Dana
Dana Myers
>
> Dana Myers wrote:
>>Say whatever you want, I've long said a technically perfect, boring photograph
>>is a boring photograph. Full stop.
>
>
> Tell that to Ansel Adams, Bret Weston, Timothy O'Sullivan, etc., etc.,
> etc. All were masters of technique as were all great photogrpahers. Case closed.
I fail to see your point. Are you saying that a boring image
produced by a technical master is somehow more interesting?
Dana
Hemi4268
>resolution - up to 120 lpm, but then contrast is down.
>The maximum contrast/resolution point is more like 50 lpm.
>
>That's one of the basis for 10x enlargements - at normal reading
>distances, the eye cannot define more than 5 lpm.
>
>Jorge
Agreed but at least some contrast can be gained back with good enlarger lenses
used at the correct mag ratios. These 10x
enlargments from 35mm are really 10 by 15 inch prints rather then 8x10. Even
8X enlargments are 8x12 prints.
Larry
jjs
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> > However, when the technical imperfection is a consequence of lousy, sloppy,
> > or non-existant technique on the part of the photographer, it is
> > unforgivable.
>
> I simply don't agree. If an image is interesting to look at,
> people will tolerate a wide range of technical imperfection. The
> source of the imperfection is simply irrelevant.
Tim made a good case for his point-of-view. Informed people do like some
assurance that what they are seeing is intentional: that the photographer
is aware of the vocabulary of his craft. If something appears sloppy, or
loose he wants to know the photographer is making a statement about the
medium itself, the situation, whatever. On the other hand, and still
important, is the 'primitive' aspect of photography, just as in other
crafts. But do we have a Grandma Moses of photography yet? :)
BTW, I don't think Tim is obviating pictures which have importance and are
a mess due to the conditions, such as the case of Robert Capa's combat
photos. In those cases, the technical quality of the images speak to the
event.
> [...]
> But this misses the point. If the image is interesting, what
> are we doing picking it apart at a purely technical level?
Another good point. Very rarely do I see people spending any significant
time really looking at photographs. It is difficult for many to realize
their own prejudices, try to look beyond them, to take in what the
photographer may have intended. It is far, far easier to call on the more
popular technical metrics and to do only that is to call upon a deeply
impoverished world view.
Tim Daneliuk
<SNIP>
to be equal. Most older images shot with 4x5 Super Pancro Press of the 1950's
> runs about 30 l/mm. So a modern 35mm image needs to be about 120 l/mm to be
> equal in overall image quality of that old 4x5.
While modern films can achieve this kind of resolution, even your best
35mm lens families typically _cannot_ deliver it to the film. IIRC,
really good Nikon/Canon/Leica lenses deliver well below 100 lpm at their
optimal operating points.
>
> I would say Plus-X pan Tmax is very close to this today.
>
> What I am talking about is, if you had two images one with a Hasselblad using a
> 50 mm lens and the other with a Nikon using a 50mm lens with both images were
> taken 20 feet away using 160ASA 80 l/mm type film, The wedding dress will have
> the exact same detail. It would be the exact same size on both negatives and
> blown up 4 times the dress would have the exact same size, detail and
> sharpness.
Yes, if the lenses and the rest of the optical/mechanical/chemical chain
is identical in both situations. View camera photographers are vividly
aware of this fact if they put a rollfilm back on their camera. Assuming
the rollfilm and sheetfilm are indentical, you get identical results
for a given setup as you describe...