• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

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

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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!
 
Funny... I never saw any Durst Micromat in any professional lab I visited...Durst 138, yes (a lot), Micromat, no.
 
And?
 
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
 
If you are interested try projecting them on the screen.
 
MicroAnts? Well, anytime I've seen them anywhere near my Durst, I spray them!
 
... 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.
 
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 said:
And they probaly cost too much for a bean-counter lab.
Click to expand...

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.
 

And your point is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register