[rollei_list] Re: OT / prove it !
- From: "Austin Franklin" <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:02:52 -0500
John,
I didn't ignore anything. To claim 35mm prints can not exhibit "real
sharpness" is simply wrong. By your VERY argument, it appeared to me the
comment was seemingly ignoring that 35mm (as you concur, and again, in
general...yes, one can find a MF lense that is better than a 35mm one)
lenses typically provide a higher MTF, that up to a certain point of
enlargement, makes up for the smaller negative size.
Regards,
Austin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of John A. Lind
> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:22 PM
> To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT / prove it !
>
>
> This reads so provocative and argumentative . . . almost grasping at
> anything disputable . . . by seizing on an obtuse view of only a
> portion of
> Eric's statement out of context . . . a view that has no real value in
> practical photographic work . . . and completely ignoring the intent
> expressed in its entirety.
>
> Yes, of course, _in_general_ 35mm will yield greater lpmm on
> film. However, you choose to completely ignore that fact that in making
> the same size print, a larger piece of film requires less
> enlargement, and
> that _in_general_ the enlargement required decreases at a greater rate as
> format size increases than the reduction in lpmm. The net effect is
> exactly what Eric expressed in his complete statement; larger format
> potentially yields greater "sharpness" in a print or projection.
>
> This is presumptive that the optics in use are comparable and
> that the same
> level of care is taken in making the photograph on the film (hence the
> careful "_in_general_" caveat). One could easily cite many anecdotal
> examples of just the opposite by carefully crafting an unfair
> comparison to
> achieve that result.
>
> -- John
> (who wonders at times *why* there must be so much of this haranguing)
>
> At 07:23 PM 3/31/2005, you wrote:
> >Hi Eric,
> >
> > > If you want real shgarpness at enlargement, you don't shoot 35 mm...
> >
> >I don't follow you. 35mm is typically sharper than larger formats, per
> >square area of negative space.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Austin
>
>
>
Other related posts:
