Full resolution of film!

[koraks]

Oh come on, where’s your empathy gone?

Yeah, you're right. Sorry about that. I'm being grumpy, I guess.
Like you said, it's a rabbit hole, and yes, I've found myself in that one more often than I care for. I guess that's where the grumpiness comes from. It never amounted to much of anything, and I just want to warn anyone against going there, if photography is on their mind. Photographic technique is also fun, of course, and if that's the purpose of it all, then by all means indulge.

 

[snusmumriken]

Yeah, you're right. Sorry about that. I'm being grumpy, I guess.
Like you said, it's a rabbit hole, and yes, I've found myself in that one more often than I care for. I guess that's where the grumpiness comes from. It never amounted to much of anything, and I just want to warn anyone against going there, if photography is on their mind. Photographic technique is also fun, of course, and if that's the purpose of it all, then by all means indulge.

It’s OK, evidently we’re on the same page really!

 

[koraks]

As Sirius likes to say - "we vehemently agree"!

 

[Steven Lee]

When I was using digital cameras I cared about resolution and fine detail. Not sure why, but having switched to film I lost interest in this completely. Could just be coincidence though, as I've gotten older and hopefully wiser. Moreover, as I am looking at contemporary professional photographers who use digital cameras, I have grown to dislike the excessive and artificial crispness of those images.

There's also the cost of high resolving lenses: not only $$ but their weight. The laws of physics demand you to carry grams (or kilograms) of glass to get those fine hairs on a model's neck. Some of my Sigma Art of Zeiss Milvus lenses are just ridiculous compared to something tiny like Voigtlander Nokton f/1.4 35mm Mk2.

 

[cptrios]

When I was using digital cameras I cared about resolution and fine detail. Not sure why, but having switched to film I lost interest in this completely. Could just be coincidence though, as I've gotten older and hopefully wiser. Moreover, as I am looking at contemporary professional photographers who use digital cameras, I have grown to dislike the excessive and artificial crispness of those images.

There's also the cost of high resolving lenses: not only $$ but their weight. The laws of physics demand you to carry grams (or kilograms) of glass to get those fine hairs on a model's neck. Some of my Sigma Art of Zeiss Milvus lenses are just ridiculous compared to something tiny like Voigtlander Nokton f/1.4 35mm Mk2.

Seconded on all of that. It's one of the nicest side-effects of my film experience. Nowadays, the only lenses that "aren't good enough" are ones whose resolution decreases from center to edge badly enough to be visible in an 8x10 and does so in an uninteresting way. In my digital days I hated the term 'character lens' because it just seemed like a way to paper over obvious flaws, but on film it has real meaning. Though I still wouldn't bother using my Contax 50/1.5 on a digital camera!

 

[Nikon 2]

Is not having a Leica APO-Summicron-M 50mm f/2.0 ASPH really what is holding your photography back? Maybe; maybe not. But why take a chance? If you already have a Leica, what's another $8295 for an APO lens? One less thing to worry about. Then you can get back to taking pictures of your cat.

I love shooting film even without the Leica APO Summicron…!

 

[Nikon 2]

Is not having a Leica APO-Summicron-M 50mm f/2.0 ASPH really what is holding your photography back? Maybe; maybe not. But why take a chance? If you already have a Leica, what's another $8295 for an APO lens? One less thing to worry about. Then you can get back to taking pictures of your cat.

My film camera is a Nikon F2 and will not attach a Leica APO Summicron via adapter to it…!

 

[Nikon 2]

Is not having a Leica APO-Summicron-M 50mm f/2.0 ASPH really what is holding your photography back? Maybe; maybe not. But why take a chance? If you already have a Leica, what's another $8295 for an APO lens? One less thing to worry about. Then you can get back to taking pictures of your cat.

My film camera is a Nikon F2 and will not attach a Leica APO Summicron via adapter to it…!

 

[DREW WILEY]

You're no better than you're weakest link, whether that be your lens or fllm itself, or your mode of outputting it in print,
including the enlarging lens itself, whether the film is perfectly flat or not, etc etc etc etc. Likewise with scanning. I happen to do optical printing using top-end apochromatic process lenses which, under a high quality grain focus device, show every tiny grain grain distinctly, even in Ektar, and then make the visible in the print itself under a magnifying loupe, if the printing medium itself is equal to the task (most papers are not, and certainly not inkjet).

But this kind of topic can easily lead to a lot of mumbo-jumbo obsession with secondary variables. They do all add up,
cumulatively, into something either better or worse. It can get downright silly, however, when people are willing to spend absurd amounts of money for a marginally better 35mm lens, while they'd experience for more improvement simply scaling up to even garden-variety medium format options.

Then those who resort to adapted microfilms assuming they'll get more out of those, pay the penalty of tonality loss, more micro-blemishes themselves, etc. If you enjoy that, fine. But again, if you want more detail, it makes more sense just to scale up your format and choose an easier film to work with.

 

[Nikon 2]

Oh come on, where’s your empathy gone? Did you read my post well enough to see what I was saying? The OP has gone down a rabbit hole that many of us have been down at some point too. I bet you have. Easy for you to say now that it’s tedious.

