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

[chip j]

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

 

[Slixtiesix]

I don´t think it would be necessary. 50 lpm is more than you can discern with the naked eye. You would need a very strong magnifier to see any advantage of higher resolutions. Please mind that in digital printing, 300 dpi (Which is only ca. 12 lpm!) is considered as sufficient and higher resolutions are not regarded as discernible from normal viewing distance. Whether this is true may be subject to debate, but 50 lpm sounds pretty sharp in comparison.

 

[Leigh B]

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

Consider that the best films will resolve 100 lp/mm with a contrast ratio of 1000:1.
With lower subject contrast the resolution drops dramatically.

Then consider that we normally enlarge LF negatives.

A 100 lp/mm 4x5 film enlarged 2X to an 8x10 print yields 50 lp/mm at the paper emulsion.

So how does a paper spec of 50 lp/mm constitute a "GROTESQUE imbalance"?

- Leigh

 

[BMbikerider]

It may have something to do with the surface txture of the paper. Gloss paper (Resin Coated) always looks sharper than a textured surface because their is obviously less texture. Not as good as film, but closer than other surfaces.
I cannot see what the problem is anyway, we are looking at an image which is 1 to 1 and does not need to have a higher resolution. Are we again looking for a problem which does not to all intents and purposes exist!

 

[kobaltus]

Nice bone for puppies, again.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I never feel limited by paper resolution. But I don't measure lpms, just taking pictures.
You could observe this one on 2800x2040 size. I can't find any "grotesque imbalance" with resolution.

 

[removed account4]

i think it is more important to actually make meaningful photographs
why worry about how resolved the print is, cause in the end it really doesnt' matter ..

 

[ced]

Only reason I can imagine the OP has questions is because he probably uses paper in the camera as some of us do, then the res is a bit on the low side if we want to enlarge.

 

[baachitraka]

worry to develop negatives better to put some tones on both the ends.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

For prints tonality is more important than resolution. Remember that we are seeing with the human eye which has a very simple lens with poor resolution.

 

[chip j]

I guess a 800 lpm film like Adox CMS 11 gives you only 80 lpm on paper when blown up 10X from 35mm.

 

[pdeeh]

I. Just. Don't. Care.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The answer is simple. It's because paper is paper. Glossy paper can hold more detail than matte paper. But if you want a serious improvement in detail, all other things being equal, you need a print medium which is itself a film, rather than made on paper. This would include things like the
now discontinued Cibachrome, coated on polyester sheet, and the analogous current Fujiflex Supergloss. Display transparency media are also made on film rather than paper. But I don't know why you're hung up on some LPM number. That means you're thinking digitally, no doubt. So there's a
possible inherent limit to print sharpness right there - no inkjet media is capable of great sharpness anyway.

 

[chip j]

I was just thinking that with the latest films & lenses ( esp. Leica) having great resolving power, I don't know of much like that happening w/papers.

 

[Photo Engineer]

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

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

I was just thinking that with the latest films & lenses ( esp. Leica) having great resolving power, I don't know of much like that happening w/papers.

Speciality film and speciality lenses - not exactly of use by the general public.

It is only "up to" 800 lines per mm, have you checked the real number in your process?

If you want finer grain with your paper, I guess you could try tweaking the development process.

 

[NJH]

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.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Every stage of every process has its limits. The key is to minimize the limits/losses at every stage. Little-by-little... loss-by-loss. It all adds up. The end result is only a sum-total of it's parts.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Really a non-topic unless you're quality control is simply awful. Want more detail? Shoot bigger film. Correctly align your enlarger. Blah. Blah.

 

[chip j]

My Durst w/a 35mm neg gives better tonal quality than a 4X5 neg w/conventional enlargers.

 

[removed account4]

My Durst w/a 35mm neg gives better tonal quality than a 4X5 neg w/conventional enlargers.

hi chip j

not to open a kettle of fish but that probably a lot to do with the type of enlarger and light source,
lens, way you are processing your large negatives and how you are printing. a lot of people beat the drum
that says " the larger the negative the better the tonality " and often times its YMMV

the most important thing is you are having a good time...

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

My Durst w/a 35mm neg gives better tonal quality than a 4X5 neg w/conventional enlargers.

Huh??

 

[pdeeh]

ONF, don't get sucked in

 

[fdonadio]

That's why I replaced my eyes with lenses with a German brand name.

I wish I could do that!

 

[DREW WILEY]

My Durst with 4x5 film in it can do better than your Durst with 35mm film in it. (And that ain't even my biggest Durst!)