Max resolution film size for large format.

[Alan Edward Klein]

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

Koraks in post 33, you explicitly answered a question from Harry that was about printing. Threads often diverge from their title issue, especially since we're talking about similar things in shooting and printing. Ok, so you misread, no big deal.

 

[mshchem]

I remember when you got 3 1/2 × 5 inch glossy prints back from Kodak, 4X enlargement from standard 24x36 mm 35mm negative. 8x10 negative, 2X is 16x20 inches. If I was stinking rich I would set up to make crazy big color prints just for the fun of it. Of course today it's easy, 60 mp sensor, a tripod and a decent place to make your prints. No fun in that

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yeah, 60 mp sensor - imitation ice milk. I'll stick with real ice cream 8x10 film.

 

[MattKing]

Koraks in post 33, you explicitly answered a question from Harry that was about printing. Threads often diverge from their title issue, especially since we're talking about similar things in shooting and printing. Ok, so you misread, no big deal.

This thread reads like it was written by Harold Pinter or Samuel Beckett.
All sorts of posters, reading all sorts of different meanings in the question originally asked.
And in response, all sorts of other posters taking different positions in respect to different issues.
Just for fun, I'll describe how I interpreted the original question:

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.

I read this as referring to moving up in film format size - "negatives larger than 4x5" - and whether there will be diminishing returns on attempting to use that film format size increase to increase resolution in prints due to increased camera lens diffraction apparent in the negatives.

The italicized words reflect the interpretation I reached from reading the relatively vague wording in the original question. I read the reference to "prints" as being merely a reference to whether induced diffraction earlier in the process reveals itself in the prints, not whether the diffraction is induced at the printing stage.

Clearly others interpreted the question differently, and then answered that different question.

It would really help if @bluechromis would clarify which lenses are being asked about - camera lenses or enlarging lenses - when the question is being asked.

 

[koraks]

It doesn't matter really since the diffraction issue plays a role in both camera recording and printing, but overall, it'll be far more of a concern at the camera stage, so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to focus on printing in this thread.

@Harry Callahan it's not that there's a language issue at work; I think several people, including myself, understand you perfectly well, we just don't agree.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Diminishing returns, naah... not in terms of overall print size at least, apples to apples. Comparable levels of magnification, yes somewhat. Lens design and quality control is really another factor with its own can of worms. I suppose someone has at least tried using an old brass Petzval on an enlarger for some artsy effect, or a Coca Cola bottle, or a pinhole cap.

 

[Harry Callahan]

It doesn't matter really since the diffraction issue plays a role in both camera recording and printing, but overall, it'll be far more of a concern at the camera stage, so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to focus on printing in this thread.

@Harry Callahan it's not that there's a language issue at work; I think several people, including myself, understand you perfectly well, we just don't agree.

Well, Drew Wiley and apparently _T_ were not aware that i was talking about printing - though i am stating this for days now.
Ok, if you understand what i`m talking about, then please, just for confirmation, tell me why i am focusing on printing only.

 

[koraks]

My 'we don't agree' statement referred to reducing flare resulting from lack of coatings by stopping down. I don't agree on that bit, I think others don't, either. Regardless if it's about printing or camera capture.

 

[gary mulder]

Way so much focus on flare ? If you, as artist and maker, think it's a problem just use a multi coated optic and a very large portion of that problem will be solved.

 

[koraks]

Way so much focus on flare ?

Someone dragged the subject in by the feet while it had no connection to the question. I agree it's an irrelevant tangent.

 

[reddesert]

This may have been said explicitly already: the original question was about whether diffraction limits the gains to be made from larger format film, assuming that large prints are the end product. When photographing a real world subject onto film, especially in large format film, you're often facing a tradeoff between stopping down for depth of field, and the onset of diffraction. For example, on 4x5, most people would consider using f/16 to be fine, but at f/45-64 diffraction could become noticeable.

This tradeoff isn't as pressing for the enlarging stage because the film and paper are nearly flat, so you're stopping down to compensate for residual non-flatness and any lens aberrations, and there is likely no benefit to stopping down far enough to reach diffraction limitations. So most respondents assumed that the original question was about the taking stage, not the enlarging stage.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gary - multicoating by itself isn't going to solve the problem. It's no substitute for a shade. And multicoating isn't always needed. That's for lens engineers to decide. I have certain single coated lenses that are more flare resistant than most MC ones. (Uncoated antique lenses are another category as far as I'm concerned, whether taking lenses or enlarging ones - pretty much an arcane topic unless one is deliberately seeking a vintage effect.)