Linhof:
I’ll try. You make the image as sharp as your eye can tell you under the enlarger. You seem to be saying that in the resulting print your eye will then see it as unsharp. I don’t see how that is possible.Could you rephrase that question? One does not need a magnifier to see sufficient detail in an image, so I am not quite sure what you are asking.
I only have the Paterson jobs, but that’s what I meant about eyesight: my experience is that my eyes have always got it right. I stick the Paterson in place and there’s the grain. I understand what @MattKing is saying about fine grain (and presumably larger formats) making it necessary to focus on edges, so it’s relevant to say that I am only using 35mm.I do my initial focusing wearing a relatively strong pair of reading glasses. But I'm often amazed just how much I'm off once I introduce the Peak magnifier.
I’ll try. You make the image as sharp as your eye can tell you under the enlarger. You seem to be saying that in the resulting print your eye will then see it as unsharp. I don’t see how that is possible.
I only have the Paterson jobs, but that’s what I meant about eyesight: my experience is that my eyes have always got it right. I stick the Paterson in place and there’s the grain. I understand what @MattKing is saying about fine grain (and presumably larger formats) making it necessary to focus on edges, so it’s relevant to say that I am only using 35mm.
No, I am just saying there are other factors that have an affect on perceived sharpness. For example...I contact print making pt/pd prints and carbon prints. Using the same negative to make both types of prints, the carbon print usually will have a greater sense of sharpness than the pt/pd print. Part of this is due to my platinum image being on and in the surface of a lightly textured paper, while the carbon image (as I make them) sits on and above the surface of a glossy surface.
In photography, acutance describes a subjective perception of sharpness that is related to the edge contrast of an image. (simple wikipedia definition)
Relative to my platinum prints, the raised relief of my carbon prints increases acutance, the perception of sharpness, even behind glass.
In photography, acutance describes a subjective perception of sharpness that is related to the edge contrast of an image. (simple wikipedia definition)
I don’t understand. I don’t mean to be flippant, but no grain magnifier is not going to help contact prints, nor (in enlargements) the different image depth of platinum prints vs silver prints or carbon prints. I kinda feel those aspects of image sharpness are a different issue.
I don’t understand. I don’t mean to be flippant, but no grain magnifier is not going to help contact prints, nor (in enlargements) the different image depth of platinum prints vs silver prints or carbon prints. I kinda feel those aspects of image sharpness are a different issue.
Yes, OK, that makes sense to me. I’m still happy with my eyesight and cheapo tunnel-vision grain focusser though.The issue is that loss of sharpness - the subjective perception that is - tends to be cumulative.
Set the focus in the enlarger slightly off optimum, and the added blur cooperates with other sharpness reducing factors to create a total result.
That may have been true in the past but modern sensors far surpass film in resolving power and have pushed lens makers to new levels of sharpness. Even the best older glass doesn't stand up to what lens makers are producing now.Agreed. Too many prints, especially many digital prints, fall apart when viewed closely.
I did not bring the subject up. I further don't think it has to be one or the other.Mal - you're welcome to your own opinion, and I don't want to start yet another Digi vs Film feud.
NOBODY would mistake the vast majority of prints I make for anything digitally produced, either the color or black and white ones. Capture is only half the battle; and the cul-de-sac of digital capture is that it forces one to digitally print too, and for me, that would be a backwards step in quality. DPI is DPI. Film is film.
that definition has got things turned around.
Acutance isn't the subjective perception of sharpness, sharpness is the subjective perception of edge contrast, which itself is acutance.
Why would acutance just be perception of edge contrast? Acutance applies across the whole image.
Sorry Matt, as I may miss-understand you. When you mention edge, I thought you meant the edge of the image. Is that correct?
No, acutance refers to the measurable and observable contrast of rendered edges of the extremely fine details found in the scene.
For example, the edges of "grains of sand" seen at the beach.
Our visual systems are attuned to the edges, rather than the centre - the mostly subjective perception of sharpness is primarily related to how much contrast we observe in those edges, and that micro-contrast is essentially what acutance is.
One consequence of this is that grainy pictures often are perceived as being "sharper", even though grain tends to reduce resolution. The edges of that granularity enhance our perception of "sharpness". And as a result, film that has unusually fine grain often renders more smoothly but less sharp, even though there is more fine detail there.
That may have been true in the past but modern sensors far surpass film in resolving power and have pushed lens makers to new levels of sharpness. Even the best older glass doesn't stand up to what lens makers are producing now.
...
Not that long ago, I went to an exhibition of Rock'n'Roll photos that included some that were in the 48-60" range, with crisp grain that practically poked your eye if you got close. These were 35mm photos taken form the stage during performances and rehearsals with pushed film and just the stage lighting. The grittiness and contrast gave them an energy that really delivered some of the concert experience. If the grain were too fine or soft, I don't think they would have that impact.I agree that the quality of digital capture of light has sky-rocketed, but I was referring to large prints of all types and their tendency to break down upon close examination...which is more of a user-created situation, not necessarily a software/hardware issue. I won't say 'problem' because some people are creating images with set viewing distances in mind, or do not feel the need to satisfy those who stick their noses to the glass.. In some cases it is just a matter of the person needing to go too far with sharpening tools to learn how to back up and best work with an image. Painters make that decision all the time in deciding the type of brush strokes to use, etc. to create their image.
Using in-camera negatives, the raised relief possible with carbon printing process allows for an increased perception of sharpness that is created photographically (by the original unchanged negative), rather than altering the digital file of the image (possibly adding digital artifacts) to increase acutance. Both ways can work very well, both require good skills. There can be a significant height difference on the surface of the carbon print between two tones that creates a sharp 3D edge and an increased sense of sharpness. Sharpness is a tool to be used in the creation of an image -- but not a tool to just whack things with.
That said I recently acquired a Peak Type 1 and really like it. I can see the grain in a 4x5 negative with it.
Paterson is an odds n' ends camera store brand offering numerous handy darkroom aids.
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?