No!
"Sharpness" is mainly a subjective measurement, not an objective one. It is better to refer to it as "perceived sharpness".
The factors that affect sharpness are, in order of weight:
1) accutance (referred to sometimes as edge contrast);
2) micro-contrast;
3) macro-contrast; and
4) resolution.
If you increase the resolution, it often decreases the perceived sharpness, because it often makes the transitions between adjacent details more smooth.
The artificial sharpness that comes from a lot of digital post-processing emphasizes and clarifies those transitions - often at the expense of the actual detail at those transitions.
The developers of the re-sizing algorithms that permit people to print 16x24, 300 dpi prints from 12 megapixel files have definitely figured this out.
I don't ever resize the DPI on my scans or my digital images (no interpolation) when exporting.
That said, at 300dpi a 1.5mp (or thereabouts) image can do 8x10.
16x24 is only 2.5 times more in size (yes surface area cumulates) but 12mp can print fairly big.
I admit to owning a 21mp camera, the 20x24 prints are spectacularly detailed. I just prefer film as a taking medium. But still want my 20x24 prints to be just as detailed nose to paper.
Shot some random stuff in the snow with my friend yesterday but it was on tech pan 35mm panoramic so I'll only be able to blow it up to a tiny 10x30 print
See my PM - an 8 x 10 requires 2400 x 3000 "dots" if you are using a printer that prints in dots. That's 7.2 "Megadots". And if you don't want interpolation, that requires 7.2 Mega.....
It's actually more complex than that, due to how colours are put together in systems like that.
Just one of the problems with using digitally based criteria to evaluate film processes.
I just zoom 1:1 on my screen for evaluation. I don't inkjet print, when I'm ready I send the file to the printer and they Light-Jet print, no dots in the end, just chemistryhaha
Also, don't think of it as "not being able to pee for 20 minutes". Think of it as not being able to make new developer...
I just zoom 1:1 on my screen for evaluation. I don't inkjet print, when I'm ready I send the file to the printer and they Light-Jet print, no dots in the end, just chemistryhaha
But with more detail comes more perceived sharpness, no?
The print is the important part, so keeping sharpness all the way to the print is important. And more details would look sharper than blobs, no?
So - as i said above - the larger the format - the harder it is to make sharp images.
When you go and look at real big prints in museums, like kandida hoffer, or gursky, or jeff wall, or avedon, they are not really sharp, even when you are 2 meters away, and thats because its super hard to have such larger negatives that are sharp. At zero enlargement they are pretty cool to look at. Which is why i guess it was suggested that if you want a 20X24 print to look like a 4X5 contact print looks like, you need to contact a 20X24 negative.
I agree that shooting large format is tougher to get right, but it isn't over the top tough to get sharp shots. Surprisingly my keeper rate is higher for LF than for small, except where I'm testing my limits doing things like chasing my grand-daughter for an action shot.
I agree that contact prints are special in general, compared to enlargements. But, when one does get LF right it is quite special. Each time I see Karsh's Portrait of O'Keefe in Santa Fe I am amazed. http://www.karsh.org/#/the_work/portraits/georgia_o_keeffe
I have also seen very large prints from 35mm that are quite nice. But when I compare my enlarged 4x5 shots to my enlarged 35mm shots of the same scene, same size paper, the difference in look, detail, and tone is pretty stark.
... Surprisingly my keeper rate is higher for LF than for small, except where I'm testing my limits doing things like chasing my grand-daughter for an action shot.
The higher keeper rate is probably a result of the higher cost of failure in LF. Therefore one is much more careful when taking LF. Besides with the exception for sports and wildlife photography the time spend making one photograph is generally longer than in MF or 35mm photography. Have you ever seen an LF photographer spray photographs the way digi-snappers do?
I am talking about seconds to minutes, not hours.
I sometimes take a few months to expose a sheet. But I think what's most important is Stone's threads always make it to double digit page counts in record time. I don't know how he does it.
Maybe I ask poignant questions ...
Or people are waiting for drama like watching jerry springer (which I don't do BTW). Hah!
Also, I take an hour to take some images. I'm very happy with them and they are well worth the time. All of these took about an hour to "scout", setup, meter, and expose. All but one were taken with my 4x5...
View attachment 81847View attachment 81848View attachment 81849View attachment 81850View attachment 81851
You could open up your options and get something that is likely to meet your requirements if you would consider making up stock solutions from powders but you wrote "no powders".
OBSIDIAN AQUA will get you the results that you need but you make it yourself with the raw chemicals and distilled water. It uses Catechol instead of Pyrogallol as the reducing agent. In use it is one-shot.
This is not 4x5. It's nominally 6x12 on 120 in my HolgAgon but it might encourage you to give OBSIDIAN AQUA a try. http://www.flickr.com/photos/regular_rod/11344703254/
RR
http://caffenol.blogspot.com/
http://www.caffenol.org/
http://caffenol-cookbook.com/
before you discount it completely
I've always discounted it completely lol.
Someday my friend... When all the companies fold and I'm making my own film emulsion, then I'll use household items
Tell you what, I'll try cafenol when you try Rodinal
I still think you could give Ilfasol 3 another try. Perhaps you underexposed the first try.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?