when it comes right down to it, most images on film are resolution limited by the film itself combined with the lighting contrast ratio on it. Result is that actually achieving 100 lp/mm on film is extremely difficult regardless of whether your film or lens are potentially capable of much higher resolution figures cos they can't do it if conditions aren't right for it, which they aren't the vast majority of the time.
The OP mentions depth of field of the enlarger lens, but have others have mentioned it is depth of focus. But what on earth is this thread about?
The OP mentions depth of field of the enlarger lens, but have others have mentioned it is depth of focus. But what on earth is this thread about?
That's a downright lie. You went on an unprovoked attack and tried to discredit what I wrote in the previous topic and now you expect me not to argue about it. Do you know what hypocracy means.It is very simple. I began the thread to make a technical point which I did in post #1. RobC attempted to discredit my work and there was a long series of exchanges between him and me. Everybody joined in and a lot of people talked without anybody listening.
You saidFurther to the discussion about depth of field (see post #71) I have researched the subject a little and concluded that information given in post #71 is incorrect. Rather than wander off-topic here I have begun a new thread on the subject here (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
You saidIn another recent thread on the subject of anti-newton glass (here (there was a url link here which no longer exists) see post #71) figures were given for calculated DOF that were approximately 0.06mm for the same conditions. These figures are incorrect and imply requirements for film flatness and alignment that are too stringent by an order of magnitude and which are not required for high quality work.
Quoting figures an order of magnitude smaller than the truth spreads disinformation and leads people astray. This thread puts the record straight.
If that's not an unprovoked attack I don't know what is. And you don't expect me to defend myself. And you don't think people can't see the deceit in you claiming its me doing the attacking. I've merely been defending myself. You're severely deluded.Count on RobC to use rudeness inappropriately
For prints that are sharp from edge to edge we require film flatness and the alignment of the enlarger negative stage, baseboard and lens to be satisfactory. What precision do we need? Here is some information I found relevant to the alignment of my LPL4x5 enlarger, which I am using for medium format enlargements.
The critical factor is the depth of field (DOF) of the enlarging lens. This varies with lens aperture and the degree of magnification. For calculation of DOF a choice is required for the circle of confusion (CoC) value, in the case of enlarger optics this is the CoC of the image on the baseboard, which will be reproduced in the finished print. Recommended values for CoC fall in the range one thousandth to one fifteenhundredth of the diagonal of the finished image. Taking as an example the negative format 6x7cm and 6x enlargement we get a print size of roughly 12x16in, and for a print this size the diagonal is about 20in (500mm) so the CoC value is about 500/1000 or 0.5mm.
The depth of field (at the negative) may be calculated using a simple formula that is precise within a few percent:
DOF = 2Nc (m+1/m^2) where N is the lens aperture, c is the CoC, m is the magnification.
inserting values for our example print and a lens aperture of f5.6 we get
DOF = 2 x 5.6 x 0.5 x (6+1/36) = 5.6 x 0.194 = 1.086mm
Rounding this to 1mm we now know that for our 6x7 negative, with a lens aperture of f5.6 and an enlargement of 6x, to be in sharp focus, the permissible deviation from flat and square between the film and the lens is 1mm across the 6x7cm negative.
In my case I use a glass negative carrier so that film flatness is assured. In order to find the alignment accuracy of the negative carrier relative to the lens I used commonly available straight edge and ruler. I began with a test of the flatness of the baseboard, progressing thru measurement of the deviation of the negative carrier from being parallel to the base, and finally to adjustment of the lens so that it is perpendicular to the base.
In another recent thread on the subject of anti-newton glass (here (there was a url link here which no longer exists) see post #71) figures were given for calculated DOF that were approximately 0.06mm for the same conditions. These figures are incorrect and imply requirements for film flatness and alignment that are too stringent by an order of magnitude and which are not required for high quality work.
But ALL lenses are 'diffraction limited'...they all follow the identical rules of Physics about light bending around small openings, the amount will vary by aperture used, and the visibility of the diffraction is determined by the enlargment magnification value...135 neg is enlarged 4x more than 4x5 sheet film neg, which is the reason why 135 is diffaction limited by a 4X larger aperture than large format lens aperture.
Unfortunately in this NOT-face-to-face internet world, we can state a fact, perhaps even color or enlarge the text of key words or phrases (or not) and it can be interpreted by some reading it as an 'attack' and react to said post in a negative manner. I am dealing with such a reaction in another forum -- not related to photography -- myself right now! And some individuals tend to have this unnecessary interpretation and reaction more than others, for whatever reason, and I am dealing with such a reaction in that forum.I have made no attacks, simply stated some facts. My statement in post #1 is available for checking by anyone.
The term 'DoF' (ambiguous)[QUOTE="wiltw, post: 1780815, member: 28732
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?