Slide sharpness

[lxdude]

The philosophy, as expressed by Judge Learned Hand, was that market power was bad on its face, even if gained without direct intent to do so, by a company's excellence; whether it was beneficial was not a consideration. There was some merit to opening up the processing market, but the effect was so much more than that. They took an American company's worldwide market position and used it to justify weakening the company by forcing it to hand over its hard-earned process secrets to foreign competition. The other companies could still sell processing with their film, so why did they need compatibility with Kodak's processes? Fuji and the rest must have been laughing and shaking their heads at the gift they were handed for free.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Not only that, but Japan INC was feeding subsidies to Fuji et. al.

PE

 

[lxdude]

Damn right. They must have marveled at our stupidity.
I forgot to mention that Kodak could not improve films and processes together on a continuous basis because it would be anti-competitive, as the competitors would then have non-compatible films. So we consumers lost out on improvements to EK's products because our Government wanted to protect us consumers from big bad EK.

 

[tomalophicon]

USA - USA - USA!

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak was sued in 1970 by several companies over the introduction of EP3. At that time a number of product improvement projects were cancelled which would have improved image stability by quite a bit. Ansco won (GAF) saying that our new EP3 process hurt them, but in fact, their paper went through our process as good as ours did.

Oh well. Don't get too big.

Many blame the Kodak problems on Kodak but I see a different perspective.

PE

 

[lxdude]

USA - USA - USA!

The country's got a lot to recommend it, but overreaching bureaucrats suck no matter where you are.

 

[tomalophicon]

The country's got a lot to recommend it, but overreaching bureaucrats suck no matter where you are.

True, they do suck.

I bought 200 sheets of slide film the other day...

 

[lxdude]

Kodak was sued in 1970 by several companies over the introduction of EP3. At that time a number of product improvement projects were cancelled which would have improved image stability by quite a bit. Ansco won (GAF) saying that our new EP3 process hurt them, but in fact, their paper went through our process as good as ours did.

I suppose Kodak attempted to demonstrate this. If so, I wonder why it didn't convince the court.

In a common sense world, Ansco would have been told to make their products to conform to the new process, and in return gain the benefits of it.

Fat chance of that, I guess.

 

[michaelbsc]

The country's got a lot to recommend it, but overreaching bureaucrats suck no matter where you are.

Yeah, and we got plenty of them.

Anybody from off want some? They're free for the asking. We can probably even come up with the expense money to move them to your country if you *PROMISE* you won't send them back.

 

[OzJohn]

Kodak extracted their revenge on Ansco in 1998 when, in partnership with others, they acquired the plant in Binghampton (by then owned by Anitec, a subsidiary of International Paper who also owned Ilford for a time) and demolished it - film was still strong in '98 so it is probable that the real purpose was to prevent another party from acquiring a coating facility in North America. I guess it was good practice for the mass disposal/demolition of Kodak plants that was to come within a decade. OzJohn

 

[Photo Engineer]

Oz;

There were 2 other coating plants in the US owned by Fuji and Konica, and so destruction of the GAF plant would have been pointless from the POV you give. Also, by that time, the plant in Binghamton was totally useless as a coating facility, having been used for other purposes for years.

LX;

Yes, we processed GAF paper in our processes. It went through but required a different development time and that was their argument, that the process change hurt them. However, an adjustment to the processor allowed the change with little fuss or bother. EK lost. I was deposed by the court in that case. My comments were only given in writing though. Same thing with the Polaroid suit. So, you might say that I was a "witness" in the GAF, Berkey, Polaroid and other law suits and worked on the internal "witness" testimony / deposition information.

PE

 

[bishy]

Wow. A strange thread this has turned into!,enlightening though.

 

[brianmquinn]

Ignore what I said about Elitechrome. Kodak just gave it the AX.
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2301052&pq-locale=en_US

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello,

I gather Velvia 50 is the sharpest available slide film on the market. Could anyone please advise on the sharpest 100 speed slide film available?

Thank you.

Hello,

we've tested all slide films of the market during the last years on a scientific basis, with scientific test methods and with photo equipment that is used in daily photography.

The following test results are obtained with an F6, both Nikon Nikkor 1,8/50 AI-S and Zeiss ZF 2/50, f5,6, 1/250s, MLU, Berlebach Report 3032 wooden tripod.
The resolution was measured in the middle (both lenses deliver identical resolution in the middle at f5,6, but the Zeiss has better performance in the corners and at open aperture).
The values are system resolution (lens res. + film res.). Object contrast: 1:4.
The lower, first value indicates clear, separated lines, the second, higher value the resolution limit, where you can still identify a contrast difference between the lines.

