What is the biggest, perfectly sharp format you can get from your sharpest negatives?

hpulley · Feb 7, 2011

Small detail, the ability to endlessly zoom in and yet still see more... this is what fascinates me as well! It is probably a strange fascination, most would rather take in the whole I think, the feeling, the mood, the story, rather than tiny details.

Though at the same time I often enjoy a 35mm Delta 3200 shot enlarged big, lots of grain. The grain gives a level of detail as well, similarly fascinating at times, how the picture comes together from far away and yet close up comes apart.

Allen Friday · Feb 7, 2011

1. Thomas, I do not assume they are examining the sharpness of the print. But, sharpness is one element of the print which will affect how they view the portion of the print they examine up close. When I look at large works, I am often drawn into the print and I want to examine small parts of the print. It is almost as if I am looking at an 8x10 crop of the larger work. I am drawn into the print for many reasons, sharpness alone is not the primary factor.

2. Ralph, Your response goes to the heart of the issue. Depth of field calculations are where this issue always arises. The assumption underlying the calculation is based on a proportional distance. But, this is where I believe there is a central disconnect for photographers who desire to work to a very high standard. They will do many things which others deem "obsessive." Nevertheless, in this area, they throw up their hands and say the DoF charts are good enough to follow. As long as there is enough DoF to make a sharp 8x10 enlargement, then they can go as big as they want because the viewing distance will change. But, for critical viewers, the viewing distance doesn't change.

The Jeff Foxworthly test:

If you have ever printed a step wedge or used a densitometer, you might be obsessive.
If you've ever tested the effect selenium toner has on paper D-max, you might be obsessive.
If you've ever use a spot meter, you might be obsessive.
If you are a member of APUG, you might be obsessive.

Shooting contact prints is the easiest way to satisfy the critical viewer. If it is sharp on the ground glass, it will be sharp on the print.

You can satisfy the critical viewer with enlargements. It takes a different approach to image making, however. DoF charts are set up for "I'm using this camera, what f/stop do I need to get everything in the frame acceptably sharp." I approach it the other way around. If I want to be able to make a sharp 20x24 inch print, I ask which camera I should use to accomplish that. Often it is simply a matter of shooting larger film, and making sure I have enough DoF to print big without sacrificing other aspects of the image. This is often as easy as choosing to shoot 8x10 instead of 4x5 or MF and stopping down from f/16 to f/22 or f/32 (being careful not to stop down too far which will degrade the image). Experience is a good teacher. I have enlarged numerous 8x10 negatives to 20x24 and they are sharp and have very good tone.

Allen Friday · Feb 7, 2011

OP,

If you want to delve deeper into the science behind all this, I recommend Image Clarity, High Resolution Photography, John B. Williams, 1990 Butterworth Publishers. It is a bit dense, but worth the read.

Diapositivo · Feb 7, 2011

The film Blow up by Michelangelo Antonioni is the best illustration of how a photographer (a psychically normal one) is normally obsessed with high resolution. If it's a bug, it's a common one. And it's a bug of mine as well

Ed Sukach · Feb 7, 2011

Even after I've read the description of "Sharpness" I have to answer "Not Possible."

There will be a limit to the edge definition as a characteristic of every lens as enlarging ratio decreases, no matter what film format or emulsion is involved.

"Perfect" is a terrible word. Not much produced by the hands of wo/man comes close.

Bill Burk · Feb 7, 2011

I thought I my 11x14 prints on Galerie 2 from 4x5 TMY-2 were perfect until I pulled out the 30x scope. Then I saw how much better a contact printed albumen print from 1884 was by comparison.

Remembering what Minor White wrote, and faced with a print that did not measure up, I had two choices. Throw out the print or remake myself to fit.

I kept the print and remade myself.

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 8, 2011

Allen Friday said:
1. Thomas, I do not assume they are examining the sharpness of the print. But, sharpness is one element of the print which will affect how they view the portion of the print they examine up close. When I look at large works, I am often drawn into the print and I want to examine small parts of the print. It is almost as if I am looking at an 8x10 crop of the larger work. I am drawn into the print for many reasons, sharpness alone is not the primary factor.

I was talking about 'everybody', including non-photographers, who look at photographs in galleries, museums, or in coffee shops, for that matter.
I am just as convinced that people look at, and appreciate, tonality, color, shape, texture, form, and most of all, content when they view up close. Does sharpness affect how they look at a print up close? Maybe. But that doesn't mean they appreciate it more.

To me, perfectly sharp and realistic prints can be a wonderful thing to behold. But like grain it neither makes or breaks a picture.
A Cartier-Bresson printed by Sid Kaplan is a gorgeous thing to behold. 16x20 prints from 'old' 35mm Tri-X. I can still remember the prints that hung at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts right after HCB died. They had a profound impact on me. And up close they were NOT sharp, and they were grainy, and they were absolutely beautiful.

