Enlargement limits due to diffraction in camera

Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
378
Location
London and wherever
Format
Multi Format
Hi all:

I'm a new 8x10 shooter with only a 300mm lens so far. Being aware of diffraction limits, I've been trying to keep my photographs in the f/22-32 range. However there have been more than a few subjects that have absolutely needed f/45 and f/64. I employ movements and the scheimpglug principle as I can, but the images have many layers and directions of interest beyond a single diagonal plane.

In a little time, I will have the experience to answer the question for myself, but before enough results are printed at various sizes, I'm curious to hear people's opinions regarding enlargement limits from different camera apertures. For example, at what enlargement ratios can one perceive sharpness differences between a negative shot at f/22 and those shot at f/45, and f/64, presuming otherwise ideal circumstances and technique.

I use a 300mm apo sironar-s and fp4 film developed in Wimberleys metol-pyro formula.

Thanks!
Jarin
 

Dan Fromm

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
6,823
Format
Multi Format
First rule of thumb: diffraction limits central resolution to ~ 1500/N where N is the f/ number. So at f/1 the limit is 1500 lp/mm, at f/32 it is 1500/32 ~= 50 lp/mm, and so on. Understand that diffraction limited resolution is at very low contrast. Usable resolution is less than the diffraction limit. The diffraction limit is lower off-axis.

Second rule of thumb: at normal viewing distance (by convention, 10") a print with resolution no less than 8 lp/mm will look sharp.

Third rule of thumb: resolution in the print = resolution in the negative/enlargement. Contact print, enlargement = 1, resolution in print = resolution in negative. This is why an 8x10 contact print from a negative shot at f/128 will look sharp. Enlargement = 4x, resolution in print = resolution in the negative/4. Getting 8 lp/mm in the print needs 32 lp/mm in the negative, limiting f/ number is then ~ f/45. But remember that this is in the center of the negative at very low contrast. To get better contrast and better resolution off-axis, shoot at a larger aperture.
 

Dan Fromm

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
6,823
Format
Multi Format
With 8x10, 4 means 32 x 40. Linear dimensions, not area, are what matters.
 

Maris

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
1,570
Location
Noosa, Australia
Format
Multi Format
Rather than doing the calculations from first principles every time I use "the 3 millimetre rule".

This says that if the final photograph size from an uncropped negative is 8" X 10" then the physical diameter of the lens aperture has to be 3mm or larger to keep diffraction effects just below the limits of visibility. For a 300mm normal lens on a 8x10 camera this means f100. For a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera this means f16. For other enlargement sizes the aperture diameter requirement changes proportionately: 6mm for a 16" X 20" photograph, 1.5mm for a 4" X 5" photograph, and so on ...

Sometimes lack of depth-of-field is a bigger sin than diffraction and I'll stop down further.
 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,646
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format
Dear Jarin, I have a whole chapter on this subject but it's too are for pug.email me at rwlambrec2GMAIL.COM AND I'LL SEND YOU A FREE COPY
 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,646
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format
interesting! Never heard of it but sounds reasonable!
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,356
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,544
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
I can only go to 2x enlargements of 8x10 in my darkroom. But I like to look closely at my prints. I stay away from f64 in the camera. I think f64 is just for the contact printers. Having posted that, certain subject matter will be better at f64 when the focus spread is great. In almost all cases using the method of Hansma (to minimize both the effects of defocus and diffraction) yields good results. That is a long way of saying if you need very great depth of field, f64 or smaller gives better results than f32 or f22. The equation of Hansma gives you the mathematically best compromise between diffraction and defocus. It takes the guesswork and experimentation out of the question.
 

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,544
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
Also, I have the focus knob on my 8x10 camera calibrated to a chart based on Hansma's paper. For example if I have to twist my knob 360 degrees for the focal spread, I calculated that is f128. And so on, so 180 degrees of twist I'd use f64, etc. So, I don't need to carry the chart around.

And just to elaborate, if the focal spread is less then needed for f32, I still use f32 because if the imperfect physics of the optics. That is to say more open than that (with my lenses) and I have a hot spot in the middle and the edges will start to loose resolution. These things are not taken account in the Hansma formula.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,356
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
Back to the OP's question. It depends on the type and quality of the camera lens and the enlarger lens.
 

Dan Fromm

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
6,823
Format
Multi Format
Does anyone know the lp/mm of a diffraction-limited lens, at f/32, f/45 and f/64?

When I am next forced to go to f/45 and f/64, it would be good to know the largest print size that I can still deliver 8 or 10 lp/mm in the finished print...

J

See post #2 above.
 
OP
OP
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
378
Location
London and wherever
Format
Multi Format
Yes! Excuse me - that's what happens when I revisit a week later, after a long work day. Thanks again.

Does anyone know a source for MTF data on the app-Sironar S lenses (or at least my 300mm?). That way I could find the sweet spot stop where the diffraction limit meets the lens' resolution limit, in case a subject with a limited focus spread warrants a truly large print down the line...

Judging from my past 8x10 prints from 6x7 cm, it seems that 4x (5x max) is a good enlargement rule for invisible grain and perfect apparent sharpness. I'm pleased that I can nearly get to f/45 without sacrificing that level of quality in a 32x40" print. And if f/64 is a must, the scope of a 20x24 still ain't bad...


J
 

zilch0md

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Messages
33
Format
Med. Format RF
Does anyone know the lp/mm of a diffraction-limited lens, at f/32, f/45 and f/64?

When I am next forced to go to f/45 and f/64, it would be good to know the largest print size that I can still deliver 8 or 10 lp/mm in the finished print...

J

You might find this useful:

Dead Link Removed

Mike
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…