Kodachrome 64: 90 - 105 lp/mm
Velvia 50: 110 - 125 lp/mm
Velvia 100: 125 - 140 Lp/mm
Velvia 100F: 125 - 140 lp/mm
Sensia 100 (III): 120 - 135 lp/mm
Astia 100F: 120 - 135 lp/mm
Provia 100F: 120 - 135 lp/mm
Ektachrome E100G: 120 - 135 lp/mm
Elitechrome 100: 120 - 135 lp/mm
Elitechrome 100 ExtraColor: 115 - 125 Lp/mm
Ektachrome 100VS: 115 - 125 lp/mm
Elitechrome 200: 100 - 115 lp/mm
Rollei CR200: 65 - 75 lp/mm
Provia 400X: 105 - 115 lp/mm

Velvia 50 was the "king" concerning sharpness and resolution when it was introduced over 20 years ago.
Now Velvia 100 und 100F are indeed better.
If you consider the real sharpness of a line,of an edge, then even Provia 100F, Astia 100F, Sensia 100, E100G and Elitechrome 100 are better. It is visible under the microscope and in projection with excellent projection lenses.
Velvia 50 suffers a bit from its coarser grain, the line appearence is more "rough".
But subjectively Velvia 50 appears sometimes a bit sharper compared to Provia 100 & Co due to its higher contrast. Same with Velvia 100 and 100F compared to Provia 100F & Co..

Best regards,
Henning

 

[brianmquinn]

You test is most likely OK when it comes to technical terms. As for subjective test I tried Elite Chrome 100 vs Kodachrome 64 in the same camera with same lens. Shot the last frames of a roll of KR64 roll and then shot the first frames of the test roll of EB next roll. It was an outdoor sunny day test. IMO the KR64 was MUCH sharper then the Elitechrome 100. Perhaps it was due to KR64 being higher in contrast, perhaps not. Still the Kodachrome slide LOOKED much sharper to me. I tested several rolls this way over a few months. The last shots of one roll of KR64 then the first shots of the next type of film to be tested. Not exactly a controlled test but good enough for me to decide what worked for me.

 

[Rudeofus]

Just to put this into context: there are few lenses and photographic opportunities where one really achieves the full potential of any of these films Henning listed here. There was an article on Dead Link Removed which no longer exists there but has been archived here, which basically states that 50 lp/mm are already quite a feat.

My conclusion from all that would be: don't worry about the resolution of modern film, it's most likely not the limiting factor in your shooting, unless you put major effort in optimizing everything else.

 

[bishy]

I replaced Velvia 100 with RVP50,the difference was noticable in that it looked much sharper to me. I gather RVP100 is higher in contrast over RVP50. Other things to note out in the field,was the better shadow and highlight detail in RVP50,over the 100 speed Velvia.

I started the thread a few months back to find the sharpest 100 speed slide film,mainly for portraits in a landscape setting. I have since replaced Provia 100F as my intended choice with Velvia 100F. I gather from your results Henning i made the right choice,thank you for sharing and posting your findings. The main objective was to find a little less saturation and skin tone color than RVP50,but still get the pop. I think so far i have achieved my aim with Velvia 100F.

 

[Rudeofus]

I have since replaced Provia 100F as my intended choice with Velvia 100F. I gather from your results Henning i made the right choice,thank you for sharing and posting your findings.

Ranking slide films just based on their resolution (while ignoring their color palette) is about as useful as comparing lenses just based on their sharpness (while ignoring their focal length). If resolution is really all you care about, you might as well use low ISO B&W film? Also, a move to a larger format would help more than the finest slide film.

 

[bishy]

I don't think that's fair. I did state in my post my main aim was for a less saturated film than RVP 50. I did weigh up all the other attributes of any film i choose,not just my sharpness question.

 

[Henning Serger]

You test is most likely OK when it comes to technical terms. As for subjective test I tried Elite Chrome 100 vs Kodachrome 64 in the same camera with same lens. Shot the last frames of a roll of KR64 roll and then shot the first frames of the test roll of EB next roll. It was an outdoor sunny day test. IMO the KR64 was MUCH sharper then the Elitechrome 100. Perhaps it was due to KR64 being higher in contrast, perhaps not. Still the Kodachrome slide LOOKED much sharper to me. I tested several rolls this way over a few months. The last shots of one roll of KR64 then the first shots of the next type of film to be tested. Not exactly a controlled test but good enough for me to decide what worked for me.

When it worked for you than it is absolutely o.k.. That a photographers likes his results is most important.

There is a good reason why I have differentiated between 'objective' sharpness (analysing the shape of the lines and edges) and 'subjective' sharpness, the 'sharpness impression' you as an individual have looking at an picture enlarged to normal or smaler sizes.

From the technical point of view, if you analyse the objective sharpness of Elitechrome 100, Sensia 100 etc. and K64 at bigger enlargements, in projection or under the microscope, then the modern ISO 100 slide films are indeed sharper.
But from a subjective point of view, lots of photographers say they would give K64 a bit higher rating for sharpness.
Well, I have used K64 for this reason as well, especially during the 80's.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Just to put this into context: there are few lenses and photographic opportunities where one really achieves the full potential of any of these films Henning listed here.

Well,from testing lenses, films and sensors for more than 20 years now I have to disagree. Most photographers underestimate the potential of (modern) lenses and films.
A good prime lens for example is diffraction limited. Source: Dr. H. Nasse, chief optical designer of Zeiss. Zeiss has published the results several times during the last years.

Other test institutes published similar data, for example Image Engineering, Ing. D. Wüller in 1998. In their test instruction for lenses they have written that good lenses deliver resolution values well above 100 lp/mm (system resolution with film) with moderate object contrast of 1:4 (at that time they shipped a test chart for their test with this object contrast, I still have it here).

We were successful reaching the diffraction limit as well with standard 50mm primes at f5,6. Using normal gear (220€ wooden Berlebach tripod, Nikon F6, Adox CMS 20).
The main problem is definitely not the lens or the film, it is the photographers technique: Yo have to do exact focussing (best method: focus bracketing) and avoid vibration (wooden tripods with "Eschenholz" = ash tree are working much better than aluminium for example; ash tree has significant better vibration absorbing qualities; therefore it is preferred for using astro telescopes as well).

There was an article on Dead Link Removed which no longer exists there but has been archived here, which basically states that 50 lp/mm are already quite a feat.

I know the article very well, I have a print version here.
There are some significant mistakes in the text. Lot's of statements in this text were not based on scintific tests, but on "hearsay".
And reaching 50 lp/mm in a resolution test is not difficult at all, it's quite easy. You even surpass it handheld with shorter shutter times.

My conclusion from all that would be: don't worry about the resolution of modern film, it's most likely not the limiting factor in your shooting, unless you put major effort in optimizing everything else.

I agree: Most modern films and (prime) lenses deliver excellent resolution, and in most cases it is indeed not the limiting factor in our shooting.
The bottleneck is the photographer.....

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

I started the thread a few months back to find the sharpest 100 speed slide film,mainly for portraits in a landscape setting. I have since replaced Provia 100F as my intended choice with Velvia 100F. I gather from your results Henning i made the right choice,thank you for sharing and posting your findings. The main objective was to find a little less saturation and skin tone color than RVP50,but still get the pop. I think so far i have achieved my aim with Velvia 100F.

The difference between Provia 100F, E100G, Sensia 100, Astia 100F and Velvia 100 / 100F concerning resolution and sharpnees is not very big, have a look at the values I have posted.

I would decide which film to choose more on other parameters: Color rendition and contrast.
And you say you are using the film for portraits in landscapes: So you need both excellent skin tones and excellent rendition of the colors dominating in your landscapes.
Color is a very personal, individual thing. Ask 10 photographers about the color rendition of a certain film and you will get at least 11 answers.....

My suggestion: Try different films and choose the one or two you like best concerning color rendition.
And you can even tweak it by using a Skylight 1A or 1B filter ( a good option for improving skin tones with Provia 100F on overcast days e.g.).

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Rudeofus]

Well,from testing lenses, films and sensors for more than 20 years now I have to disagree. Most photographers underestimate the potential of (modern) lenses and films.
A good prime lens for example is diffraction limited. Source: Dr. H. Nasse, chief optical designer of Zeiss. Zeiss has published the results several times during the last years.

We were successful reaching the diffraction limit as well with standard 50mm primes at f5,6. Using normal gear (220€ wooden Berlebach tripod, Nikon F6, Adox CMS 20).

And reaching 50 lp/mm in a resolution test is not difficult at all, it's quite easy. You even surpass it handheld with shorter shutter times.

Resolution tests are immensely important for film and lens makers, but in practical shots many effects come into play which limit achievable sharpness.

If your subject matter is too far away, air diffusion limits your achievable resolution, at least that's how photozone.de explains the disappointing sharpness measurement results for long Canon glass: the 400mm F/5.6L performed seemingly worse than the kit zoom only because the test target was 25m away from the lens. Draw the conclusion what this means for any landscape shot ....

If your subject is closer, DOF becomes an issue, and exact focusing won't save you, unless you shoot flat subjects all day. If you want 120 lp/mm, you need CoC diameters of less than 8µm, which gives you 1/3 of the DOF you normally calculate with, and a much longer hyperfocal distance with it. A 135mm lens at F/11 (regardless of format, based on CoC < 8µm) gives you 9 cm of total DOF at a distance of 3m, and the hyperfocal distance is almost 200m. Yet, if you stop down beyond F/11, diffraction limits you below 120 lp/mm.

There may be exciting subject matter which is about 5m away from the camera and reasonably flat, but it rarely seems to show up on the APUG gallery.

I would decide which film to choose more on other parameters: Color rendition and contrast.

+10000000 to that

 

[keithwms]

I find it absurd that anyone would imply that sharpness doesnt matter except in some technical sense... particularly for a piece of film that tends to get enlarged onto screens many meters across, which is precisely what I and many other analoguers like to do with slides.

To the O.P. and other like-minded individuals: if you want to get the best out of your technique and gear and film then ask these questions, confident that some of us will happily discuss them.

And even if rms granularity or MTF or whatever truly doesnt matter in your final image, it is usually beneficial or at least interesting to understand the science behind the changes in film quality over the years.

 

[bishy]

I think i have stated on two seperate ocassions now,sharpness was not the only consideration for my current film choice!

So i thank you all again for your input and help.