Lens Philosophy or Do you really need to resolve 68lppm on an 810 1114 sheet?

nworth · Feb 17, 2006

Early Riser said:
John, I have to agree with you. There is hype on both ends. From my perspective, and my philosophy, ultimately film and gear are the cheapest and most replaceable things, the time and effort put into getting a certain image is priceless.

What is ironic in my case is that on one hand I have spared no expense to be able to create the highest image quality with the film format I use, yet I eventually diffuse or soften the image. However starting out with the best optical quality allows me the most control over what I do. ...

Whether I'm selling the image or not, I still want everything I do to be the best that I can do. At the same time if an image of mine turns out lacking, I can't blame the gear, with my work the gear isn't the limiting factor, I am.

Good points. This is probably the approach most of us have. Unfortunately, the budget always rears its head, especially for those who are just starting out. There are compromises to be made, and most of them are not all that bad. With large format, we also have some flexibility that helps us to get good images despite the compromises.

My advice to our supplicant is to get the finest (not necessarily the most expensive) stuff he can afford and then use it well. Lots of good stuff is available used. And you don't need to resolve 68 lpmm on an 8X10 negative to get a good picture. It's nice, but not generally necessary. For most subjects and contact prints, half that would give outstanding results. Most decent quality lenses will meet all those requirements, and give good color performance, even at their wider apertures.

John McCallum · Feb 17, 2006

Early Riser said:
... From my perspective, and my philosophy, ultimately film and gear are the cheapest and most replaceable things, the time and effort put into getting a certain image is priceless.

What is ironic in my case is that on one hand I have spared no expense to be able to create the highest image quality with the film format I use, yet I eventually diffuse or soften the image. ...

Very true statement, and so often forgotten (or overlooked).

In putting effort and paying the costs of a highest quality image, as you say, at least you have the option of using the image in this way, or diffused later on. Having the option is worth a great deal.

MattCarey · Feb 17, 2006

Early Riser said:
What is ironic in my case is that on one hand I have spared no expense to be able to create the highest image quality with the film format I use, yet I eventually diffuse or soften the image.

This is a great viewpoint. When you look for someone to do a job for you (photo or otherwise) you want someone who knows what he wants, and wants the best.

But, let me make a little observation:
Very interesting choice of words here. You use "best" where others would say "sharp, contrasty, etc.". It is your vision, and it is a good vision. It is the way I thought of things a couple of years back.

Oddly enough, the most expensive lens I have is a soft-focus setup. Lens+ shutter+front-mount cost about 2x the next best lens in my lineup. (Admittedly, that isn't saying a whole lot from me--I am a hobbiest and a cheapskate.)

If you look back, this whole thread started with a friendly (I hope Jim thinks so!) jab at Jim. My impressions on Jim are these: hhe has the reputation as a cheapskate, but he really isn't. He has some really nice stuff. He knows the value of a dollar (and a lens), but we all know that experimentation doesn't come for free.

You don't have to tell APUGers that the process is fun and important. For some, the process means polaroid manipulations, alternative processes, odd films...it isn't such a stretch to add experimenting with old lenses.

Matt

p.s. It has been a good thread that Jim got going here. Real good discussion. I know it is really hard to judge an 11x14 print based on a scan on a website. Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't read a post that says "I don't like this aspect of Jim's pictures with the $60 lens."

df cardwell · Feb 18, 2006

It is both pleasant and sad to watch Jim's decline into lens-a-holism.

Reminds me of my younger days :rolleyes:

At least he doesn't have to suffer in solitude

And it is warming to read of each adventure,
and I am happy to see Matt and others helping to keep alive
the knowledge of old glass.

But I've changed the lock on my lens closet.

And bought a Rottweiller

.

David A. Goldfarb · Feb 18, 2006

I don't buy the logic of "shoot sharp and soften later." Diffusion after the fact never looks like the effect of a soft or diffuse focus lens. It might work for some purposes, and some people might like that look, but it's a different look than you would get from taking the image with a Petzval or a Heliar or a Pinkham-Smith or Verito or Graf Variable, and these lenses are all different from each other.

Dan Fromm · Feb 18, 2006

df cardwell said:
It is both pleasant and sad to watch Jim's decline into lens-a-holism.

Reminds me of my younger days :rolleyes:

At least he doesn't have to suffer in solitude

And it is warming to read of each adventure,
and I am happy to see Matt and others helping to keep alive
the knowledge of old glass.

