Why can't papers resolve hundreds of lpm like some films can?

chip j · Oct 17, 2016

What's your light source? That's the key. BTW, I shot a 4X5 Speed Graphic as a US Army photographer, printed on those shitty Omega 4X5 enlargers. I learned photography w/a 4X5 view camera @ the US Army Signal School in Ft. Monmouth. The position of Seventh Army Command Photographer was created just for me. Plus, I have a BA in Art History.

DREW WILEY · Oct 17, 2016

If I employed the same lens throughout, you couldn't even tell which enlarger or light source I used, whether Omega, Durst, home-made, at least if
we're talking about black and white prints. I could match results at will. Color printing is a distinctly different subject, and in terms of mechanical
precision and convenience, Durst sure holds a distinct edge.

Terry Breedlove · Oct 17, 2016

NJH said:
Sounds like the OP needs to be shooting daguerreotypes. That is the incredible thing about our medium, the big technological changes have tended to result in lower resolution but an end result and convenience of imaging chain that most prefer.

I have some civil war era tintypes. Small yes but very sharp and detailed little things I wonder what a 20x24 would look like.

Leigh B · Oct 17, 2016

chip j said:
I have a BA in Art History.

Cudda fooled me.

I thought you had a BS.

- Leigh

chip j · Oct 17, 2016

DREW WILEY said:
If I employed the same lens throughout, you couldn't even tell which enlarger or light source I used, whether Omega, Durst, home-made, at least if
we're talking about black and white prints. I could match results at will. Color printing is a distinctly different subject, and in terms of mechanical
precision and convenience, Durst sure holds a distinct edge.

If I used the same lens on my Durst Micromat & then on my 1c, there'ed be a world of difference. Even "common" housewives w/no experience in photography have noticed it right away (and they like the Durst much better).

Arklatexian · Oct 17, 2016

Photo Engineer said:
Nothing coated on a reflective surface is going to be sharp. It is due to back surface reflections which scatter the image. Reducing scatter would cause about a 1 stop speed loss minimum, and also risk leaving the acutance dyes in the paper thus giving higher dmin. Color papers have some dyes due to the 6 layer design. But their main use there is to adjust speed.

PE

PE, that is what I have always heard and experienced. The image on paper viewed with reflected light is never (can I ever say "never" here?) as sharp as to lines per mm as when viewing a negative with transmitted light. I think that is what you said. I will add, however, if anyone made a paper showing 1000 lines per mm, there would be someone demanding a paper showing 2000 lines per mm.........Regards!

RalphLambrecht · Oct 18, 2016

chip j said:
As far as I know, papers can only get 40-50lpm. This is a GROTESQUE imbalance. Seems like papers are in the Dark Ages.

remember that a 10x enlarged negative only has 1/10th theresolution!

Dali · Oct 18, 2016

Funny... I never saw any Durst Micromat in any professional lab I visited...Durst 138, yes (a lot), Micromat, no.

chip j · Oct 18, 2016

Micromats are 35mm ONLY.

Dali · Oct 18, 2016

wiltw · Oct 18, 2016

Why would need papers to resolve like film? Film, as the capturing media -- in combination with 135 mm format optics -- might achieve 100 lp/mm. But then if we enlarge the 135 format by 16X that is delivering only 1/16 of the resolution to the paper...or 6.25 lp/mm
Even at a modest 8X enlargement (8x10" print) we need paper to only hold and present 12.5 lp/mm

baachitraka · Oct 18, 2016

If you are interested try projecting them on the screen.

DREW WILEY · Oct 18, 2016

MicroAnts? Well, anytime I've seen them anywhere near my Durst, I spray them!

DREW WILEY · Oct 18, 2016

... Sorry, I couldn't help it. Along along I suspected you had some dedicated 35mm application in mind. But in principle, it should be possible to direct
light in an analogous manner in a bigger Durst too, if one desired that.

Thomas Bertilsson · Oct 18, 2016

Easy to summarize: You enlarge most film so much that the paper out-resolves what is projected on it during print making.
But, that doesn't matter, because your human eye can't resolve what's shown on the paper anyway.

chip j · Oct 18, 2016

Dali said:
And?

And they probaly cost too much for a bean-counter lab.

Dali · Oct 18, 2016

chip j said:
And they probaly cost too much for a bean-counter lab.

Wrong.

The right and logical answer is: They know exactly what they need to do their job and they don't need such enlarger.

If you were right, all professional labs would be "bean-counters" which is unlikely the case.

faberryman · Oct 18, 2016

chip j said:
BTW, I shot a 4X5 Speed Graphic as a US Army photographer, printed on those shitty Omega 4X5 enlargers. I learned photography w/a 4X5 view camera @ the US Army Signal School in Ft. Monmouth. The position of Seventh Army Command Photographer was created just for me. Plus, I have a BA in Art History.

And your point is?

Why can't papers resolve hundreds of lpm like some films can?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency