I am wondering what scanner he is using
It all depends what purpose you're designing a lens for. Point out any weaknesses in the MF lenses mentioned please.Don't better lenses mostly mean you get the sharpness you might get only in the centre or stopped further down from a lesser lens into the corners and wider open?
Here's a screenshot of an image from this roll of 35mm FP4+ developed in HC-110 dil. B. Most of the image is of blue siding on a house. The siding is smooth without any noticable texture.
Looks grainy to me, and this isn't a huge blow-up of the image either.
@SodaAnt Your question then is about the Epson, not the film or your developer. You need a much higher resolution equipment to be able to evaluate grain. This is a complex technical topic, but TLDR of it is that grain gets digitally boosted and distorted differently at different scanning resolution levels. You are not looking at FP4+ grain. You are looking at an algorithmic output. Tinkering with chemistry is going to be a guessing game.
As your scanning resolution goes up, grain gets finer. I do not have any FP4+ in 35mm, but I shoot Fomapan 100 in that format.
Here's what the full frame looks like:
View attachment 349046
I did not know what enlargement ratio your image above is, but you said "this is not a huge blowup", so I took the liberty to crop a piece which I would describe as "not a huge blowup":
View attachment 349045
Scanned at ~5,000dpi. This is Foma in Rodinal and as you can see, the grain is finer. Your bottleneck is not film or the chemistry. It's the Epson. My advice is to bump your scanning resolution.
I scanned that negative at 6400dpi on the Epson. Should I be scanning at a lower res?
I was disappointed with FP4 Plus. It came out just SLIGHTLY finer-grained than Tri-X, and with harsher contrast.
I agree with your comment about harsh contrast. That's what I see in my negatives also.
I scanned that negative at 6400dpi on the Epson. Should I be scanning at a lower res?
I have found that scanning really accentuates the grain, so not a great way of evaluating the film. The scan process seems to add grain that isn't really there if printed optically.
I agree with your comment about harsh contrast. That's what I see in my negatives also.
If you’ve got harsh contrast, you have over-developed, and that will make the grain larger and more apparent. No need to blame the film.
I don’t think so. I developed the roll in HC-110 dilution B for 9 minutes at 20C per the Ilford datasheet, agitating per the instructions.
I scanned that negative at 6400dpi on the Epson. Should I be scanning at a lower res?
I tried scanning at 3600dpi and 2400dpi and the grain still looks like the screenshot I posted in post #51.
Film-niko "in medium format we unfortunately haven't seen new, improved lenses for film cameras in the last 20 years)."
What is the need for better MF lenses.
Fuji 6x9, Hasselblad Zeiss, Mamiya 6 & 7, & Pentax lenses are superb....& many of us still like old Tessars on Rolleiflex.
Making sharper lenses will only make images look like over-processed digital HD images.
I have found that scanning really accentuates the grain, so not a great way of evaluating the film. The scan process seems to add grain that isn't really there if printed optically.
Better overall performance, like
- improved flare resistance by improved, modern coating technologies
- better contrast and resolution at max. aperture and 1 / 2 stops stopped down
- more even performance over the whole image = better performance towards the edges
- less distortion
- less coma
- less chromatic aberrations
- better color rendition
- improved bokeh
- better separation of the in-focus detail in relation to the out-of-focus areas ("3D-pop")
- more robust construction: sealings against water and dust.
All these above listed significant advantages you get with with modern 35mm format lenses from Sigma, Zeiss, Leica, Voigtländer, partly also Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Irix, Tamron, Tokina compared to the older designs like Canon FD, Nikkor AI / AI-S, Minolta MD, Pentax K.
I have done quite a lot of comparisons myself, and we are doing such comparisons regularly with our photograpy friends group, having access to really many new and older lenses.
There has been a lot of progress in lens construction in the last years.
And I often miss these advantages when using medium format gear.
Yes, there are very good lenses. Nevertheless there is much room for improvements. As you mention the Tessar on Rolleiflex T: We did test that in comparison to a Sigma Art 1.4/50: We got 50% (!) higher resolution with the Sigma on TMX. And then consider that the Sigma has its best performance already at f4, and the Tessar at f8, and the huge difference in max. aperture: So you can often use an ISO 100 film with the Sigma, when with the Rolleiflex T an ISO 400 film is needed. And then the medium format advantage is mostly gone.
Nope.
1) As listed above, there are much more advantages with modern lens design than only sharpness!
2) Digital sensors and film are completely different mediums, with very different looking results. The look you describe is the result of the sensor, its MTF and the used software algorhythms.
The modern lenses I have, and my friends have, are all working excellently on film.
Yes, there are very good lenses. Nevertheless there is much room for improvements. As you mention the Tessar on Rolleiflex T: We did test that in comparison to a Sigma Art 1.4/50: We got 50% (!) higher resolution with the Sigma on TMX. And then consider that the Sigma has its best performance already at f4, and the Tessar at f8, and the huge difference in max. aperture: So you can often use an ISO 100 film with the Sigma, when with the Rolleiflex T an ISO 400 film is needed. And then the medium format advantage is mostly gone.
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?