But I've changed the lock on my lens closet.

And bought a Rottweiller

.

df, he's having fun and he's stimulating demand for his wares. And he's keeping active. As long as Jim's customers and others who buy crappy old lenses because of his promotional activity are happy, where's the harm?

I write as a recovering lensaholic who is, for a change, selling more than he's buying.

MattCarey · Feb 18, 2006

Dan Fromm said:
df, he's having fun and he's stimulating demand for his wares. And he's keeping active. As long as Jim's customers and others who buy crappy old lenses because of his promotional activity are happy, where's the harm?

I write as a recovering lensaholic who is, for a change, selling more than he's buying.

Sometimes the voices tell me to buy "new" camera equipment...must..resist..voices..

I have watched a number of Jim's sales here on APUG go to eBay. My experience is that his lenses sell for more on eBay than his APUG asking prices. Keep in mind that on eBay the "hype" has little or no effect.

Matt

Early Riser · Feb 18, 2006

David A. Goldfarb said:
I don't buy the logic of "shoot sharp and soften later." Diffusion after the fact never looks like the effect of a soft or diffuse focus lens. It might work for some purposes, and some people might like that look, but it's a different look than you would get from taking the image with a Petzval or a Heliar or a Pinkham-Smith or Verito or Graf Variable, and these lenses are all different from each other.

So when you go out to shoot you carry a Petzval, a Heliar, a Pinkham-Smith , a Verito and a Graf Variable? That's a lot of glass to carry. Something tells me that you don't. So if you come a cross a scene that works best for a Heliar and you only have a Petzval, you don't bother to shoot it?

You know they make at least a dozen different soft focus, diffuser or mist filters out there. Black net #1,2,3, white net #1,2,3, Softar # 1 & 2, Soft focus 1,2,3, Fog 1,2,3, Mist 1 and 2, diffuser 1,2,3, etc. You can combine filters and create any affect that you want to any degree that you want. That's a hell of a lot more control than just using a soft focus lens that has only one look.

Personally all I care about is getting the image that I'm after, I'm not a lens collector, I'm not an antique collector. I'm looking to get it done, and having the ability to control the image to any degree that i want frees me to create anything I want. My creativity is not defined by the limitations of my tools but is in fact enhanced by the freedom of action that I am afforded by using tools that give me control.

BTW you forgot to mention Imagons, a lens which I also carry in the field.

David A. Goldfarb · Feb 18, 2006

It depends on what you're after. I don't own an Imagon or a Veritar or a Vitax, for instance, because I don't really like the specific effect that they produce. I'm not saying you can't get interesting effects with diffusion filters or diffusion at the enlarging stage, but that each effect is different, and one is not a substitute for the other. Diffuse under the enlarging lens if that produces the specific effect that you like, in other words, but not as a substitute for a particular diffuse focus lens. They just aren't equivalent.

By shooting with the sharp lens, you're losing the option of the effect you would have gotten with the soft lens, and you can't get it back later. You can only get a different effect.

Early Riser · Feb 18, 2006

David I thought the whole argument about using old vintage lenses versus new was that they are just as good but far cheaper and that all lenses are basically the same. Now it seems like you're advocating the need to buy multiple soft focus lenses because they're all different. That sure seems a lot more expensive and impractical compared to buying some cheap soft focus filters.

I'm sure that by combining any of the myriad soft focus affect filters, maybe a softar with a fog #1, and a black net #2 ,etc, you can come awfully close to simulating the affects of any of the soft focus lenses. Plus you can really tweak the affect something not easily done with a dedicated soft focus lens. Plus the amount of variation and truly unique affects are countless with filters versus the fixed look of a specific soft focus lens.

So what I'm advocating, is buying sharp high optical quality lenses, and then having the ability to soften them to an amazingly controllable level with soft filters or darkroom diffusion. In this way you have the range available to you from super sharp to super soft and everything in between.

David A. Goldfarb · Feb 18, 2006

Actually I don't argue that the reason for using old lenses is that they are cheaper and almost as good as new lenses. I recently spent $350 for a flange and set of waterhouse stops for a Petzval that I got in exchange for a couple of boxes of film. I'm interested in the look of old lenses and seeing what they can do with modern films. I don't actually use a lot of soft focus, but I like it for a few specific things, and have a few particular lenses that I use for it.