And although it’s a subsidiary issue, committing to some system of other (in his case 35mm and Nikon) and then trying to get the best quality from it that we can is just reality. Few of us can afford to dabble in multiple formats. You are fortunate if you can.

I take umbrage to that…!

 

[Nikon 2]

The very best lenses of whatever make, price design or manufacturer can be outperformed by one not so good. unless the camera is on a tripod. Believe me I have proved it may times. Resolution, definition or whatever you want to call it, can be affected by so many things but camera shake is probably to blame for more poor lenses than the lenses themselves.

Correct…!

 

[Nikon 2]

I've posted a bit about this in the Copex Rapid Advice thread. Getting the highest resolution out of film is relatively straightforward, if not exactly easy - use a super-high-res film like CMS 20 or Copex, a very sharp lens, and a tripod. You can avoid the tripod by only shooting in bright sun (on a sunny day, Copex will let you use 1/250 or so at f/5.6) or maybe using an IS lens. But not an IS zoom, because you likely won't get the resolution you need out of it.

Now, is it worth it? Well, who knows? I can offer a bit of context, at least. Here's a shot taken on Copex at f/5.6 with a pretty cheap Rikenon P 50/1.4 on a Pentax ME Super.

View attachment 347757
This is scan composed of several stitched shots from a 24mp NEX-7. The final version is 12739x8539, coming out to an equivalent of nearly 9000dpi. I think it's around 177lp/mm? Here's a crop from near the center. Bear in mind that at least on my 27" 2k monitor (109ppi), viewing this at 100% equates to an almost 10-foot print.
View attachment 347758
Now, this is a 108-megapixel image, but it obviously isn't resolving 108 megapixels of detail. I would say it resolves about as well as a 36mp sensor, depending. Here's what it looks like reduced to 36mp:

View attachment 347759
And, because why not, a screengrab of what it looks like on my monitor previewing a 30x45 print, which is the largest standard-ratio I could get made at any typical commercial lab:
View attachment 347760
Whatever else, let's appreciate that it's fully possible to get a very clean, sharp 30x45 print out of 35mm film!

But now...let's put that side-by-side with a similar 30x45 preview from my 24mp original RX1:
View attachment 347760 View attachment 347761
The conclusion I can draw right away is that if you don't plan on printing bigger than 30x45, shooting these hi-res films is probably not worth it vs. digital, especially if you're aiming for shooting on trips. They're not very convenient to use, thanks to their low ISO and odd developing requirements, and don't (in my opinion) impart any sort of interesting character to an image the way Tri-X or HP5 do. And there are tons and tons of cheap 24mp digital cameras out there that'll give you what you need. And they shoot in color!

It also shows that no, you do not need an $8000 Leica lens to make the most of film resolution. I'm sure the Summicron APO would be marginally better than this (and would likely have improved corners), but I paid less than $100 for the camera and lens combined. Speaking of which, if you're going to be selective about what you shoot, $6 a roll for Copex makes this not a bad bargain vs. the digital option, especially in terms of buy-in cost.

Here's one more comparison set. First, again, is the 100% crop from the 108mp Copex scan, and second is the RX1 image enlarged to the same size (and de-saturated for fairness).

View attachment 347758 View attachment 347764

I hate enlarged digital images, and I'd pretty obviously choose the Copex shot here if I had to pick one of these to print at 10' wide. I would actually hang the 10' print of the film shot on my wall and have no problem with people sticking their faces right up to it! However, when we swap the 24mp RX1 for a 61mp A7RIV (this shot is from DPReview's sample gallery), it's a different story.
View attachment 347758 View attachment 347766
I suppose I might still prefer the film shot from a subjective standpoint thanks to the organic nature of the grain, but the digital one is now technically better. And, again, the original's in color. So if you've got the money for one of the modern 61mp cameras and a lens that can handle it, that's the way you should probably go. Still, at $2400 for, say, a used A7rIV with a Tamron 35/2.8, you could shoot a lot of Copex before you started losing money in the comparison!

Good advice..,!

 

[Nikon 2]

Seconded on all of that. It's one of the nicest side-effects of my film experience. Nowadays, the only lenses that "aren't good enough" are ones whose resolution decreases from center to edge badly enough to be visible in an 8x10 and does so in an uninteresting way. In my digital days I hated the term 'character lens' because it just seemed like a way to paper over obvious flaws, but on film it has real meaning. Though I still wouldn't bother using my Contax 50/1.5 on a digital camera!

Dito…!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Heck. Even on my own Nikon, my old 55/2/8 Micro is going to be hard to upstage at twenty times the cost. Yeah, for pro filmmakers using 35mm digi equip, there might be certain advantages using uber-expensive overtly heavy 35mm lenses. But for stills? More of an ownership obsession - bragging rights, or a temptation to thieves. Doubt you'll see much difference if any in a print, much less over the web.

 

[snusmumriken]

I take umbrage to that…!

If you do, I think you must be mis-reading my intention.

