Max resolution film size for large format.

[DREW WILEY]

There are photographers who deliberately used diffraction esthetically, for a softer-edged feel. For example, Meyerowitz routinely stopped down to f/90 in many of his shots. The effect was evident not only in 30X40 enlargements, but even subtly in 8x10 contact prints. His lens choices included a 10 inch Commercial Ektar and later a 250/6.7 Fuji W, I believe, which are both very sharp in normal usage - so this had nothing to do with a "soft focus lens" look; it was rather about nuance.

We should all feel free to make up our own rules, based on our own objectives and expectation. Perceived sharpness or deliberate modification thereof is just another tool in a potentially very large toolbox.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Back then lenses were uncoated, so you needed to stop down more than today.

Stuff and nonsense.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Uh-huh.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Uh-huh.

OK. Please explain why uncoated lenses need to be stopped well down. Be aware that I have several pre-WW I Tessars that shoot well near wide open. They are not coated.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Ok. If a lens is uncoated it does produce more flare than a coated lens. If you want to avoid low contrast you need to stop down the uncoated lens more than the coated lens. The OP was asking about enlarging negatives bigger than 4x5 - to (very) big prints. The bigger you enlarge a negative of a certain format, the less contrasty the print will be - and the more it matters that the enlarging lens does produce good contrast, resp. low flare.
In addition to that you cannot put as much uncoated elements into a lens than coated ones. If the elements are uncoated you can put three, maybe four groups into a lens but not more - because otherwise contrast would get too low. That`s why the Tessar lens has been invented as it has four elements, but in three groups - producing more sharpness than a triplet but about the same flare as a triplet. A modern, coated, six element lens should outperform a Tessar, even if the Tessar already is coated.
This means, an uncoated enlarging lens cannot produce as much sharpness at the same f-stop than a modern lens, so you again have to stop it down more.
Then, a hundret years ago, (most?) lenses weren`t corrected for curvature of field, so if you set the aperture to just that f-stop where the lens no longer has too weak contrast and too low sharpness - you can set sharpness on the middle of your print, but at the edges the print will be less sharp because plane of sharpness is bend.
Even with a modern lens, corrected for curvature of field plane of sharpness ain`t really flat - but less bend than on uncorrected lenses. So, again, and for the third reason you have to stop down the uncoated lens more than a modern, coated six element lens to also compensate for that.
Then you may end up at an f-stop which indeed could reduce sharpness of your print due to diffraction.

 

[reddesert]

Stopping down a lens sometimes decreases flare caused by ghost images, but it is not guaranteed to decrease flare caused by non-image-forming light bouncing off uncoated surfaces.

Lenses have been corrected for field curvature since probably the Rapid Rectilinear (1866), certainly the Cooke triplet (1893) and Tessar (1902) are corrected for field curvature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooke_triplet That doesn't mean field curvature is exactly zero, but that the lens is usable at a fairly fast aperture. Lenses have been usable at fairly fast apertures for more than 100 years.

Roughly speaking (for example for a normal lens for each format), the f-number required for a given depth of field goes up linearly with the format size, and the diffraction goes up linearly with the f-number. For example, if you use a 42mm lens on 35mm, 150mm lens on 4x5, and 300mm lens on 8x10, you get about the same DOF with f/5.6, f/20, and f/40 respectively. And if diffraction was the only issue, then those would yield about equal output quality when enlarged to the same final print size.

The problem is, of course, that diffraction isn't the only issue. Getting maximum quality out of the 35mm negative at f/5.6 requires more care to film-lens alignment, grain size, lens resolution, blah blah blah - I mean 35mm makes great prints, but nobody realistically thinks you can make it look like 4x5 just by buying an expensive lens. And there are probably plenty of people whose technique and subject matter allow them to use an 8x10 camera without stopping down to f/64 or even f/40. But again there are other issues besides diffraction that limit making a large print from 8x10", like your printing technique. It's useful to understand diffraction, but there are typically also more important things to worry about, to say nothing of artistic vision.

 

[Harry Callahan]

One problem with uncoated elements is that they do reflect light between each other. If the aperture on a Cooke triplet is wide open, the last element can reflect (non-image-forming) light to the middle element, which again can reflect this light onto the film or printing paper. The more the aperture is closed, the less light can be reflected between these elements, so contrast of the negative or print should increase.
Ok, then correction for curvature of field started (way) earlier than i assumed, but question is how good you could correct curvature of field on a 1893 Cooke triplet and how well you can correct on a modern, coated, six element enlarging lens. I have some projection lenses for 16mm film, coated Taylor Hobsons from the 1950s or 60s and they still suffer curvature of field. I cannot get the entire picture sharp, either the middle or the edges are blurred (to some extend).
Lens quality also does depend on how precise each element is ground and i think they couldn`t do this as precise a hundred years ago as they can today.
So an old enlarging lens still should suffer more curvature of field, even if corrected for, forcing you to stop down more than on a modern lens.

I was wondering where the statement the OP heard *could* be coming from - and a hundred years ago lenses weren`t as good as today. Yes there were Tessars - and i don`t think that you would run into diffraction-problems with an uncoated Tessar - but Tessars were rather premium lenses and i was wondering about "average" lenses for average photographers, because of which i was talking about a triplet before.

 

[koraks]

The more the aperture is closed, the less light can be reflected between these elements, so contrast of the negative or print should increase.

Uhm, no. The exposure will have to be proportionally longer, and proportionally nothing changes in the ratio between internal reflections within the lens and the image-forming, direct exposure. So no, stopping down doesn't help overcome flare issues of uncoated lenses. @Dan Fromm is right.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Too many incorrect stereotypes. The tessar formula has only six glass/air interfaces; another early formula, the dagor double triplet design, has only four. And both continued into the era of multicoating. My 14 inch multicoated Kern Dagor had higher contrast than any other lens of any camera size I've ever used. Too much contrast in fact for typical color chrome usage, so I replaced it with the previous single coated version for my 8X10 kit. The apogee of the tessar formula for LF usage is the Nikon M series, all multicoated. But if you want to go clear back into the 19th to make comparisons, that probably has little relation to any of this discussion with a very few exceptions. Might as well be shooting blue-sensitive plates as well, which contributed their own atmospheric look, probably even more so than lens flare.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Uhm, no. The exposure will have to be proportionally longer, and proportionally nothing changes in the ratio between internal reflections within the lens and the image-forming, direct exposure. So no, stopping down doesn't help overcome flare issues of uncoated lenses. @Dan Fromm is right.

You...must be kidding me... stopping down an uncoated lens does reduce flare, resp. does increase contrast of the neg/print, because you change the amount of internal reflections. By closing the aperture you reduce non-image-forming light but keep image-forming light rays - until you suffer diffraction. It`s not only about ratio of how long image-forming light and non-image-forming light is hitting the emulsion, it also is about the number of how many non-image-forming light rays are hitting the emulsion at all.
Respectively: Take two pictures with an uncoated lens, one rather wide open, one rather closed down and tell me contrast on both negs is the same.

Too many incorrect stereotypes. The tessar formula has only six glass/air interfaces; another early formula, the dagor double triplet design, has only four. And both continued into the era of multicoating. My 14 inch multicoated Kern Dagor had higher contrast than any other lens of any camera size I've ever used. Too much contrast in fact for typical color chrome usage, so I replaced it with the previous single coated version for my 8X10 kit. The apogee of the tessar formula for LF usage is the Nikon M series, all multicoated. But if you want to go clear back into the 19th to make comparisons, that probably has little relation to any of this discussion with a very few exceptions. Might as well be shooting blue-sensitive plates as well, which contributed their own atmospheric look, probably even more so than lens flare.

I assume you are talking to me...
..yes a Tessar has 6 glass/air interfaces because it is made of three groups - one of these groups is made of two elements glued together. That's the trick to reduce flare while increasing sharpness, as i said before.
Yes, simple lenses still are produced up to today. I once had a multicoated triplet, which had outstanding contrast because it only had three elements in three groups - but sharpness and therefore DOF wasn`t that great.
And this is a problem in printing, forcing you to stop down more so you *may* suffer loss of sharpness by diffraction.
"reddesert" went back to the 19th century to show me that curvature of field already had been corrected then. I went back a hundret years, back to 1925 to have some uncoated enlarging lenses for my idea, where the statement the OP heard could be coming from.

 

[JensH]

Hi,

stopping down a lens reduces spherical aberrations - we get more contrast, independant of lens coating.

Just to add this aspect...
Jens

 

[Harry Callahan]

Which is what i say, stopping down increases contrast - but as an uncoated lens has more flare you need to stop down more than a coated lens. If you now print a negative bigger than 4x5 with an uncoated lens you may have to stop down so much you suffer diffraction.