I've been through the filters thing, and have hung on to a few of them, but what some of the old lenses can do is layer sharp and soft in a way that most soft filters don't (Softar 1 being one exception). For instance, a center focus filter (diopter with a hole in it) or a Duto filter (etched concentric rings) is designed to keep the center sharp, but then you're limited to having the sharp portion of the image in the center of the frame (or with a view camera coincident with the lens axis).

There's also a good amount of variation you can get in effect with a dedicated lens (as is possible with some soft filters) by adjusting the aperture or in the case of some lenses, varying the amount of spherical aberration by adjusting the position of the elements in the lens with lenses that permit that, and of course by adjusting the position of focus. There was a good post on the LF forum a while back with a quote from an article done in the 1940s or 1950s where several professional portrait photographers were asked to focus the same image with a soft focus lens, and there was a range of about 1.5" measured on the camera bed of the "ideal" focus point.

Diffusion at the enlarging stage sprays the shadows into the highlights rather than vice versa. That works for some things, but it doesn't look the same as spraying the highlights into the shadows. You gain some possibilities, and you lose others.

rbarker · Feb 18, 2006

For those interested in shadow spraying via filtration, I suggest experimenting with black net versus white net diffusion material - both on the taking lens and under the enlarger.

Charles Webb · Feb 18, 2006

This has been avery interesting thread, lots of good stuff. But somehow the point is still being missed or rejected. You cannot diffuse an image in the enlarger and achieve the exact same "look" as that "look" achieved by a soft focus lens. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. Some folks believe that a print made with black netting with a cigarette hole burned in the center is just fine. I don't, it looks exactly like what it is. I have never seen nor do I know of any diffusion technique that will deliver exactly the same look in a finished print that was made from a negative exposed by a Pinkham Smith or other true soft focus lens. The word here is exactly, not an acceptable facsilile.

The above is the opinion of one who has collected both the "cheapie's" and the high dollar adult toys for a long, long time. I might add here that I have had great success with both. But, the most fun with the lowly Wolley's!

Charlie........................

Early Riser · Feb 18, 2006

Charles Webb said:
.....You cannot diffuse an image in the enlarger and achieve the exact same "look" as that "look" achieved by a soft focus lens........ I have never seen nor do I know of any diffusion technique that will deliver exactly the same look in a finished print that was made from a negative exposed by a Pinkham Smith or other true soft focus lens. The word here is exactly, not an acceptable facsilile.

The above is the opinion of one who has collected both the "cheapie's" and the high dollar adult toys for a long, long time. I might add here that I have had great success with both. But, the most fun with the lowly Wolley's!

Charlie........................

Charlie, I know the difference between diffusing the highlights with a soft filter or soft lens and diffusing the shadows during enlargement. I actually make my living by doing that exact thing. The point is that there are many ways to diffuse an image. Some might say that the affect created by a dedicated soft focus lens is unacceptable. The idea being that one is not trying to replicate the affect of a specfic lens, but is trying to create an affect to their liking and choosing. By starting with a sharp lens you can have more options. You can even choose to scan the sharp image neg and then use digital diffusion affects and get a digital LVT neg produced. However even that option is limited to you if the negative is already heavily diffused or lacking in quality from the very start.

jimgalli · Feb 18, 2006

Actually the thread is about "brute force". Sure you can extract a lot of power from a dohc 200 cid Offenhauser but a 427 Ford would just womp it. My point was simply that. The tonality and sharpness of a contact printed 11X14 simply trumps a 4X5 enlargement in tonality and depth by brute force. And you don't have to spend $2200 on a lens to do that. $2200 for a camera, OK, but not the lens.

Ole · Feb 18, 2006

Jim (and fellow lens afficionados), I just today took delivery of a beautiful 100 years old German 24x30cm (9 1/2 x 12") "travel camera" with a 280mm Voigtländer Trippel-Anastigmat 280mm f:7.7 on it. The normal FL for this size is 360mm; another one of the many anachronisms in lens lineups and paper availabilities. I guessed that if the lens was unsatisfactory I could always ise a 360mm Symmar or Industar; or a 12x10" Lancaster RR, or a 210mm Angulon - they are all designed for that film size!

But to my big surprise that triplet not only covered, it was pin sharp to the edge of the GG when focussed on infinity! So I guess I'll have to try that one before redesigning the lens board to fit an universal iris lens board on it - too many lenses, too few lens boards!

