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

[jimgalli]

I began this little discussion in my other thread about my $60 Conley lens but thought perhaps there might be merit in bashing these ideas around a bit on their own.

I do like your economics, though.

Let's see, you have a $1,000 camera with a $200 filmholder shooting film at $4 a sheet. But, you are a cheapskate because you use a $60 lens. Do I have that right?

Can you come over to my house and do some 'splaining? (as in "Lucy, you got some 'splaining to do!")

What about when I take some pictures with my $30 4x5, $75 coated Heliar on film that is $0.50 a sheet....

OK, it may not (probably won't) work out as well. But, in the end, we both have fun, and that is the point of the exercise.

Matt

I will try to 'splain the question you axed. Actually we could start an entirely different thread. (I DID)

Lens companies down through the generations have always tried to balance sharpness and contrast to get the perfect mix, and you'll find different philosophy's and different looks from different corners of the globe. Leica, Zeiss, Nikon all balanced that equation differently and there are faithful soldiers in every camp.

Then of course different formats cause different results with the same formula. It's most likely just a happy accident that I stumble onto a lens with no real value that has a very pleasing mix of sharpness and contrast to paint an 11X14 canvas. My own curiosity dictates that I will shoot some 4X5 with that lens just to see how they might hold up to 4X enlargement.

I would make a case that a Sironar S is probably too sharp to look as nice on this canvas. You lose some sense of "smoothness" for lack of a better term. That's why contact printers love the big Dagor's. They really aren't all THAT sharp.

 

[rbarker]

Do I need high resolving power? Sure. Sometimes.

In my mind, the whole question of lens choice (and its associated resolution issues) is a matter of how you want to render or interpret the particular subject. For some things, when photographed in some styles, a razor-sharp rendition is completely appropriate. Sometimes not. "Jus' depenze"

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The great thing about contact-print-sized formats, is that you can make more aesthetic choices about such things. An image made with a classic lens may turn to mush upon enlargement, but it might be perfect as a contact print or Polaroid.

 

[MattCarey]

It would depend on the tastes of the photographer. Somehow, I don't think that people doing polaroid manipulations would be too upset if the resolution is low. On the other hand, I recently scanned in some of my grandfather's WWII photos. 2x3 and 3x4 contact prints (I believe). I was able to scan them and blow them up to 8x10, no problem.

Now, I litterally stopped typing this post in order to hang an excellent image of a toy train in my office. Would that be better as a tack-sharp image? No way.

Matt

 

[Donald Miller]

In the interest of discussing all possible aspects to this matter, I think that from where I sit that there are more ways then one to skin a cat.

I have shot and contact printed 12X20 and 8X10. More recently I am leaning toward and doing more enlarging of 4X5 using a point light source enlarger. I find that at 11X14 I can produce 4X5 enlargements that rival the best 12X20 contacts that I have produced. I make this statement on the basis of what Jim has said about the 11X14 contacts...that being a combination of sharpness and local contrast.

Now I could not say that if I were enlarging using a cold light head enlarger or even my Saunders 4550 VCCE.

Not all things are equal in lenses...nor are they equal in enlarging equipment.

 

[JG Motamedi]

Jim is correct, as usual.

Take a look at mid 19th century photography, particularly daguerreotypes; the pictures look quite sharp, even though the lenses they were using were pretty poor. For the most part, landscapes were made with a simple meniscus lens, not dissimilar to a Imagon or other soft focus lenses. Yet they are sharp. Why? Because they were stopped down to f/15 or beyond, and were the equivalent of contact prints. No need for a sharp lens, almost anything will do.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Just to clarify my point above. The goal of using a classic lens for me isn't necessarily to produce a sharp or high resolution image or to economize on lenses, but it might be to take advantage of the particular aesthetic character of that lens--the relation and transition between in-focus and out-of-focus, the rendering of the out-of-focus image, the smoothness of tonal transitions, etc. These features might look good on a contact print with a particular lens, but might not hold up on enlargement no matter what the enlarging system is, because the "faults" of the taking lens begin to appear as "faults" when magnified, rather than "character" as they do on a contact print.

 

[Dave Wooten]

Grains of salt and pepper

Jim's posts re: the romance of the old glass. has certainly produced some good discussion and sparked quite a bit of interest. Personally in great part as a result of Jim's reviews of these old lenses, I have taken a long hard look at them again and have started to acquire lenses of the different photographic periods.....Contemporary photographers, then as today, worked to attain the highest state of the art equipment they could find. What has been of interest to me is the quality and rendition of tone-the realism that was attained. I have taken also to collecting old portaits found in antique stores for a buck or so taken in the early 1900, time and again I am am amazed at the beauty and tonality of these photographs..Often we are smoozed by the latest in resolution, modulation transfer function, whatever....but what can your eye see? A resolution greater that the power of the human eye is it necessary?