 

[_T_]

The amount of contrast you can lose to flare is far beyond any contrast you can gain by stopping down. Better to find some way to shield the lens from direct light and gain back your aperture options

 

[DREW WILEY]

Efficiency of the shade, amount of internal bellows flare, number and spacing of lens elements, etc - too many factors to allow a blanket generalization. Some early coated zoom lenses probably had worse flare than lots of older uncoated regular lenses, due to so many elements. Some lenses were "improved" simply by limiting the maximum aperture.

The crudest stupidest design in terms of flare is unquestionably the cell phone.

 

[Harry Callahan]

You both are aware that i am talking about printing with an uncoated lens? Never was talking about taking pictures with an uncoated lens. And i am talking about printing negatives which are bigger than 4x5 - have there been zoom lenses for (U-)LF enlargers?

 

[DREW WILEY]

No. I wasn't aware you were talking about enlarging lenses. Yes, there have been zoom lenses for enlargers, but they're quite rare. Internal and bellows flare issues also exist with enlargers, especially old amateur ones.
Likewise, there are ways in which older uncoated and only single coated enlarging lenses can influence image contrast. I employ that tack sometimes to fine tune color print contrast, by keeping on hand a selection of enlarging lenses (none uncoated, however).

But by using a longer than "normal" focal length lens, and thereby employing only the center of the optic, you don't always have to stop down as much as ordinarily to obtain optimal performance. It all depends on the specifics.
And just like having an efficient lens shade when out shooting, it's important to mask off stray light beneath the negative holder plane when enlarging.

Most of my own enlarger heads have a surplus of lumen punch. With one of them, I'm routinely stopping down the apo lens to f/45 for 8x10 negatives onto 16X20 and 20X24 silver prints - and NOBODY is going to detect any loss to diffraction, not even nose up to the print with reading glasses on. Heck, it's less than 3X magnification! Now if you ask me about a color print 4 ft wide from 4x5 or 8x10 film, then it's going to more likely be at f/11 or down to f/16 at the smallest. But I'm using very high quality lenses.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Well, i am talking about enlarging only for days now, i am mentioning it in (nearly) every post i made - and people keep coming, bringing up points not relating to what i am talking about.
Also i am talking about enlarging big, because that`s what the OP was asking about, - and i said so several times - surely you won`t see diffraction on the print when enlarging by factor 3.
Now if there are bellow flare issues - especially with old amateur enlargers - this would be another reason to stop down the lens even more to obtain good contrast, which in turn will move you closer to diffraction - once again.
Yes, you can use a longer focal length lens, but such a lens tends to have a bigger image circle. If image circle is bigger, contrast of the lens usually is lower - so in a world of uncoated lenses it should be problematic to use a longer focal length.

All i am thinking about is where the statement the OP heard could be coming from.

 

[MattKing]

Also i am talking about enlarging big, because that`s what the OP was asking about,

I never took what the OP asked as referring to the enlarging lens. I always understood it to be a reference to film and taking lenses.
I don't believe I'm the only one.
Note that this isn't in a darkroom related sub-forum.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Well, he said

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.

he wasn`t referring to printing only, but he also asked about prints. As diffraction can occur in taking and printing his question is also about printing - and as diffraction could impair sharpness when printing, i focused on printing only and said so from the start:

Thinking about it, the statement you heard *could* have been true like a hundred years ago. Back then lenses were uncoated, so you needed to stop down more than today. If you printed a format bigger than 4x5 you may have used a lens having 180mm focal length - and if this lens was an uncoated triplet you may had to stop it down to f22 or f32, where you indeed could have had reduction of sharpness by diffraction... if the negative have had high sharpness... which wouldn`t have been too likely because a hundred years ago taking lenses also weren`t as good as today...
...but it`s possible that this statement once was true to some extend...

 

[MattKing]

I understand why you might have read it that way, but I don't believe that it was intended that way, because the question was about film size, which seems to be more about cameras than enlargers.
Perhaps @bluechromis could clarify.

 

[Harry Callahan]

It is a general question about diffraction on formats bigger than 4x5 - and diffraction can occur in taking and printing. He is using the word "print"several times... he isn`t using the word "camera" once.

 

[koraks]

It is a general question about diffraction on formats bigger than 4x5 - and diffraction can occur in taking and printing. He is using the word "print"several times... he isn`t using the word "camera" once.

OK, so you misread/misinterpreted, no big deal. The thread is about camera capture, clearly.

 

[miha]

In many threads, it’s clear he was using 'camera lens' and 'enlarging lens' interchangeably.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Still too many generalizations, Harry.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Unbelievable - i must be talking in a foreign language.