Exposure and sharpness

[Vaughn]

Just to be clear: I am talking about those photos that bring out peak sharpness in your setup - so I am equating peak sharpness (given accurate focus and high shutter speeds of course) with very good exposure.
So the saying "negative film is very tolerant of bad exposure" would have the addendum "and then get so-so sharpness".

Have you been able to control the effects of aperture on sharpness across the number of negatives you examined?

It seems to be a big factor. I often shut down to f45 or f64 when I was starting out with 4x5 -- photographing complex landscapes (middle of the redwood forests) requiring max DoF over any sharpness loss due to optical losses. When I moved out of the redwoods and could use the middle f/stops (f11 or f/16), enlarging these TMax100 negatives to 16x20, the prints were noticably sharper. Caltar IIN 150mm/5.6 lens

 

[RalphLambrecht]

All very interesting. My question: How do you know if your exposures are "perfect"? I've recently been shooting with Tri-X in the desert, with high contrast subjects, deep shadows and a wide range of grey tones. Using my Hasselblad on a tripod with mirror lock-up and my 150mm CF Sonar, I see that my exposures were difficult at best, usually problematic and not easy to print in the darkroom. Some of them are quite sharp, but some are less so, and few if any resemble the sharpest pictures I've ever seen. I've also been using a yellow-green filter, and wonder how that contributes to sharpness. And. BTW, what would be the sharpest F-stop on the Sonar? F8?

Good point, and let's not forget that development also plays a significant role in sharpness. The best sharpness needs perfect exposure and development as well as a high-contrast subject, and all of that transferred to the print is not easy and most likely not necessary if it is an interesting and well-composed photograph, but still worth aiming for; getting it blurry is easy; getting it critically sharp not so much.