Factually wrong. Diffraction is a physics phenomenon and relates to the wavelength of the light and the physical size of the aperture used. The wavelength obviously doesn't change. As you go up in film size, you generally use longer lenses with therefore larger physical apertures for the same angle of view and same f/stop. So diffraction will be less. This will be the case for the recording as well as the printing. Another factor is that for the same print size, you obviously need to enlarge a smaller format much more than a larger format negative, so whatever softness from diffraction is present in the negative will show up earlier (at smaller print sizes) for the smaller negative sizes.diminishing returns on increasing resolution (line pairs visible) in prints because of increased diffraction. Is this true?
Factually wrong. Diffraction is a physics phenomenon and relates to the wavelength of the light and the physical size of the aperture used. The wavelength obviously doesn't change. As you go up in film size, you generally use longer lenses with therefore larger physical apertures for the same angle of view and same f/stop. So diffraction will be less.
I suppose that the 'diffraction' story may have to do with the assumption that lenses for larger formats may not be manufactured to the same strict tolerances as those for smaller formats, resulting in the smaller format lenses outresolving the larger format ones despite diffraction (and not because of it). But that's a wild guess on my part.
Beg to disagree.
That people may stop down further is possible, but it's also not a given.As you go up in film size, you generally use longer lenses with therefore larger physical apertures for the same angle of view and same f/stop.
Canceling part or all of the gain in the number of resolution elements ("pixels") from using the larger format.
The general public can't tell the difference between a Cibachrome 30X40 from old Ektachrome 64 4x5 film, shot with an old 210 Symmar S lens, and enlarged with an old Componon S, versus what I do today, shooting with superb Fujinon A lenses in relation to current finer-grained 8x10 film (and 4x5), and enlarged onto Fujiflex using far superior Apo Nikkor f/9 graphics lenses. But I can tell the difference, and it gives me satisfaction.
Anyone wants to bring out pen and paper and compute at what aperture a pair of equivalent lenses become diffraction limited on a 100lpmm film for 35mm and 4x5"format and how much further you need to then stop down a large format lens to negate all of the 5x linear size advantage of LF?
But (consider that I'm not much of a LF photographer), don't we have LF cameras with movement so that we don't have to use f64 where there is basically no other option in 35mm format but to use f16?
Logistical issues : With larger formats, like 8x10, an equivalent perspective requires a longer focal length lens than 4x5, hence you are working with a shallower depth of field at comparable aperture, so might need to stop down proportionately to get the same depth of field (f/45 for 8X10 instead of f/22 for 4x5, for example). Of course, the nature of view camera movements and selective composition offsets this to an extent.
The bigger the film, the more risk of it sagging in a sheet film holder and losing some of its acute focus. Solution: use a special adhesive or vacuum 8x10 holder.
How do you intend to print? With inkjet the format distinction makes little difference. But with acute optical printing, I'd rather enlarge an 8x10 original to 30X40 inches than a 4X5 original. Some of this has to do with hue saturation, some to sheer detail, especially in high-detail capacity media like Cibachrome or Fujiflex. There simply something extra there. But I do both.
The general public can't tell the difference between a Cibachrome 30X40 from old Ektachrome 64 4x5 film, shot with an old 210 Symmar S lens, and enlarged with an old Componon S, versus what I do today, shooting with superb Fujinon A lenses in relation to current finer-grained 8x10 film (and 4x5), and enlarged onto Fujiflex using far superior Apo Nikkor f/9 graphics lenses. But I can tell the difference, and it gives me satisfaction.
No way I'm personally going to color print 6x9 beyond 20X24; and even that's dependent on the very sharpest current films like Ektar 100.
I have heard people say that for larger than 4 x 5 negatives, there are diminishing returns on increasing resolution (line pairs visible) in prints because of increased diffraction. Is this true? This question is about enlarged prints where the prints are considerably larger than the negative. The question is NOT about contact printing.
Lens, regardless of format, will get diffraction limited on a film with set resolution, at the same aperture. But since larger film needs less magnification to print at the same size as smaller film, diffraction will effectively cancel out the advantage of larger format (like f64 on 4x5" instead of f16 on 35mm)
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?