BTW, I've decided that Herr Schmidt (author of "Photographisches Hilfsbuch der ernste Arbeit", publ. Berlin 1910) was right: 24x30cm really is the largest effectively portable camera size. So I have a Russian 30x40cm (12x16") for sale.

removed account4 · Feb 18, 2006

i've actually been experimenting a little bit by using a meniscus lens as an enlarging lens. it works pretty well, but the only problem i have found is that it is very hard to figure out what is in focus and what isn't --- i guess what i mean is -- nothing is in focus, everything is soft

-john

Ole · Feb 18, 2006

jnanian said:
i've actually been experimenting a little bit by using a meniscus lens as an enlarging lens. it works pretty well, but the only problem i have found is that it is very hard to figure out what is in focus and what isn't --- i guess what i mean is -- nothing is in focus, everything is soft

-john

I've got to try that Voigtländer WZ one day - for enlarging, which is what it's made for. I've also got this nice little Bush Vade Mecum Satzobjektiv - if you didn't know, it's a meniscus set. There's also a lot of other meniscus sets on their way to me - at least I hope that's what it is.

I've made some really nice prints before by using a MF glass slide frame (with AN glass) as a diffuser for 1/3 to 3/4 of the printing time. If you have one, try it.

cperez · Feb 19, 2006

What if...

What if someone were to provide empiric evidence that older lenses are sometimes as sharp as modern lenses (by sampling lenses from the real world)? What if someone were to show that at f/16 or f/22, all "good" lenses were largely equal, regardless of era of manufacture? What if someone were to show that, indeed, "cheap" did not in all cases (or perhaps even many cases) mean "less than" new/modern/supermarvelous in terms of optical performance?

[rant]
While others might not say that older lenses are as sharp as new, I will. While others might not say that older lenses are capable of giving as good contrast as new multi-coated superlenses, I will.

I feel strongly (with empiric evidence) that new photographers to LF work will not be mislead when someone says that an old Symmar Convertable or Kodak Commercial Ektar will make just as fine an image in terms of performance as a new Rodenstock Sironar-S.

It's taken me a long time to realize this, but lens makers have been striving for perfection for a very long time. Outstanding astronomy instruments have been around for hundreds of years. This knowledge was passed on to camera lens makers. It's been well understood what it will take to make all the visible wavelengths of light hit a common point (focusing). Which is why you can find such great lenses on cameras like Kodak, Rolleiflex TLRs, Hasselblads, Linhofs, Sinars, etc from as far back as the 1930's.

I suspect that Jim Galli's Heliar (I forget which focal lengths he has) are wonderful performers from wide open on down through f/22. I suspect that the Russian lenses the Ole talks about are indeed pinsharp. I suspect that Rolleiflex Schneider and Zeiss lenses starting in the 1950's are critically sharp (approaching diffraction limits) from wide open down through f/22, which makes them such fun instruments for creating negatives to be used for enlarged images. [/rant]

smieglitz · Feb 19, 2006

I don't know if older lenses are empirically "as sharp as new", etc., but they certainly seem adequate practically. I have a couple of Wollensak Velostigmats in different focal lengths that I picked up in pristine condition dirt cheap. I have no desire to get any sharper modern lens after seeing how these perform. Ditto with a 90mm & 210mm pair of Linhof-selected Angulons I have.

All those images we admire from the dawn of Photography through the late 20th century taken by the Masters of the medium were done with old glass. Good enough for me.

Joe

MichaelBriggs · Feb 20, 2006

cperez said:
[rant]........ I suspect that Rolleiflex Schneider and Zeiss lenses starting in the 1950's are critically sharp (approaching diffraction limits) from wide open down through f/22, which makes them such fun instruments for creating negatives to be used for enlarged images. [/rant]

I think you have let your enthusiasm for classic lenses run away here. Not even modern LF lenses are near diffraction limited wide-open over a LF field. Perhaps on-axis, but not over a 4x5 or larger field. I've tested two of my modern, top of the line lenses, and sharpness improves in the corners of 4x5 as one stops down to f16. (Maybe a super-long focal length lens could be diffraction limited wide open -- nearly a telescope.) Earlier in this thread Jim posted what the resolution would have to be to be diffraction limited. If the classic LF lenses were neardiffraction limited wide-open, they would be better than today's lenses.

