Fast film and super-sharp lenses

[darinwc]

For those of you who use super-sharp lenses and fast,high-iso (400-3200) film:
Do you feel like the extra grain in the fast film is limiting the ability of the lenses?

I ask because I did a quick survey and I found a good portion of Leica-M users shoot with these faster, grainier films.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I don't think about it, honestly. I just take pictures, and print the negatives to the best of my ability.

A little grain is good for a photographer's soul.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

For those of you who use super-sharp lenses and fast,high-iso (400-3200) film:
Do you feel like the extra grain in the fast film is limiting the ability of the lenses?

I ask because I did a quick survey and I found a good portion of Leica-M users shoot with these faster, grainier films.

Of course the grain limits the lenses, to a point.
When I'm using very sensitive film, I am taking photos in situations where resolution is secondary to getting the picture. I am also using what lenses I have available, which was a 50mm Summicron when I had an M3 Leica, and is now a 50/2 and a 35/2 Nikkor with my Nikon slr stuff.
When I want to take full advantage of the resolution and contrast the lens can provide, I use an appropriate film.

 

[Klainmeister]

I sometimes feel that sharp lenses and grain go hand in hand. The grain appears to accentuate the sharpness and gives a stunning look.

 

[Tim Gray]

Of course, a film that resolves less will limit a sharp lens. What limits resolution even more is when I hand hold a shot at 1/30 s or slower

Also, there are other reasons that some of these 'super sharp' lenses might be advantageous, even in the ISO 1600, 1/30 s regime. Resistance to flare being one of them. That's not too say all sharper lenses are more flare resistant.

 

[cliveh]

I mostly use a leica M2 with a 50mm 1.4 Summilux loaded only with FP4.

 

[MaximusM3]

Very few emulsions can maximize the potential of a new Leica lens. Unfortunately, all of those (you know, tech pan, Apx25, etc), are not always pleasant and are limiting when it comes to tonality and dynamic range. Basically, can't have all the fine detail from a Leica lens, without sacrificing something else and that's the reality of it. Of course, it depends on the subject matter. Shooting architecture with good lighting and Tech Pan sounds good. A nice landscape with fluffy clouds...no good. The alternatives? Get an M9 or move to larger format

 

[ic-racer]

For those of you who use super-sharp lenses and fast,high-iso (400-3200) film:
Do you feel like the extra grain in the fast film is limiting the ability of the lenses?

I ask because I did a quick survey and I found a good portion of Leica-M users shoot with these faster, grainier films.

I have seen a good number of Leicas being used hand-held also. Even at shutter speeds less than 1/500th of a second.

 

[Dr.Pain-MD]

Sure, but there's more to using a Leica than the sharpness of the lenses. With that said, as you know, Leica diehards are, well, special let's say.

 

[stavrosk]

Even so, what can you do?
If you need sensitive film you must deal with the grain.
If you need very fine grain you must use a slow film.
I dont get what the lens has to do with that.

 

[tony lockerbie]

Grain can often enhance to impression of sharpness, especially if processed for acutance rather than fine grain. Leica lenses excell at wide apertures, so load up with Tri-X, open up the Summilux and go shoot in the dark!

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I have a theory. When you want to build a Stradivarius copy and make a vibration analysis , you find that it is impossible to gather intelligible information from the vibration photographs for higher notes.
There is only one trick for violin maker , to gather information for few low notes and get visible vibration photographs and correct them as much as you can.
An 70 years old Summaron resolves 585 l/mm at the middle and 285 at the corner when asph summicron does it for 585 to 110.
But when you look to the mtf chart , summicron looks better but this is acutance and not resolving power.

I think this high resolving power and characteristics are the least known at photographic media.

In my believe , the grain resurrects this resolving power.

And every Leica lenses least analyzed subject is this advantage.

Umut

 

[Klainmeister]

585 l/mm?!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

585 l/mm?!

More "Leica Magictm"

 

[darkosaric]

585 l/mm?!

Dead Link Removed

same link as html:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...nando.ca/misc/Summaron.pdf&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Thank you darkosaric , these leica bashers have lot to learn.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Sometimes the need for a fast shutter speed or good depth of field trumps all other considerations.

 

[Klainmeister]

I love brand fetishism as much as the next Marxist, but I just had never heard that many lines before....I mean, most films cannot resolve nearly that much, so does it really matter?

Back to the OP: I used to shoot Neopan 400 almost exclusively because I felt that with stand development and high-acutence developers, when printed, the image looked almost surreal in it's edge fidelity. I didn't own the best lenses at the time, but that combo produced super sharp prints much better than my Xtol combo and 100 speed films. Depends on what you're looking for I suppose.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

You did not understand because I did not explain well. If you do your best at low notes , higher notes will be positively impressed from your work. This is last 40 years best invention at violin making.

In my opinion , grain and its minimum size would be impressed from higher resolving power.

For your information , and another Leica secret is glass transmittance range.

Canon , Nikon uses cheapest borax glass at their lenses and BK7 is 10 times narrower range than Leica ordinary Leica glass.

All impress your images but in my opinion , anyone who interested what Leica does , must dive in to math , physics and most importantly fine arts.

Rembrandt excites everyone differently.

Umut

 

[Tim Gray]

WHUT

 

[Rich Ullsmith]

I don't know very much about it, but that is a compelling statement.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Dead Link Removed

same link as html:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...nando.ca/misc/Summaron.pdf&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk

Very impressive, I wonder if there were retests to back this data up by a separate party.

I think its always better to have very high resolution, even if it is more than the film can handle because it can sure help if not shooting on axis or recording the image at edges of the frame.

 

[Brian C. Miller]

Who cares how sharp a lens gets, when the pictorial resolution of the film is so much lower? The only films that got close to that were based on microfilm, like Techpan and Gigabit. Carl Zeiss used the Gigabit film to prove the resolution (over 400lp/mm) of one of their lenses.

Kodak publications show that TMax 100 has 63 lines/mm, TMax 400 has 50 lines/mm, TMax 3200 has 40 lines/mm. I'm guessing that Tri-X has something like 44 lines/mm (not listed, but the granularity is higher than TMax 400, and nearly like TMax 3200).

Then the camera is not used on a tripod. Hello, if you want maximum sharpness in your photos, it's time for a tripod!

The photographer creates the photograph, not the equipment.

 

[Aron]

585: Let us not forget that resolution figures without corresponding contrast transfer results are limited in their value.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

To me it's much more important what kind of picture the lens draws. Does it LOOK nice in a print or not? What else do you need?
Same goes for your film. Does it LOOK nice in a print or not? What else do you need?