At times yes it is.

An image taken with modern lens, with high resolution capabilities lets say 4 x 5, and then that image enlarged 4 x's will render detail that in real life you either would not see or would not have noticed or contemplated, it slows one down a bit, you take a second look at what you have not seen before in such detail.....it adds a bit of gee whiz factor

Lets re shoot Pepper number 30. Use a 4 x 5 hi res lens and make an 8 x 10 or 16 x 20 print of the pepper....more detail, but is it a better photograph because of the visible detail and resolution....

Today as "artists" we can choose a lens based on the image and emotion we want to produce, not at all unlike an artist's choice of brush or Knife or application technique.

This is why I am really enjoying the re discovery of the older lenses.....

all submitted IMHO

 

[df cardwell]

Acutance is an illusion.

We buy into the magic if the photographer did the job right.

The most important thing is the tonal relationship between contiguous picture elements. Edw Weston achieved his clarity by imaging scenes which had neighboring elements which were more than one Zone apart.

Acute: Zone V next to Zone III.
Soft: Zone V next to Zone IV.
Dazzling: Zone V next to Zone II.

After that are details to balance the over feel to the image. All the classic lenses - Cooke XIV, Protar VII, Dagor III, and Rapid Rectilinears - gave fine, balanced images: from the center of the field, to the edge, at working apertures. Also, and of enough importance to Weston, Adams and Strand that they corresponded about it, was that the sharply foccussed part of the image was not discordant with the inevitable slightly out of focus areas.

[ DE-FLAMATORY EXPLANATION: Depth of Field is the inverse of Resolution. There is no absolute, and the only valid value is determined by the photographer. ]

Shooting a 1940 ASA 64 film, with a 2 stop filter factor, on a bright sunny day with normal development, means an exposure of 1/15 @ f/16. Stop down to f/32, and it's 1/4. Even shooting at f/32 you suffer loss of detail due to diffraction, and with a 12" lens f/32 ( a 9mm aperture ) it is like shooting a 35mm lens at f/4. A near-far composition, all Scheimflugged and all that, it is inevitable that the challenge of image management is to place the less sharp areas where they won't be objectionable.

So, Adams, et al, used lenses that were not absolutely, critically 'sharp' because the difference between the foccussed and slight-out-of-focus elements was DISCORDANT. No apo-tessars, artars, or tessars. In other words, the oblectives they chose were sharp enough and also had the curious property of a pleasant looking 'out of focus' rendition. The word for that property escapes me at the moment.

Because the photographers were concerned with the effect of the PICTURE rather than attempting to count pine needles at 400 meters, these were good choices for them. Although other lenses were available with higher 'technical' performance, they were less suitable for the work they tried to do.

Today, the main difference in lenses is higher contrast, and higher performance on the edge of the field. Even so, the difference - on the print - is slight. Diffraction eats up much of the difference. And contrast shows up in the deepest shadows anyhow.

The big difference today - in image making - is the improved films. Shoot TMY instead of any 1940 EI 64 film, and you get improved acutance, higher contrast, greater resolution... vastly improved reciprocity failure .... AND 2 1/2 stops more speed.

Since wind never stops and camera motion is the great killer, it's easy to see that an uncoated Dagor is 2 1/2 times 'sharper' with EI 400 film than it is with EI 64. Higher film speed improves the image regardless of diffraction, which neutralises all lenses, regardless of their era.

So, the point is, I guess, that lenses have been plenty sharp enough since WW1,
the critical thing is the eye of the photographer,
and that current films are more relevent to our 'quest for ultimate sharpness',
and that new objectives may or may be of any use at all... depending on the photographer's clarity of vision, and the ability to integrate ALL the elements into a useful photographic system.

Or, the point could just be that the old stuff was fine.

Or, the point could be that with new films and new objectives, we can form a new vision which expresses the tradition of expressive photography in our own day.

.

 

[jimgalli]

Acutance is an illusion.

We buy into the magic if the photographer did the job right.

Perfectly stated.

Interesting to me that in the Daybooks, Weston talks about modifying his lenses so that the apertures could be closed down beyond the normal f64. I think he mentions f256 and not in the context of the old US system either. Then he would have the shutter open half day making the exposures. Adams finally explained to him in a letter in the 1940's that diffraction had caused the opposite effect of what he desired. Maybe. Was he still getting 6 line pairs at f256? I just did the math. Yes, about 6 with diffraction. But never mind because he did acheive phenomenal depth of field and the resulting diffraction actually added to the perceived brilliance in a contact print.

You'll note that on the other page I mention at least once that I shot at f64 1/2. No accident. I know that at that aperture I'm down in the 18-20 lppm realm. But it's for a giant contact print and my eye runs out of gas somewhere between 6 and 10.