 

[grain elevator]

Surprisingly I could see very little difference between the LF 135mm Sironar S and the native 135 Zeiss Batis. To me that put the myth that larger formats lose meaningful resolution because the lenses are not as good. They can be more than good enough.

Surprising? You only used the very centre of that lens, and probably at an aperture you wouldn't use much for large format.

 

[MattKing]

I'm old enough to remember when the resolving ability of my most commonly used 35mm black and white films - Plus-X and Tri-X - was a (somewhat) limiting factor.
But only when I wanted to make a big print.
If I was using Kodachrome 64, the slides projected really nicely, on reasonably large screens, without any heroic efforts.
That involved mostly hand-held photographs, and fairly standard (Olympus Zuiko or even a Reomar) lenses.
I wasn't making technical photographs, with a need to record fine detail in order to be able to record scientific measurements.
I was making pictures, and it is a rare picture indeed where extremely fine resolution matters much.

 

[L Gebhardt]

Surprising? You only used the very centre of that lens, and probably at an aperture you wouldn't use much for large format.

Yes, with the shorter lens like the 135mm I had to use a smaller image circle than I wanted to test because the geometry of the camera restricts the angle of view. However after hearing many remarks about how much better smaller format lenses are I was not expecting the f/5.6 and f/8 results to be so close, even in the center. Stopped down both lenses will be limited by diffraction on that sensor and on film. I think the primary resolution difference is you can shoot smaller formats at wider apertures rather than the quality of the lenses. That was the surprising part to me.

 

[Nikon 2]

If you do, I think you must be mis-reading my intention.

I take back the umbrage...!

 

[BMbikerider]

If you are testing lenses you will need an optical test bench to see which is the best. Photographing a piece of film is never going to give you the ultimate image. It simply isn't flat enough. It also should be in a draft free, temperature controlled room that is proof to external vibration.

There has been so much had wringing and resorting to proverbial worry beads concerning whether a lens that cost a fortune is actually the sharpest there is. Stop worrying and go out and take pictures that is what photography is all about, not testing lenses and film to see which is the best. I would rather watch wet concrete harden

 

[BrianShaw]

I take back the umbrage...!

Fortunately you were not aghast; that's nearly impossible to take back!!!.

 

[Nikon 2]

Fortunately you were not aghast; that's nearly impossible to take back!!!.

You can only take back umbrage with film.
Film is very forgiving...!

 

[Nikon 2]

When I was using digital cameras I cared about resolution and fine detail. Not sure why, but having switched to film I lost interest in this completely. Could just be coincidence though, as I've gotten older and hopefully wiser. Moreover, as I am looking at contemporary professional photographers who use digital cameras, I have grown to dislike the excessive and artificial crispness of those images.

There's also the cost of high resolving lenses: not only $$ but their weight. The laws of physics demand you to carry grams (or kilograms) of glass to get those fine hairs on a model's neck. Some of my Sigma Art of Zeiss Milvus lenses are just ridiculous compared to something tiny like Voigtlander Nokton f/1.4 35mm Mk2.

With my Leica MD 262, Zeiss 50mm f/2 Planar and a 2K Mac Pro, the photos are shown at 11”x16” and the renditions are lifelike and amazing.
With the low 2K resolution of the Mac Pro the images don’t have that excessive artificial crispness associated with digital…!

 

[Nikon 2]

All my lenses are made in Japan. No German APO EGO in my kit…!

 

[Les Sarile]

Is it true in order to get the full resolution of the highest grain film, one must have a lens capable of allowing this? So maybe a Leica 50mm f/2 APO ASPH should be the type of lens needed to get all the resolution from film…!

What do you mean by highest grain film - least or most grainy?

I bought a a bagful of Pentax as my first vintage SLR acquisition off local CL listing for super cheap. As you can tell from the packaging - plastic grocery bags, the seller wasn't asking much as he didn't know if any of it worked. For $25 I took that chance and as it turned out everything worked perfectly fine.

Bagful of Pentax 1 by Les DMess, on Flickr

Bagful of Pentax 2 by Les DMess, on Flickr

Bagful of Pentax 3 by Les DMess, on Flickr

Having been using some Canon EOS L lens, I began to notice that one of those cheap used lenses - the SMC Pentax-M 50mm F4 macro, was providing some very sharp results. So I figure I would test it out to see just how good it is by setting up a resolution test using using Kodak Techpan @ ISO25 developed with Kodak Tehnidol at all apertures and scanned using DSLRs 14.6MP K20D, 36MP D800 and my Coolscan 4000dpi as well as optical magnification.

Target at bottom left and 100% crops from the DSLRs and Coolscan above it.

Resolution testing my SMC Pentax-M 50mm F4 macro lens by Les DMess, on Flickr

As you can see from the large optical magnification crop on the right, clearly this cheaply acquired manual focus lens can capture far more detail onto this film then can be resolved by the methods I used for scanning. Maybe a 10,000dpi Heidelberg Tango drum scanner can achieve all the detail?

There's no doubt in my mind a brand new red dot lens may actually be able to provide more detail onto that piece of film, but all the manual focus lenses I've acquired for cheap, have yet to be a disappointment.