[rollei_list] Re: OT / prove it !
- From: Slobodan Dimitrov <s.dimitrov@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:49:17 -0800
I would have to agree with Eric on this one.
The sheer volume of negative with 120 gives a much deeper density to
the final print.
However, not all 120 cameras give the same qualitative results.
A way that's been used to compensate for that difference is to print a
35mm neg is with the blacks in the final print nearly blocked.
If you look at works by Kratochvil, Klein, Koudelka (All the K folks)
and the like, you'll get a sense of what was done.
They did this in the 50's and 60's, competing for page space with
people shooting with 120 and 4x5.
Even Gene Smith prints that I've seen used the same presentational
mannerism.
Most of them shooting with the Leica I might add.
S. Dimitrov
On Mar 31, 2005, at 7:29 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
>>> "suffers". Kind of dramatic. 35mm can easily be equally as
>> sharp as MF at
>>> 5x7 and even up to 8x10 and perhaps beyond. When talking grain
>> or tonality,
>>> that's a different story, you can still have very sharp prints,
>> but start to
>>> see grain. Obviously, this is film dependant (film
>>> choice/exposure/development/shutter speed/camera shake etc.).
>>>
>>> If human visual acuity is 1 arc minute (which is the definition of
>>> 20/20
>>> vision), that corresponds to .0029" at a distance of 10" from
>> the eye. That
>>> is 6.88 lp/mm. So, the most you can distinguish from an 8x10
>> print held 10
>>> inches from your face is 175 lp/inch, or 1400 x 1750.
>>>
>>> To match human visual acuity of an 8x10 at 10" with 35mm, you
>> would have to
>>> have only recorded 55 lp/mm on the film. Hardly unreasonable
>> to do so on
>>> 35mm film.
>>>
>>> So, unless you're a really shaky dude and working from a really
>> out of focus
>>> image, I can't imagine how you can see any difference in
>> sharpness on a 5x7
>>> print made from a 35mm vs a 5x7 made from a Rollei.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Austin
>>
>>
>> Hi Austin -
>>
>> Your imagination aside, we've been through this before... I can
>> easily tell
>> the difference between a 5 x 7 from a 35 mm neg and one from an MF
>> neg.
>
> Easily? The only imagination necessary would be to believe this! I
> simply
> do not believe this at all that in reality you can do this with a
> proper
> test, and I am more than happy to arrange a proper test.
>
>> Others on the list can, too.
>
> Well, who? And how do you know? What kind of "tests" have you done,
> or is
> this simply in general passing you made this observation?
>
>> I don't know what that does to your calculus,
>> but there's life for you. If you can't, then you are blessed with a
>> much
>> less demanding personal photographic baseline, and I guess you should
>> be
>> grateful as life is simpler for you. 8-)
>
> I'm sure I have at least an equal and perhaps even more "demanding
> personal
> photographic baseline" that you. I evaluate image quality as part of
> designing imaging equipment, and having been a professional commercial
> photographer.
>
>> And btw 55 lp/mm on a
>> piece of neg
>> is not a gimme by any stretch of the imagination...
>
> Absolutely agree, but it also is not extraordinary to accomplish. And,
> again, that was for 8x10, and you are claiming 5x7, which would make
> the
> requirement closer to 35 lp/mm.
>
>> I suspect it has much to do with the fact that perceived sharpness is
>> not
>> solely a function of resolution.
>
> Or, that perceived sharpness isn't all that you are basing your belief
> on.
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
>
>
>
>
Slobodan Dimitrov
http://sdimitrovphoto.com
Other related posts:
