Fujinon lenses - grain difference

[uncommonfaces]

Except... sharper focus does tend to make the graininess stand out more. The lens can't change graininess, but your use of the lens can make what graininess there is more visible. So it's not the lens, it's your focus technique. And this shouldn't be surprising when you think about it. The lens you say gives you "sharper grain" is the longer focal length, which is easier to focus.

You don't need to believe me. It's easy enough to test this for yourself. Make a few exposures with your 125mm lens -- one with your best attempt at perfect focus, then one that's a touch too far, and one that's a touch too short (really, barely enough to see the difference with a loupe on the GG). Stop down to a reasonable aperture (say f/16 or f/22), making each exposure exactly the same. Develop them together to eliminate any processing differences. Look at them on the light table with your loupe. What do you see?

All that said, the light table / loupe have about zero to do with a print. Unless you're making prints above 10x enlargement from your Delta 100 you shouldn't see any graininess to speak of in the print. And from a 5x4 negative (actual image size is 4.88 x 3.88 inches, or 12.4 x 9.94 cm), that's about a 125 x 100 cm print. Which is huge. Are you really printing that size? If not, this discussion is really pointless, which is one of the reasons to get into LF in the first place.

I think this is certainly about sharpness and resolution after some more assessment. The scans are dealing with this in a less flattering way, counterintuitively. I am yet to scan above 4800, but doing so may average some of the noise out. I'll certainly make more pictures first and of course, concentrate on more important aspects of image making. Definitely don't want to get lost down rabbit holes with this.

Like I say, if it wasn't for the small image circle of the 105mm, the results I'm getting are simply nicer on the whole. I'm probably going to continue looking for a lens that gives me similar results around 120mm, even if this does indeed mean a slightly softer image. I'll also see what happens with the scans shooting at f64 on the 125.

I'm very much of the hybrid mindset BTW, for practical, aesthetic and financial reasons. I absolutely believe optical prints are superior for the record. This may be in my future.

[uncommonfaces]

And you should not let go.

I apologize for being terse. What I wrote is similar to what I received during undergraduate criticism which was helpful but not enlightening. Enlightenment is the quality we should pursue, learn with joy, not under duress.

I'm approaching old fart age. Lots to relearn.

Very Best,
Jac

No problem. I wish I had studied photography at uni - I definitely lack discipline in some ways!

[uncommonfaces]

Making accurate tests is a nice way to learn, at least it is my view. When one has technical issues solved it is easy to focus on the subject and on the art, operating the camera and processing with confidence allows for that.

If you don't have a shutter tester you can make a DIY attachment to place a DSLR (without lens) in the camera back (just an angled plating with a hole in the middle for the tripod mount in the camera), it will take a tiny crop of the real negative but this can be enough to check exposures, aperture scales and other.

To compare different sheets, you can place an Stouffer T2115 transmission density wedge on the scanner an then you scan the wedge alongside with the sheet, so you will have a solid density reference to compare, disable all automatic scanner adjustments for that. This converts the scanner into an amazing densitometer.

That's interesting re. density test, thanks.

For shutter test, what I've done tonight actually is make some audio recordings, which I'll get round to assessing.

[Pere Casals]

If you search ebay for shutter tester you will find a $12 photocell that is conneted to a soundcard or smartphone (there is a version for each), then instead recording sound you record in fact the light pulse with Audacity. This delivers a very accurate measurement.

I modified one to be attached to a (Pico) usb oscilloscope... this is more convenient because the trigger feature in the oscilloscope.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I bow out of this thread with only a few suggestions.

Each film must from the same batch.
Each film must be developed in the same tank.
Each film must be exposed the same (in my modest experience LF shutters vary considerably)

If scanning any automation must be disabled.

Those are only the top requisites. There are more.

Best to all,

[rdeloe]

Like the OP I'm using a hybrid workflow (4x5 film, then digital). However, I'm "camera scanning" instead of using a flat bed or drum scanner.

I've already noticed how some bad habits have carried over from my all-digital experience... With my camera scanning setup I'm creating files from 4x5 negatives that contain vastly more information than I need to print at extremely high quality on my current printing system (which can go up to 17" wide). And yet I was getting anxious about what I could see at 1:1 on my computer screen..... That's a ridiculous amount of magnification for a file that will print very well at more than 2.5x the largest size I can currently print. The general thrust of this thread was "don't sweat it", and I think that's good advice.

Regarding the OP's specific question, I think others have covered the ground well. The only thing I want to add/confirm is that scanning a negative is definitely not the same as optical enlargement. All kinds of other variables come into play that have nothing to do (or little to do) with the characteristics of the film. For example, in my own case, at high magnification of the digital file, I noticed artifacts characteristic of the digital sensor I'm using to "scan" the negatives more than the "grain" of the film. Per the previous paragraph, these "artifacts" don't actually matter in prints (so I don't worry about them).

[Bob Salomon]

I bow out of this thread with only a few suggestions.

Each film must from the same batch.
Each film must be developed in the same tank.
Each film must be exposed the same (in my modest experience LF shutters vary considerably)

If scanning any automation must be disabled.

Those are only the top requisites. There are more.

Best to all,

Same exposure.
Same lighting.
Same development, time, temp, exhaustion!

[uncommonfaces]

Like the OP I'm using a hybrid workflow (4x5 film, then digital). However, I'm "camera scanning" instead of using a flat bed or drum scanner.

I've already noticed how some bad habits have carried over from my all-digital experience... With my camera scanning setup I'm creating files from 4x5 negatives that contain vastly more information than I need to print at extremely high quality on my current printing system (which can go up to 17" wide). And yet I was getting anxious about what I could see at 1:1 on my computer screen..... That's a ridiculous amount of magnification for a file that will print very well at more than 2.5x the largest size I can currently print. The general thrust of this thread was "don't sweat it", and I think that's good advice.

Regarding the OP's specific question, I think others have covered the ground well. The only thing I want to add/confirm is that scanning a negative is definitely not the same as optical enlargement. All kinds of other variables come into play that have nothing to do (or little to do) with the characteristics of the film. For example, in my own case, at high magnification of the digital file, I noticed artifacts characteristic of the digital sensor I'm using to "scan" the negatives more than the "grain" of the film. Per the previous paragraph, these "artifacts" don't actually matter in prints (so I don't worry about them).

I've had a break from LF, but will be continuing shortly.

I agree some artifacts don't translate to print. I know where I'm happy with files on pixel level and have a half decent A3+ printer. Certainly when diffraction is also considered, the scans already blow my prosumer DSLR away in every respect -
apart from noise - which may be something I just work around creatively (e.g. more exposure, brighter scenes, trying to avoid areas of smooth tone as much as possible). Such limitations may in fact shape and focus the aesthetic of my work.

I'll try and come back to the thread soon re. the specific concern raised, which with all the sound theory suggested, hasn't yet led to a practical revelation.

[Willie]

Why not find a good 120 film back and shoot alternate frames with each lens of different subject matter?
You develop the roll and have a direct comparison to check out.
Won't eliminate all variables, but those related to processing will be pretty much taken care of.