In my own photography and printmaking I make prints from pinhole negatives a lot of the time. They are 8x8" prints from 120 negatives, and they are impossibly unsharp. So I have to rely on tonality instead to make some visual impact. It works pretty well, and it's a picture that many people and peers appreciate; sharpness and detail has absolutely nothing to do with it. And this goes to prove that people can look at a photograph with their nose up against it, looking for meaning in the pictures - whether they are sharp or not. Which ultimately just means that it is highly individual what we look for in a photograph in order to appreciate it.

Ken Nadvornick · Feb 8, 2011

JBrunner said:
8x10 from 8x10.

Bang...

Ken

Allen Friday · Feb 8, 2011

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I was talking about 'everybody', including non-photographers, who look at photographs in galleries, museums, or in coffee shops, for that matter.
I am just as convinced that people look at, and appreciate, tonality, color, shape, texture, form, and most of all, content when they view up close. Does sharpness affect how they look at a print up close? Maybe. But that doesn't mean they appreciate it more.

To me, perfectly sharp and realistic prints can be a wonderful thing to behold. But like grain it neither makes or breaks a picture.
A Cartier-Bresson printed by Sid Kaplan is a gorgeous thing to behold. 16x20 prints from 'old' 35mm Tri-X. I can still remember the prints that hung at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts right after HCB died. They had a profound impact on me. And up close they were NOT sharp, and they were grainy, and they were absolutely beautiful.

In my own photography and printmaking I make prints from pinhole negatives a lot of the time. They are 8x8" prints from 120 negatives, and they are impossibly unsharp. So I have to rely on tonality instead to make some visual impact. It works pretty well, and it's a picture that many people and peers appreciate; sharpness and detail has absolutely nothing to do with it. And this goes to prove that people can look at a photograph with their nose up against it, looking for meaning in the pictures - whether they are sharp or not. Which ultimately just means that it is highly individual what we look for in a photograph in order to appreciate it.

I agree.

Q.G. · Feb 8, 2011

jnanian said:
i am not interested in sharpness at all but just the same i always find these discussions great.

Which begs the question: do you bother yourself with focussing?

Q.G. · Feb 8, 2011

Diapositivo said:
The film Blow up by Michelangelo Antonioni is the best illustration of how a photographer (a psychically normal one) is normally obsessed with high resolution. If it's a bug, it's a common one. And it's a bug of mine as well

No, no.
He's obsessed with girls.
And wondering about what that was he just about captured in the park.

RalphLambrecht · Feb 8, 2011

Allen Friday said:
...
2. Ralph, Your response goes to the heart of the issue. Depth of field calculations are where this issue always arises. The assumption underlying the calculation is based on a proportional distance. But, this is where I believe there is a central disconnect for photographers who desire to work to a very high standard. They will do many things which others deem "obsessive." Nevertheless, in this area, they throw up their hands and say the DoF charts are good enough to follow. As long as there is enough DoF to make a sharp 8x10 enlargement, then they can go as big as they want because the viewing distance will change. But, for critical viewers, the viewing distance doesn't change. ...

You have two options:

1. Assume a proportional viewing distance and get a fixed CoC.
2. Assume a fixed viewing distance and deal with a variable CoC.

Camera and lens manufacturers have picked option 1. I have too, because DoF calculations are close to impossible with option 2. Also, I think option 1 is more reasonable than option 2. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how close someone will get to the print, with large prints, they will eventually reach the limits of resolution anyway. All one can do is use an optimum aperture and make sure vibrations are minimized during exposure.

I prefer to make photographs for people who enjoy the entire image, including composition, overall contrast and how important parts of the image are highlighted with exposure and local contrast, and less important parts are 'pushed' into the background.

I'm less concerned about the few photographic 'judges' who literally stick their noses right on top of the print. I rather build a fence for them and keep them at a distance. I think that better for the prints as well. I will, however, continue to do it myself to keep an eye on maximum quality, while being fully aware of the limitations.

RalphLambrecht · Feb 8, 2011

Allen Friday said:
OP,

If you want to delve deeper into the science behind all this, I recommend Image Clarity, High Resolution Photography, John B. Williams, 1990 Butterworth Publishers. It is a bit dense, but worth the read.

I second that recommendation for its technical content, but note that it falls short in showing pictorial examples of how this can improve ones photography.

RalphLambrecht · Feb 8, 2011

Bill Burk said:
I thought I my 11x14 prints on Galerie 2 from 4x5 TMY-2 were perfect until I pulled out the 30x scope. Then I saw how much better a contact printed albumen print from 1884 was by comparison.