Jim is making a more nuanced argument, showing what can be achieved with a simple, older lens on a large negative. If you want to use a smaller negative to make large prints, you need high resolution. There have been improvements in lens design, but in many uses they won't be noticable. The differences will be most noticable in wide-angle designs, e.g., I find the 72 mm Super-Angulon-XL that I sometimes use amazing.

Charles Webb · Feb 20, 2006

Early Riser said:
Charlie, I know the difference between diffusing the highlights with a soft filter or soft lens and diffusing the shadows during enlargement. I actually make my living by doing that exact thing.

Early Riser,
Golly Gee Wizz, am I overwhelmed! Just what in the hell have I been doing for the past 55 years ???? You seem to exude an attitude in your posts that
you have more experience and knowledge than any one else on this forum.

The information and facts you have posted have been common knowledge to all of us since the mid 1940's. I said in my earlier post that you had totally missed the point. Once again, you prove me to be correct by trying to convince me that I am wrong. Ha, If you had 1/10th of the knowledge of picture making that you profess, you would understand why the post was made in the first place. Also you would acknowledge that with all the techniques for diffusion you mention, none under any circumstance can deliver exactly the same "look" as a true soft focus lens. You are only deceiving yourself and customers by using such tricks.

I know before I go out on an assignment what lenses and equipment are necessary for me to deliver to my client the best photograph possible. If an editor or art director wants sharp, I know it from the get go. If they are not sure what they want I will give them a choice of images to pick from. But I will never diffuse a sharp image to be a soft one, as the results are in my opinion "crap".

Any knowledgable photographer or viewer of a photographic print can tell at a glance how it was achieved. The "spraying" of shadows into highlights and the reverse are instantly detectable. As is the mechanical look of photo shop diffusion. Someone on the list did a diffusion image recently trying to fool the list, it did not make it past the first viewer that saw it! If that is the kind of crap that is acceptable to you, then have fun doing it. Those of us that know the difference will continue doing it our way.

I Am sorry you have taken all this so seriously, but there are others of us who have been able to attend the best schools, workshops, Winona, buy the latest and most fashionable equipment, put food on the table, pay high dollars for a homes and automobiles, and still send the kiddies off to college on 100% direct earnings from Professional Photography.

My unsolicited advice for Early Riser, is "Chill Out" a bit. None of us know all the answers, but as a group, we are awsome!

Charlie.............................

Paddy · Feb 20, 2006

Early Riser said:
If you don't think the right tool is important try using a philips screwdriver for a slotted screw.

Phoeeey! Who needs a wee pussy philips? Here, north of the 49th, we've got the mighty "robertson". Only available in Canada, eh? Pity

But it's not oatmeal!!!

Early Riser · Feb 20, 2006

Charles Webb said:
Early Riser said:

Charlie, I know the difference between diffusing the highlights with a soft filter or soft lens and diffusing the shadows during enlargement. I actually make my living by doing that exact thing.

Early Riser,
Golly Gee Wizz, am I overwhelmed! Just what in the hell have I been doing for the past 55 years ???? You seem to exude an attitude in your posts that
you have more experience and knowledge than any one else on this forum.

The information and facts you have posted have been common knowledge to all of us since the mid 1940's. I said in my earlier post that you had totally missed the point. Once again, you prove me to be correct by trying to convince me that I am wrong. Ha, If you had 1/10th of the knowledge of picture making that you profess, you would understand why the post was made in the first place. Also you would acknowledge that with all the techniques for diffusion you mention, none under any circumstance can deliver exactly the same "look" as a true soft focus lens. You are only deceiving yourself and customers by using such tricks.

I know before I go out on an assignment what lenses and equipment are necessary for me to deliver to my client the best photograph possible. If an editor or art director wants sharp, I know it from the get go. If they are not sure what they want I will give them a choice of images to pick from. But I will never diffuse a sharp image to be a soft one, as the results are in my opinion "crap".

Any knowledgable photographer or viewer of a photographic print can tell at a glance how it was achieved. The "spraying" of shadows into highlights and the reverse are instantly detectable. As is the mechanical look of photo shop diffusion. Someone on the list did a diffusion image recently trying to fool the list, it did not make it past the first viewer that saw it! If that is the kind of crap that is acceptable to you, then have fun doing it. Those of us that know the difference will continue doing it our way.

I Am sorry you have taken all this so seriously, but there are others of us who have been able to attend the best schools, workshops, Winona, buy the latest and most fashionable equipment, put food on the table, pay high dollars for a homes and automobiles, and still send the kiddies off to college on 100% direct earnings from Professional Photography.

My unsolicited advice for Early Riser, is "Chill Out" a bit. None of us know all the answers, but as a group, we are awsome!

Charlie.............................

Click to expand...

Charlie, where have I made any denigrating comments about people here? Why do you seem to take this so personally? So please don't tell me to "chill out" when you are the one who has gone off the topic of photography and have entered the area of personal remarks.

First not everyone who reads these threads have the vast experience that you have, 55 years is a long time, and I'm sure that after 55 years of doing photography you must be an acclaimed master at it. (Where are you showing I'd love to see your prints?) But for those that are more novice at photography I attempted to point out some things that they might not be aware of.

If I come across as "... seeming to exude an attitude in your posts that you have more experience and knowledge than any one else on this forum."
it's because I've taught photography in the past, at the School of Visual Arts in NYC, and have taught countless assistants, and I might come across "lectury" as i also lecture on photography. The reality is that I probably have more photographic experience than the majority of people on this forum. It's not just the 30 plus years I'm doing this professionally, it's who I learned from, who I assisted and the level of clientele and competition I worked with.

I feel the best way to get a sense if someone knows what they're talking about is to merely view their work. Talk is cheap after all. People are free to view my web site and your personal gallery and decide how much credibility they are going to give us.

I don't know how you made your living as a photographer, but there are many ways to make money in photography, some involve doing very high end work that comes under tremendous scrutiny by extremely demanding and experienced clients, and some jobs are for less discerning clients with lower expectations but whose money is just as green. I'm not the one who has used making money as an indicator of how skilled a photographer is, you have. Although it's gratifying to know that you have a nice home and automobile and have been able the send your kids to college.

df cardwell · Feb 20, 2006

When this thread began, it was about ULF shooters getting good results with old lenses.

It was joined by some folks who cautioned the unwary that old glass was insufficient to make good pictures if one was a serious shooter.

Both the fine art, and commercial, branches of photography have demonstrated for a century that the vision of the artist comes first, and is all that is important. One either can SEE or can't SEE, the rest doesn't matter.

And it's WHAT one sees that determines the images we make. And at the point it is the Temperament, or however-we-cope-with-the-work-we-try-to-do-and-how-we-are-put-together that detemines our tool choice.

Personally, the only differences (to choice of gear ) between Earlyriser and myself are:

1) a personal vision with slightly different balance of form & detail

2) a distinct preference to post-production techniques (E-riser).

For one functioning succesfully as a fine commerical still-life shooter, it is dead critical to be able to integrate pre & post, and ride with the client and the agency, and the printer and keep standards up and vision clean.

I come from both a journalistic and scientific background where post production is not even considered.

Consider that we're two different people, and it's easy to see how we have a different set of tools, and a different outlook on how we make our pictures.

And THAT is exactly how it should be.

The only person who can determine how to YOUR picture is you. Not a marketing genius that plants 'metaphysical doubt' into every newbie LF shooter that only the latest round of Designer Glass can let you realize your vision, nor the 'existential crisis' of trying to find the secret developer formulaes of dead photographers that let them make beautiful pictures that are alive and vital after a hundred years.

Nobody has made images that APPEAR TO HAVE GREATER CLARITY than Edw. Weston. And he chose tools that were obsolete in HIS day. He had his reasons.

I've shot with zillion dollar reasearch microscopes to be able to even MAKE an image on film of difficult subjects.

Somewhere in-between is the world we live in today.

Vision, context, image use --- are the factors that determine how the picture will be made. If you have a solution that works for you, keep it, and make pictures.

If you are searching, working to get YOUR vision on a piece of paper ... rule out nothing, and don't assume that there is a magic virtue to a piece of glass that is still glowing fresh from the factory, or one a hundred years old.

All of Photography is magic. We each are responsible to learn how to use it.

.

Lens Philosophy or Do you really need to resolve 68lppm on an 810 1114 sheet?

nworth

John McCallum

MattCarey

df cardwell

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Dan Fromm

MattCarey

Early Riser

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Early Riser

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

rbarker

Charles Webb

Early Riser

jimgalli

Ole

Moderator

removed account4

Ole

Moderator

cperez

smieglitz

MichaelBriggs

Charles Webb

Paddy

Early Riser

df cardwell

Lens Philosophy or Do you really need to resolve 68lppm on an 810 1114 sheet?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency