Ansel Adams and other great printers

[markbau]

I was talking about the fetishism that often surrounds prints made by an artist themselves, especially if they are not necessarily the most expressive of the artist's original intent.

Photographers are two bob a dozen (or a dime a dozen for our US readers) Great printers are actually quite rare.

 

[138S]

Rodagon-G 150mm. Resolution of high contrast 'information' is one thing, contrast transfer and the perceived sharpness of the grain etc matter much more

Is it a G a better lens? or simply it's optimized for long distance work?

We have several tricks to make a regular lens behave like a G for murals:

> using a longer focal and increasing projection distance, this is named poorman's G,

> hacking the optimal magnification by shimming the front or rear cell.

> buying-selling several samples of the No-letter versuion until you have the contrary of a dog.

> overpowering enlarger with LEDs to be able to expose at optimal aperture.

unless you have a proper optical test

I have a 1.12µm DIY optical bench, around 400lp/mm: This is an old Sony Z2 smartphone with the lens removed (6.17mm/5248pix), so projecting directly on sensor. I see that camera in a big monitor for total convenience.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Is it a G a better lens? or simply it's optimized for long distance work?

It's designed for a specific purpose outwith the optimal range of regular enlarging lenses. That's all there is to it. There are some who claim that the performance spec of the 105 G is (in its range) at least as good as the 105 Apo EL Nikkor in its own optimal performance range - but I'd suggest that's an apples/ oranges comparison as they're designed to do quite different things.

We have several tricks to make a regular lens behave like a G for murals:

> using a longer focal and increasing projection distance, this is named poorman's G,

> hacking the optimal magnification by shimming the front or rear cell.

You'd be better off getting an optical engineer to see what tweaking an (Apo) Sironar N for flatness of field (at expense of coverage) and optimal performance at a wide aperture (rather than f22) would get relative to a Rodagon-G. The G series has more in common with taking lenses than enlarging lenses in terms of optimisation, design, glass etc. These alterations are not a million miles off how certain classic LF lens designs were tweaked for use with MF digital sensors - coverage traded for wide open performance and flatness of field. The costs of going so are however going to be vastly greater than a WA-Rodagon 120mm, especially if you aren't going above 15x - and you'd better have some exceptional work that needs to go to 1.2x1.5m...

> buying-selling several samples of the No-letter versuion until you have the contrary of a dog.

> overpowering enlarger with LEDs to be able to expose at optimal aperture.

The reason the Rodagon-G is optimised for a wider aperture is pretty simple: if you want to maintain a theoretical minimum of 5 cyc/mm at 40x, you need to use f8. At 20x, you'll potentially be able to hold 10 cyc/mm (theoretically) whereas with a lens outwith its correction range and stopped to f11, you probably won't even be getting close to the theoretical 7 cyc/mm because various aberrations will be getting in the way destroying the ability to hold good contrast in fine detail areas. And yes, paper can hold some resolution out to 10 cyc/mm or beyond, but the necessary resolution for a truly sharp image has been generally regarded as 7 or 8 cyc/mm for a very long time, but it is a good idea to be able to outresolve your material in order to be able to absorb the inevitable losses to various factors. For that matter, most regular f5.6 enlarging lenses from the 70's onwards peak barely a stop down (within optimisation range of course). So as we can see, it's not just pure resolution, it's about the contrast transfer, distortion etc - they all matter and interconnect. Reductive reliance on high contrast resolution alone will get nowhere fast - all that gives is a threshold marker and no indications of overall performance en route to that point.

I have a 1.12µm DIY optical bench, around 400lp/mm: This is an old Sony Z2 smartphone with the lens removed (6.17mm/5248pix), so projecting directly on sensor. I see that camera in a big monitor for total convenience.

Not up to the task I don't think. Unless you have the wherewithal and time to do it properly, don't bother trying to do it half-assed - real world imaging will tell a more realistic story much faster about actual optical performance.

 

[138S]

Agfa MCP RC (no filter) 80-100 lp/mm
Ilford Galler #2 80 lp/mm
Ilford Multigrade IV RC (no filter) 65+ lp/mm

Photo Tech Mag

 

[Lachlan Young]

Agfa MCP RC (no filter) 80-100 lp/mm
Ilford Galler #2 80 lp/mm
Ilford Multigrade IV RC (no filter) 65+ lp/mm

Photo Tech Mag

High contrast bar charts are not really a great indicator of useful resolution - and on paper there are a whole set of complicating factors because of the substrate and viewing distance that it becomes pretty complex to understand what the real 'resolution' is - as you should have seen en route to finding those numbers. And I should have made it clearer that I was talking about useful print resolution - have edited my post for clarity. Depending on viewing distance anything from 5-10 cyc/mm is regarded as the threshold of adequate resolution & that is what matters in this specific case.

 

[138S]

High contrast bar charts are not really a great indicator of useful resolution

Lachlan, paper has impressive resolving power, in a contact copy then image can be totally sharp even if inspected with an x10 magnifier. If you have inspected a contact copy you may know it.

Depending on viewing distance anything from 5-10 cyc/mm is regarded as the threshold of adequate resolution

Post Exposure, page 3: (http://ctein.com/PostExposure2ndIllustrated.pdf)

"In other words, the resolution difference between 10 lp/mm of sharp edges and fuzzy ones is way down around 30 lp/mm. When we notice a difference between those blurry and sharp 10 lp/mm lines, we are responding to detail at 30 lp/mm, even though we can’t directly see it. That’s why materials such as dye transfer and Ektaflex, which display about 20 lp/mm, look Figure 1–2 This photograph of a family bible, made on Kodak Panatomic-X 120, depends primarily on sharpness for its impact. The myriad fine transitions from bright to dark in the binding, pages, and wooden table impart a lively presence to this print. 4 How We See fuzzier than chromogenic prints with over 60 lp/ mm. In a side-by-side comparison, you won’t see any more fine detail in a chromogenic print, but you will perceive the detail you can see as sharper."


I don't thik 30 lp/mm are much useful in a print, but a debate is there...

 

[Bill Burk]

Ctein says you need 30 line pairs per millimeter for perfect sharpness, then says that 5-8 line pairs per millimeter are adequate. Weird. I would not draw the same conclusion from the information he just presented.

 

[Lachlan Young]

@138S

There's not much debate that paper emulsions can deliver remarkably high resolutions under vacuum contact with a chrome on glass target. The latest RA4 emulsions apparently hit 40 cyc/mm and up, but the essential issues remain of halation and scatter and various other problems from using what is essentially a reflective surface under the emulsion layer. These are pretty apparent on inspection, especially under magnification. Furthermore, unless the entirety of the rest of your imaging chain is totally lossless, you're not going to be able to address the full resolution of the paper - which is why thresholds of acceptable resolution matter much more than a hypothetical maximum resolution.

@Bill Burk

That's essentially what has been common knowledge for decades - hypothetically the emulsions can resolve a lot more than they usefully can (or need to) in practicality.

 

[138S]

Ctein says you need 30 line pairs per millimeter for perfect sharpness, then says that 5-8 line pairs per millimeter are adequate. Weird. I would not draw the same conclusion from the information he just presented.

Bill, yes... it looks inconistent, what IMO what Ctein suggests is that useful resolving power is debatable.

First some people have a better sight than other, also near sighted people see detail better than the rest...

Then we may value more or less extreme fine detail...

What is clear is that photopaper has x10 more resolution than we can see. I contact print 8x10" and you see incredible detail by inspecting with a x8 magnifier, this is a 8x10" print worth 600MPIx effective at least, but it's debatable how much of that graphic information is useful if viewing the print with naked eye...

Diminishnig returns law !!!! No doubt that beyond 6lp/mmm effect is diminishing steadly.

IMHO a contact copy takes most of the IQ the negative has, and also a good enlargement has no much loss.

 

[138S]

thresholds of acceptable resolution matter much more than a hypothetical maximum resolution.

Yes, I agree... that's clear...

Anyway, in my experience, I see little losses of IQ if we play care in the enlargement, I feel able to craft on paper near all IQ the negative has.

 

[jtk]

Who is a "great printer" ? I think the wage slaves at General Graphic Services in San Francisco might have been (on behalf of Ansel). But how can someone be blessed with that title if they're unknown to fine photographers generally?

 

[cliveh]

Photographers are two bob a dozen (or a dime a dozen for our US readers) Great printers are actually quite rare.

As are great photographers.

 

[removed account4]

Do you think they would have preferred Light room over darkroom?

idk, i think they would prefer both, they both present challenges and learning and mastering ... and knowing oneself and one's limitations

As are great photographers.

Who is a "great printer" ? I think the wage slaves at General Graphic Services in San Francisco might have been (on behalf of Ansel). But how can someone be blessed with that title if they're unknown to fine photographers generally?

couldn't agree more with both quotes !
there is a certain amount of understanding of everything to make photographs ( negatives )
and a certain amount of understanding everything in a different way to make prints. there are so many
unsung printers who made photographic-negative-maker's negatives sing that will never be known.
they often don't toot their own horn, they just make beautiful prints ( in light, dim and dark rooms ).

 

[baachitraka]

I presume he could have easily got distracted by todays gadgets and may never had those eyes to previsualize as he did when walking all those parks then.

I doubt whether he can photograph to the same level and choose dark or light room to process them, at first.

These days there are too many things for nothing...

 

[jtk]

Ctein is famously a "great printer"... presumably he is one (of thousands) ... explore his website http://ctein.com/postlist2.htm
a) his gallery is comprised almost entirely of "dramatic" scenes (I shouldn't say "postcard" however...) and b) he says he now ONLY prints Epson (i.e. not dye transfer).

I've never seen Ctein's prints...I'm sure they're just as impressive as he repeatedly says they are. And I'm sure he does at least as well with inkjet. I'll bet he'd love his work on aluminum.

"great prints" are the norm for most famed professionals, whether the "great printer" is the photographer him/herself, an assistant or lab. Examples of famous photographers who relied on third party great printers are Salgado, HCB, Avedon.

 

[jtk]

I presume he could have easily got distracted by todays gadgets and may never had those eyes to previsualize as he did when walking all those parks then.

I doubt whether he can photograph to the same level and choose dark or light room to process them, at first.

These days there are too many things for nothing...

the Goon Show's Spike Milligan:

Milligan (theatrical):
Oooh! "The Fireball of Milton Street", or "What's become of that crispy bacon we had before the war, ey?" What's become of it? So brown! So crisp! With that lovely firm layer of white fat. Ooooh! What's become of it, ey? Answer me! What's become of that crisp bacon we had before the war? Don't laugh, answer me! What's become -

FX:
[Pistol shot]

Orchestra:
[Funeral march music]

Harry:
We regret to announce the sudden death of the well-known athletic thespian and actor Sir Jim Nasium.