Remembering what Minor White wrote, and faced with a print that did not measure up, I had two choices. Throw out the print or remake myself to fit.

I kept the print and remade myself.

Good for you, because resolution you need a loupe for to appreciate is totally meaningless.

chimneyfinder · Feb 8, 2011

Surely if you were to examine a print with a loupe, the only information obtained is wether the projected grain is sharp, which tells you if your enlarger is correctly aligned. If your print looks sharp when looked at with the naked eye, isn't that sharp enough ? I think Ralph and others make most sense with this, because sharpness has a subjectiveness that can be approved or rejected as 'being sharp enough'. My eyes aren't as good as they were 5 years ago, so, for me I have to stand back a little to appreciate sharpness or put on some reading spec's to effectively magnify the picture, which changes the ball park somewhat in terms of an objective appraisal.
Just some thoughts,
Mark Walker.

removed account4 · Feb 8, 2011

Q.G. said:
Which begs the question: do you bother yourself with focussing?

shhh ..
i do ... but sometimes i don't .. ( or can't)

i have been using a 4x5 p/s box camera
as well as lenses on my "normal" camera
(graflex 4x5 slr ) and others
that are nearly impossible to focus.

as i said in the previous thread, i was never trained in the black art
of resolution testing, and have never really had in interest in getting uber sharpness.

i am always in awe of people who know all of this technical-stuff ..
and are able to chart and graph and explain it all to a know-not-so-much
like me

Diapositivo · Feb 8, 2011

In a mechanical watches forum, somebody described a fine-crafted watch the mechanism of which was suspended, inside the case, by a plastic component. Just like any true devoted watch obsessed maniac, this person opened the watch to inspect it inside, and found the plastic component. Shocking a sight, that is. After he closed the watch, the plastic component was obviously not visible any more. But he knew it was there, and he couldn't help thinking to the plastic component, "seeing" it through the steel of the case, whenever he looked at the watch.

Morale: it's not only what you can see with your naked eyes that is important, but also what you can't see but you know it's there. Call it "anal" if you like, but we don't see with our eyes, we see with our mind.

Fabrizio

RalphLambrecht · Feb 8, 2011

I prefer things that can be measured. There is a fine line between precision and anal-retentiveness. One should do the best one can do but should stop just short of unreasonable obsession, otherwise satisfaction is replaced by unnecessary grief and nothing is gained.

Mark Crabtree · Feb 8, 2011

Largest perfectly sharp size? 10" x 62" (254 x 4115mm)

It used to be 10 x 58", but I had to take a sabre saw to my contact printer a while back when I pulled a little too much film at a job.

I have made my living selling prints that people do regularly look at with a magnifier. I can also say unequivocally that the better my photographs, the less likely people will look at them that way. Those just aren't the ones that paid the bills.

chimneyfinder · Feb 8, 2011

So the morale regarding sharpness is that although you can see something is sharp, you may 'know' otherwise ? I think we are in to the digital realm here.
This thread is developing nicely.
Mark Walker.

Q.G. · Feb 8, 2011

jnanian said:
as i said in the previous thread, i was never trained in the black art
of resolution testing, and have never really had in interest in getting uber sharpness.

Ah!
"Sharpness at all" now has changed into "über sharpness".
Before long, you'll be confessing that you too use 30x loups and obsess over what they show.

removed account4 · Feb 8, 2011

Q.G. said:
Ah!
"Sharpness at all" now has changed into "über sharpness".
Before long, you'll be confessing that you too use 30x loups and obsess over what they show.

the thing about sharpness is, once you start looking to achieve
"sort of sharp", it goes to "sharp", and then "wicked-sharp" it eventually
slides down that slope to über sharp .

Q.G. · Feb 8, 2011

jnanian said:
the thing about sharpness is, once you start looking to achieve
"sort of sharp", it goes to "sharp", and then "wicked-sharp" it eventually
slides down that slope to über sharp .

Learn to ski and you can have loads of fun on the slopes!

(I.e.: there's nothing inherently worng with that slope, as long as you master it.)

RalphLambrecht · Feb 8, 2011

One photo out of focus is a mistake,
ten photos out of focus are an experimentation,
one hundred photos out of focus are a style.

author unknown

JS MD · Feb 8, 2011

Resolution of the human eye ...
Each pixel must appear no larger than 0.3 arc-minute.
Consider a 20 x 13.3-inch print viewed at 20 inches.
Print subtends an angle of 53 x 35.3 degrees, thus requiring 53*60/.3 = 10600 x 35*60/.3 = 7000 pixels, for a total of ~74 megapixels to show detail at the limits of human visual acuity.....................

What is the biggest, perfectly sharp format you can get from your sharpest negatives?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency