Sharpness in the slow lane

Thanks everyone for your guidance. I have some comparison development work ahead, but with the unbelievable amount of advice I have received, my task is greatly lightened. Twenty four responses in 42 hours, on a subject that has been previously beaten ad nauseum. I truly appreciate this help. With three young spawn on the ground, my time is money.

An additional donation to APUG has been sent.

Well we are always happy to beat a subject a little more.

ChrisW said:

Twenty four responses in 42 hours, on a subject that has been previously beaten ad nauseum. I truly appreciate this help.

Click to expand...

Previous posters have suggested changing everything but the camera. Just as an exercise consider it. Yes it is a major change and a lot of money, but how badly do you want the improvement? Divide your negative size into 30x30. Now divide 8x10 into 30x30. If it has to be square make a mask. There is a whole lot of sharpness by any definition in the multiples. If you are shooting architecture isn't perspective control a need or is that being done in PS?

Just a thought from a non technical person who develops TMax in a Jobo with rollo pyro. It is simple. I am color blind. When I took high school chemistry the only thing I knew about litmus paper was whether it was wet or dry.

A double subscriber
John Powers

jp80874 said:

Previous posters have suggested changing everything but the camera. Just as an exercise consider it. Yes it is a major change and a lot of money, but how badly do you want the improvement? Divide your negative size into 30x30. Now divide 8x10 into 30x30. If it has to be square make a mask. There is a whole lot of sharpness by any definition in the multiples. If you are shooting architecture isn't perspective control a need or is that being done in PS?

Just a thought from a non technical person who develops TMax in a Jobo with rollo pyro. It is simple. I am color blind. When I took high school chemistry the only thing I knew about litmus paper was whether it was wet or dry.

A double subscriber
John Powers

Click to expand...

Good point. Perhaps I am asking too much from the format. 8x10 would clearly get me the desired image, but the mobility factor holds me from making the investment. A 4x5 might be a little easier. The 30x30 prints are sharp, but the advice received will make them a bit sharper.

As for PS, I can only assume you are refering to Photo Shop. Sacre bleu!

I´m not a meticulous tester, but the combination of Pan F+ and Neofin blue has put some smiles on my face. I´d prefer it to modern emulsions like Delta or Acros. Basis: my eyes and idea of how a picture should look like.

so guys
just how sharp does a 30x30 image need to be, surely it will be viewed from some distance

Chris, just get it over and go buy a 4x5 field camera for big prints. You have 5x more film area, can use a faster film like efke 100 and stand development with rodinal or pyrocat and can then make some BIG prints. The faster film will be a bit more gritty, but this adds to the sharpness effect you are looking for. Just do it! tim

larger format is really practical advice.
Trying to wring that last 20% of resolution out of a format is more trouble than its worth, unless you are shooting hand-held.

Chris, just get it over and go buy a 4x5 field camera for big prints. You have 5x more film area

Click to expand...

I disagree, part of the challenge (and the fun) is trying to get as much as possible from a small format. It's like telling someone that if they wish to win a go-cart derby they should drive a Ferrari.

Agree that amazing things are possible with 35mm or mf. My point is simply that a larger film is the easiest and best way to get the desired effect on a consistent basis. If money is a consideration, by all means, spend the time on a developer and film combination to wring out that last bit of perfection for the format. If money isn't too big a consideration, a larger format will be money well spent. tim

The minimum I would use for 20x30 inch prints is 6x6 cm - I know i would be happier with 4x5. It is just good logic. More information spread over a smaller relative area. Contact printing is the best. From there, just do the math - each enlargement multiplier takes something of tonality and sharpness away.

I second the suggestion to move up in format if the goal is to make big prints. Yes, you can blow 35mm up to 20X30' if you stand far enough away, but most people look at photographs from a fairly close distance and in my opinion that is imporant because prints have textural and surface qualities that should be appreciated. If it were only about subject matter and detail we could just avoid the print and send each other digial files.

And in fact, cost would be one of the primary reasons for moving up to 6X6 or 6X7 for a project like this because medium format equipment is remarkably inexpensive these days. Anyone who really wants to wring all of the quality they can get out of 35mm will have to pay a premium for the cameras and lenses, because to be plain and simple, in 35mm there is a real difference in quality on the print between the very top of the line equipment and the level just below. And Leica cameras and Leitz lenses are very expensive.

However, there is not a decent medium format camera out there that won't outperform the best Leica in terms of image quality. Even a lowly Kiev 66, which one could buy with three or four lenses in the $500 or less range, would blow the very best Leica away. And some of the medium format equipment is remarkably compact and is every bit as easy to walk around with as 35mm. Just look at the size and weight of cameras like the Bronica RF645 and the Fuji 645 rangefinders, including the GA645Zi which even has a moderate zoon.

In large format you can get away with almost anything and still make prints of outstanding quality. In 8X10 for example, one would see very little differnece on the print between an old decentered Turner Reich triple convertible (even centered ones are not that great compared to really good lenses) and the best Schneider lens, so in this format we can be real "cheap" and still make great prints.

Sandy



\

noseoil said:

Agree that amazing things are possible with 35mm or mf. My point is simply that a larger film is the easiest and best way to get the desired effect on a consistent basis. If money is a consideration, by all means, spend the time on a developer and film combination to wring out that last bit of perfection for the format. If money isn't too big a consideration, a larger format will be money well spent. tim

Click to expand...

All good points. Medium format has been quite good to me, and perhaps I have become too comfortable with the Hasselblad's relative compact convenience. The ease of firing 12 frames without reloading has rewarded me with countless lucky shots. I do not use a motor drive, but I have become increasingly reliant on the PME metered view finder. Most of my subjects require require a moderate degree of mobility.

Trusted advisors, I am leaning toward purchasing a 4x5 setup.

Thanks for you help.

There is a huge difference between MF and LF of any kind - if you are shooting people, the psychology is so different. With roll film, there is some degree of spontaneity - with LF, they are still life. I find I get a much different photo when I shoot with 8x10. There is a deliberate seriousness, like a painting. It really draws out who they really are - not what I made them for a roll film shot - with set up time and all the fuss around the view camera, it brings out a lot of character. With landscape, LF captures so much more. The set up time causes a longer evaluation of composition. What you can do with a 4x5 negative is vastly greater than what you can do with MF. I shoot MF - but when I can shoot LF - I always prefer it.


Bigger IS better