35mm Scans VS FF digital

Alan Johnson said:

There is no reason why the low contrast resolution ,quoted in post 123, should suddenly drop off from 88 lppm to 50 just because no test chart is included in the picture.

Click to expand...

Look, I don't say that there is a 88 to 50 drop, what I say is that usually we won't take much practical advantage of resolving 88.

Imagine you have a 60lp/mm pattern of lines in the negative(120 lines in 1mm of the negative), at x10 you won't see those lines on the print, because you will have 12 lines in 1mm, each line will have 0.08mm on the print, and those lines won't be perfect because grain and contrast degradation, you will see nothing worth from that 60lp/mm patern in film when crafted in the print,

This is quite easy, if you want to see 88 lp/mm detail in the negative you have to enlarge x14 to barely see it in the print, if not human eye sees nothing, and at x14 you don't have image quality, best is that you upgrade to a larger the format, isn't it?.

Of course you may take CMS 20 or ancient TechPan to enlarge a lot, but this is a different game.

Then.. there's we 'oldies' (like me) who don't use digital cameras to produce' 'final' B/W prints. I (myself) rely only on 4x5 and 8x10 film for printing our artistic endeavours using the 'archaic print processes' AFTER the developed film has been scanned and the resulting output printed onto a 'nice' watercolour paper using the 'archaic print processes.
I will often use my digital camera when I find a 'scene' that might be 'nice' to humph one of my cameras (and expose to film 'that scene' when the 'light is right'. A 4x5 film negative printed with 'most of the 'archaic print processes 'need' to be a bit larger when needed to 'hang on a wall', So.. I will scan the original, print onto Pictoricio (using the 'best' ink colour) and make a 'contact print' onto my prepared paper with either 'natural sunlight' or the UV light source in my darkroom's 'anti-room'.

"To each his own" aught to be the mantra on THIS and ALL photography 'lists'.

Ken

Yes, I agree, 50 lppm is sometimes quoted as a standard for good work.
However there is another question, the best the system is capable of, especially in large prints of landscapes.
There is interest in both, even my 1932 Leica could get to 50.

Alan Johnson said:

Yes, I agree, 50 lppm is sometimes quoted as a standard for good work.
However there is another question, the best the system is capable of, especially in large prints of landscapes.
There is interest in both, even my 1932 Leica could get to 50.

Click to expand...

The thing that really matters is where the 50% MTF response is located. That is crucial to the reproduction of perceived image sharpness. For example, if an average 4x5 system delivers a 50% MTF response (that is a combination of lens/ camera/ shutter/ tripod/ film/ film flatness etc) at f22 at around perhaps 24 cyc/mm (same as lp/mm) & is then fed through a common flatbed scanner which is delivering maybe 22% MTF at 1200ppi, you're going to end up with a system result that's near contrast extinction at 1200ppi, as opposed to a better scanner that's perhaps delivering 70% MTF at 1200ppi - where you might end up with considerably more resolution of the on-film image, but also of the film's own characteristics (which are essential to a scan looking convincingly like the film used). This is much the same as a good enlarging lens - even on 4x5, a decent average 150mm enlarging lens (2 stops down) should be capable of delivering about 50% MTF of a 40 cyc/mm object at a 6x enlargement across most of the field.

Alan Johnson said:

However there is another question, the best the system is capable of, especially in large prints of landscapes.

Click to expand...

Yes, many of us have doubts about that... all depends on the quality we want. Still, (IMO) the enlargement capability depends a lot on how the film looks enlarged to x8, x12 or x16, and on out taste. We may like big/wonderful TX grains in the print !

Of course, the ultimate resolving power is also an interesting parameter to compare, but beyond calculations sure you agree that what counts is having the print in our hands, each film is a different world.

No secret... as we use a lower ISO film that is smoother we may find useful having a higher system resolution...

But no doubt, many times the limiting factors are the particular situation and our technique, more that the lens or the medium capability.


_________________________________

it is a plainly false that the Epson V700 has a 20% MTF at 1200dpi,

https://petapixel.com/2017/05/01/16000-photo-scanner-vs-500-scanner/

chris77 said:

Sorry, but your lack of self-reflection is... rare. May i ask you what is your profession? How old are you? I am just curious.. excuse the off topic.

Click to expand...

"My lack of self-reflection"‽ The amount of meta and recursion in such a short space makes my head spin.
And that's before I even get to not getting at all what you are on about.

Also impressive how you can tell so much and get so curious over a single sentence.

No, you may not ask. For a number of reasons. All of which are fairly obvious. One of the first being, that I could make anything up.

Pretending to get too offended to answer, is one of the classic avoidance strategies.

dutchsteammachine said:

Digital is better, obviously...

Click to expand...

no. not better. just different.
Saying one is better than the other is as meaningless as comparing oil on canvas to water colors on paper.