Here's the cheat sheet numbers for diffraction for those interested;

f16 - 90 lppm
22 - 64
32 - 45
45 - 32
64 - 22
90 - 16
128 - 11
180 - 8
256 - 6

 

[cperez]

What is gained by going to "modern" glass?

I took a look at enlarged images (since this is how I choose to express myself photographically). I compared coated and uncoated 183mm Protar Series V f/18 c. 1930's and c. 1940's lenses against a quite modern/recent Nikkor 200mm M f/8. Here is what I found:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/NikPro.html

In short, it takes at least 40x enlargements to see any differences in resolution between a simple double doublet (Protart) and the modern 4 element 3 group APO at infinity (according the Nikon's marketing fluff) WonderLens.

So I ask: What does a person gain by spending more money on optics?

 

[Kerik]

So I ask: What does a person gain by spending more money on optics?

Christopher - Interesting study, thanks for posting it. Seems to me all that's gained is status/bragging rights. Kinda like driving a new Beemer.

OTOH, I'd rather brag about making good images and prints with old, 'crappy' lenses.

 

[df cardwell]

.... I compared coated and uncoated 183mm Protar Series V f/18 c. 1930's and c. 1940's lenses against a quite modern/recent Nikkor 200mm M f/8. Here is what I found.......

Great stuff Chris !

.

 

[Early Riser]

The bigger the film the less critical is the resolving power of the lens. An image shot with 8x10 is only going to need a 2x enlargement to make a 16x20, where as an image shot with a 4x5 will need a 4x enlargement to make a 16x20 print. That may not seem like much of a difference but it is. The fact that the 4x5 image requires twice as much magnification to make the same size print means that every step of the way, every link in the image chain is getting twice as much scrutiny. Tripod shake, shutter vibration, misalignment of the lens and film, film flatness, poor or slightly off focus, the lens quality itself. And then the enlargement chain has twice the scrutiny, enlarger lens quality, alignment, negative pop. vibration, enlarger focus, etc.

 

[Early Riser]

So I ask: What does a person gain by spending more money on optics?

Apochromatic correction, more camera movements, less flare and higher contrast, less distortion, less fall off, the ability to use a wider f stop, like F16 instead of F22 or F32 and having lower diffraction, the ability to perform well at wider reproduction ratios. There are differences. Not everyone needs to be that critical and for most it's not worth the money. If you're shooting 8x10 or larger it becomes even less critical.

 

[roteague]

Apochromatic correction, more camera movements, less flare and higher contrast, less distortion, less fall off, the ability to use a wider f stop, like F16 instead of F22 or F32 and having lower diffraction, the ability to perform well at wider reproduction ratios. There are differences. Not everyone needs to be that critical and for most it's not worth the money. If you're shooting 8x10 or larger it becomes even less critical.

And quite probably why the Schneider Super Symmar XL series lenses are geared more to those shooting 4x5, rather than 8x10.

 

[smieglitz]

Here's the cheat sheet numbers for diffraction for those interested;

f16 - 90 lppm
22 - 64
32 - 45
45 - 32
64 - 22
90 - 16
128 - 11
180 - 8
256 - 6

Hey. That looks like another one of those inverse aperture relationship progressions w/ one set going up and the other down. What's the scoop on that Jim? Why ya starting at 90lppm? An actual measurement (average)?

I had an epiphany when I shot my first roll of film in an old Yashicamat 120 roll film camera after using 35mm exclusively for years. Even such a cheap camera/lens with a larger film format showed a greater improvement in quality than the best glass in that smaller format gave. Every move up in format since has shown me the same general result.

Joe

 

[cperez]

Kerik,

You hit the nail on the head.

People can justify just about anything. Put another way, some people will believe marketing fluff regardless of objective reality.

Indeed, what finer thing can a person do in photography than make a beautiful print?

... Seems to me all that's gained is status/bragging rights. Kinda like driving a new Beemer.

OTOH, I'd rather brag about making good images and prints with old, 'crappy' lenses.

 

[Early Riser]

Kerik,

You hit the nail on the head.

People can justify just about anything. Put another way, some people will believe marketing fluff regardless of objective reality.

Indeed, what finer thing can a person do in photography than make a beautiful print?

Originally Posted by Kerik
... Seems to me all that's gained is status/bragging rights. Kinda like driving a new Beemer.

OTOH, I'd rather brag about making good images and prints with old, 'crappy' lenses.

Maybe if I trade in all my Sironar-S's and Ronars for some element separating, single coated (but double coated with fungus), cleaning marked, falling off, distorted old coke bottle I'll be able to make a beautiful print.

 

[cperez]

I would have put it this way: It doesn't require a Sironar-S nor a Ronar to create a beautiful image. But seeings as to how you've already spent the money...

I recently heard of several ULF guys who sold their hugely expensive shuttered WonderLenses. Then they replaced them with a stack of very cheap barrel lenses (still of apparently fine quality) and spent the rest of the money on film, paper, chemistry. It's probably just rumor, but the money saved by going the cheaper route allowed at least one guy to practice his art for literally years without having to spend another dime on lenses, film, or paper. And I seriously doubt viewers of his work could tell the differences between the shuttered glass and the barrel lens'd work.

Again, just to be on the safe side:

Maybe if I trade in all my Sironar-S's and Ronars for some element separating, single coated (but double coated with fungus), cleaning marked, falling off, distorted old coke bottle I'll be able to make a beautiful print.

 

[df cardwell]

Apochromatic correction, more camera movements, less flare and higher contrast, less distortion, less fall off, the ability to use a wider f stop, like F16 instead of F22 or F32 and having lower diffraction, the ability to perform well at wider reproduction ratios. There are differences. Not everyone needs to be that critical and for most it's not worth the money. If you're shooting 8x10 or larger it becomes even less critical.

Thank goodness Photography is a practical exercise.

Apochromatic correction ( TRUE apo ) is not much use for anything but repro work.

There is about as much flare in an uncoated dagor as in a MC Symar. And the flare shows up in the shadows: for those plagued by constantly giving N- development or pre-exposure, one could simply use a quality uncoated lens.

Distortion was Practically eliminated by WW1. For extreme WA lenses, well that's a different story. Not too different, but different.

All lenses are pretty much the same at f/32. But just as opening up a new state of the art Apo-Egonon improves it, a dagor improves too. when we factor in the lens, film, and enlarger we see that System Resolution demands an immense increase of any one value to effect the print. There isn't that much difference you'll see in switching from an uncoated dagor to a new Schneider... if you're doing portraiture or landscape. Or platinum, or contact printing. And when we turn to technical Photography, we run into all kinds of variables that may eliminate whatever advantages 4x5 film has over 120, or even 35mm.

We've never said it's better to use a vintage lens that says "Bottled in Dallas" instead of Nikon. But the point has been that state of the art lenses from 1910 may - and often are - capable of first rate results today by a photographer with a clear vision.

 

[Early Riser]

People who shoot ULF rarely enlarge their negatives, they most often, if not exclusively, contact print, and as I stated earlier, if you shoot 8x10 or larger you could use a coke bottle. As I shoot mostly 6x12cm, 6x8cm, 4x5" and cropped 6x17cm and in the case of the 6x8cm need to enlarge the Image 8 times, the difference in lens quality is obvious.

Personally I don't see the need to denigrate those who have chosen to spend more money on their equipment. If they see an advantage or value in it, it's their business.

 

[k_jupiter]

Indeed, what finer thing can a person do in photography than make a beautiful print?

Talk about it. We're nothing more than a gaggle of Unitarians.


tim in san jose

 

[df cardwell]

Personally I don't see the need to denigrate those who have chosen to spend more money on their equipment. If they see an advantage or value in it, it's their business.

No denigration intended by this writer.

But I was happy, when I stopped shooting 4x5 chromes for a living, to sell the fancy glass. It made no difference to my personal ( and professional B&W ) work. The money was very useful.

More importantly, I think there is some responsibility here, for those that have some experience, to be even-handed in conversation about what is necessary, or ample, for certain types of work.

It pains me - no exaggeration - when somebody is convinced that to begin 8x10 work one needs an Ebony, and 4 or 5 brand new Schneiders !

The point is that a good tool is sufficient. If one has the means and desire to go beyond, fine. But a we can acquire large format gear at least equal to what the classic masters used, and with our new film, we're better off. At a fraction of the price. So, there is less risk to get started, and with a little understanding in the inherent quality of much of the old stuff, confidence to go out and work. And that helps us all.

Sorry for going on... my hobby-horse.

d

 

[Early Riser]

Color fringing and chromatic aberration still appear in landscape, nature or still life photography. Also what about simple color fidelity.

I don't think anyone who understands anything about local contrast processes N minus, as for pre exposure you can control it very accurately to give you the affect that you want. You can vary the amount of fog you add to the film. You can not do that with a lens that is prone to flare. You are stuck with flare and lower contrast. Personally I would rather have as contrasty a lens as possible, and pre expose it down to exactly the contrast amount I want, then be stuck with a low contrast lens. And with a low contrast or flare prone lens you are more often having to push your film, increasing overall contrast and grain.

I have seen differences in distortion with lenses from the 60's as compared to lenses from the 90's. Try shooting architectural interiors or still life and you'll see that distortion still exists.

There are modern lenses that are optimized to be used at more open, less diffraction inducing apertures. While it's true that opening up any lens from f32 to f16 will lessen diffraction, some lenses are extremely soft at the edges when you do so.I may be mistaken but most older lenses were designed to be used at smaller apertures.