POLL - How much resolution (lpm) you can achieve?

[A49]

I´d like to start a little poll to see what resolutions are possible for you in LF. It would be interesting to compare what is your peak result under "laboratory conditions" using a test chart and how much of that you can realize in the field. I´m aware that almost nobody will shoot test targets in the field, but perhaps you can interpolate from small details how much resultion you usually achieve outdoors or at least if your outdoor shots are nearly as sharp as the test shots or significantly less.

It would be nice of you to use that proposed chart. If that is too much for you, but you would like to attend in the poll anyway, just fill out the fields that you like to.

test shots

peak resolution (lpm):

negative format:

lens used:

aperture used:

exposure time used:

film:

developer:

used light (flash or lamps):

in the field

usually achieved percentage of your peak resolution (only a rough estimation):

usually used lens(es):

usually used apertures:

usually used exposure times:

your standard film:

your standard developer:

prefered light conditions (direct sunlight or shadowed sunlight or dull weather):


Maybe we all could learn something from the contributions. Thanks in advance to all that join in.

Best regards,
Andreas Rudolph




My results:


test shots

peak resolution (lpm): 40 lpm

negative format: 5 x 7 inch

lens used: Symmar-S 5.6 / 210 mm

aperture used: f/22

exposure time used: 20 s up to 2 minutes

film: ADOX / ROLLEI Ortho 25 (effective speed 6 to 12 ASA)

developer: Rodinal 1+200

used light (flash or lamps or daylight): daylight



in the field

usually achieved percentage of your peak resolution (only a rough estimation): 50 % to 80 %

usually used lens(es): Symmar-S 210 mm

usually used apertur(es): f/22

usually used exposure times: 10 to 3 minutes

your standard film: ORTHO films (ADOX / ROLLEI ORTHO 25, ORWO FO1 and FO5)

your standard developer: Rodinal 1+200 (in the tray, intermitted agitation)

prefered light conditions (direct sunlight or shadowed sunlight or dull weather): dull weather or shadowed sunlight

 

[RalphLambrecht]

All my results packed into one chart attached:

 

[Rick A]

I resloved years ago to not bother myself with resolution, only results.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I resloved years ago to not bother myself with resolution, only results.

That is what I do!

Jeff

 

[Dan Fromm]

My shots are never as sharp as I want them to be. Fortunately sharpness isn't all that matters. I had a couple of shots taken with my Perkeo II (I know, 6x6 isn't LF) printed and the prints please even though they won't bear close scrutiny.

 

[Existing Light]

I resloved years ago to not bother myself with resolution, only results.

That's how I roll, too. LPM isnt too important for me; the final image is all I care about. Obviously, LPM plays a part in the final image, but so does composition, contrast, and artistic style.

Obviously, you need the camera for the job you want. If you're doing a job that requires uber LPM, then make sure you have a setup that can deliver. If all you have is a Holga, then you need to limit yourself to what a Holga can do. I dont have a lens for my recently aquired 5x7 camera yet, but when I wont obsess over LPM when I do get shooting with it. (hell, I might even make a pinhole for it )

 

[Athiril]

I resloved years ago to not bother myself with resolution, only results.

Same thing imho really.. caring about your results. Peace of mind to maximise quality potential, so you can then focus on creating your image.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I resloved years ago to not bother myself with resolution, only results.

I should have said that although I know sharpness isn't all, I do shoot comparable lenses against each other to decide which one(s) not to use. Making these decisions doesn't require formal resolution testing. I sometimes shelve the slightly sharper lens because the not-quite-so-sharp one is sharp enough and has better contrast or is less prone to flare or is simply easier to use.

 

[2F/2F]

47 meeelion!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I resloved years ago to not bother myself with resolution, only results.

That's all well and good, and many will agree with you. However, it seems to be important to the OP. So, let's deal with his question.

That said, I don't think sharpness is the only criterium either, but I'm always turned off by images that are not as sharp as they could be when they could be improved by sharpness. I'm well aware, unsharpness can be a creative tool (many good examples in the APUG library of that), but that shouldn't become an excuse for sloppy craftsmanship.

 

[Steve Smith]

I resloved years ago to not bother myself with resolution, only results.

That is also my method.


Steve.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I'm more the artist and know enough the science of photography to be dangerous.

 

[2F/2F]

I'm interested to know what people have to say on this, though I cannot say that I would know how to apply it practically.

If there were a big fat cash bonus for personally maximizing resolution on every single pic of mine, though, I might be willing to learn....

 

[removed account4]

i would love to know the resolution of the lenses and methods i employ
but i have never been educated in the black art of resolution tests,
so i just shrug my shoulders.

it is interesting ralph that your 35mm system seems to blow the doors off of your other camera-systems ..
( or maybe i am reading your graph wrong ? )

john

 

[dpurdy]

That's all well and good, and many will agree with you. However, it seems to be important to the OP. So, let's deal with his question.

Dang it Ralph, I was just about to crack a New Year's Resolution joke.

 

[Hikari]

Since resolution of the camera system is dependent on target contrast, it is impossible to know what resolution I get in the field. Test are a controlled environment which allows you to evaluate a system, but the number is a relative one. You need to understand what will happen under different conditions.

 

[outwest]

John, while the graph shows that 35mm lenses are capable of higher resolution than larger formats, it also seems to show that the resolution obtained barely gets the 35 into the critical image category while the 6x6 lens resolution exceeds the 6x6 critical range and the 4x5 way exceeds it. Is that what it shows, Ralph?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

i would love to know the resolution of the lenses and methods i employ
but i have never been educated in the black art of resolution tests,
so i just shrug my shoulders. ...

Let's not forget, you are the master of beautiful 'unsharp' work!

... it is interesting ralph that your 35mm system seems to blow the doors off of your other camera-systems ..
( or maybe i am reading your graph wrong ? ) ...

You are reading it right, but that's very common. Lens resolution decreases with increasing film format. There is decreasing need for lens resolution if the negative is not magnified by much. Our eyes have a resolution limit.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

John, while the graph shows that 35mm lenses are capable of higher resolution than larger formats, it also seems to show that the resolution obtained barely gets the 35 into the critical image category while the 6x6 lens resolution exceeds the 6x6 critical range and the 4x5 way exceeds it. Is that what it shows, Ralph?

Precisely!

 

[A49]

I resloved years ago to not bother myself with resolution, only results.

Yes it´s the results that count. Everywhere and everyday. If you don´t like the technical terms resolution or lpm, which I also don´t want to overstress, then just tell how much you can enlarge your negs until you would say they could be sharper.

I also think, that it is hard to ruin a picture from good scenery with good light by any technical deficiency. First of all the composition and the display of b/w tones or colours make a good photograph.

But that sharpness or resolution don´t make a good picture is a commonplace that is always heard if someone cares (too much) about them. Don´t misunderstand me - I neither want to start a resolution competition nor I want to burden photography as a creative art with a technical overkill.

I know if I would enlarge my 5x7 inch negs to a size of 12x16 inch, all resolution problems would be solved forever and focal length and largest aperture would be the only things I would have to think of when I had to decide between lenses. Yet one but not the only reason why I shoot 5x7 inch is that I want to make really large prints that are perfect sharp. The reason why I asked for your lines per millimeter is that I think about changing from LF to MF for convenience and to be more flexible. Since I usually can not enlarge LF negs more than 4 times when I critically look after the print´s sharpness I wonder if I can produce the same results in the same print size with the same fine details using MF. My impression is that in LF the sharpness you can achieve is limited by many accidental, small influences. To say it clearly: If I usually end at 30 lpm in 5x7 inch then maybe I should take a MF camera (6x7 cm or 6x9 cm) where it could be easy to produce the double resolution or even some more. A 6x9 cm neg that I can enlarge 8 times because of its higher resolution creates the same maximum print size as a 5x7 neg that I can enlarge (only) 4 times.

Therefore I wanted to hear from you, if your everyday LF results regarding the resolution are usually the same, lower or higher as mine. If the latter was the case I should increase my craftsmanship or maybe fine tune my equipment.

Best,
Andreas

P.S. I have a 12 x 16 inch print of one of my sharpest 35 mm negs shot with Technical Pan that has got beautiful rich and smooth tones, practically no visible grain and is sharp enough for my taste. If I enlarge Adox / Rollei ORTHO about 8 times I still have very pleasing and smooth tones. So please don´t argue that I should stick to LF because of the grain or the beauty of the tones.

 

[Bill Burk]

Ralph,

It's a very information-packed chart. Great use of graphics.

I also read off it that 4x5 exceeds critical even up to f/32. Also suggests by continuation that f/64 might be for our 8x10 friends.

I don't see the size of the print, maybe it's in the text?

Bill

 

[Marco B]

John, while the graph shows that 35mm lenses are capable of higher resolution than larger formats, it also seems to show that the resolution obtained barely gets the 35 into the critical image category while the 6x6 lens resolution exceeds the 6x6 critical range and the 4x5 way exceeds it. Is that what it shows, Ralph?

Maybe reformulating the statement as follows makes it a bit more clear how to interpret Ralph's graph:

While 35mm lenses are capable of higher resolution than lenses for larger formats, the necessity of greater enlargement of the negative during printing on photo paper, means the actual perceived sharpness and resolution in the print is less than in prints made from larger format films, as those latter film formats (MF and LF) require (far) less enlargement during the printing stage if printing to the same final print size.

But maybe this is a bad interpretation...

Marco

 

[23mjm]

This is nearing a digital type thread!!!! Lets talk specs not results.

 

[Marco B]

This is nearing a digital type thread!!!! Lets talk specs not results.

Why? :confused:

Talk of lens resolution and printing on photo paper is as old as analog photography is, that is, over 150 years... I don't see anything d******l in that. Lens resolution is still sometimes tested with what is called USAF 1951 resolution charts, the design of which is 60 years old by now...

 

[outwest]

Yes, Marco, that is exactly the way I took it to mean - viewing a comparable print which requires a lower enlargement factor from the larger film.