8X10 depth of field. How bad is it?

[bglick]

I did a spread sheet demonstrating the relative sharpness of different formats at different focus distances..... the results where incredible...... there is no perfect format. A few rules of thumb I would like to mention....

1. Enlargement factor is a major consideration, which will often dictate just how much difference you will see on the final print...

2. 810 for very near to far shots is not an ideal format as the defocus issues are too great, coupled with the fact diffraction is already the limiting factor.

3. The only exception to the above is, when you can tilt the front to lay the plane of sharp focus right accross the subject.... and to do this, you need huge image circle lenses (not many will work with a large degree of tilt) and you need a cooperative subject, such as a subject that is flat, such as grass field, or anything of equal height in the foreground.

4. Where does 8x10 excel? Infinity shots are untouchable by any format, specially when shot at f11 or f16.

5. The obvious cons exist..... huge size camera, film holders, lenses, expense, hard to find affordable high end scanners to scan film this large..

Most all (80%) of these shots are 8x10....but, without enlargements show, shortfalls are disguised.

www.pbase.com/bglick

Bill

[robert_4927]

Now what landscape photographer ever shoots at f11 or f16? Try f45 or f64...I might focus at f11 but I can't recall ever exposing a landscape that wide open.I might use f11 in studio with the old Verito to achieve soft focus. And as far as "cons" go, I'm sure you mean size and weight of the cameras and film holders. (As Grandpa use to say, " just stay on the porch" Why would I need a scanner? I suggest you take a look at some 16x20 or 20x24 contact prints made from in-camera negatives. If the weight and size is an issue then you don't want to enter the world of ULF. But to conduct tests at f11 and f16 don't even bring you into the ballpark as far as LF landscape photography is concerned. Now I might be old school but if I want a larger print I'll buy a bigger camera because I can't even spell enlargr.

[bglick]

> Now what landscape photographer ever shoots at f11 or f16? Try f45 or f64...I might focus at f11 but I can't recall ever exposing a landscape that wide open.

This landscape photographer shoots at f16 all the time with 8x10, as this landscape photograher limits the scenes shot with 8x10, so as they are NOT allowing diffraction to be the limiting factor. (Primarly scenes with no close subjects) I also try to use the f stop in which the lens was optimized for, so sometimes I will go to f22, But the Super Symar 150 XL at f16 still produces the best results on 8x10 in my opinion. I always use the ND center filter.

> Why would I need a scanner?

Some of us scan film before making prints, it's quite common today, as the images gain all the benefits of digital corrections. It's not mandatory, I was just raising the point.

> I suggest you take a look at some 16x20 or 20x24 contact prints made from in-camera negatives.

How does one make contact prints at these sizes starting with 8x10 film....if the original film is laid on top of the new film, the result would be 1:1, or a 8x10 contact print? Possibly you were referring to ULF contact prints.....

I have compared "true" contact prints from 8x10 to 20x24 vs. scanned film shot with 8x10 and sometimes 4x5. The contact prints were made with older LF lenses.... whereas the scanned shots all avoided diffraction limited f stops.... and so far, never once have I seen the scanned and printed images not beat the contact images, on a few occasions they match the contact prints.

Our esteemed contributor Chris Perez, has done the photographic community a great service by demonstrating on his web site just how remarkable the "sharpness" variable is amongst different lenses and formats. Thank you again Chris for all this diligent work and sharing it with us all, its most appreciated.

Large contact prints, like the 20x24 cameras or even 16x20 use very long fl lenses, usually quite old and the combination of older less sharp optics combined with the huge diffraction losses encountered, well it clearly limits the potential. Of course, I am mainly referring to sharpness and not other possible desireable characteristic of contact ULF prints.

> But to conduct tests at f11 and f16 don't even bring you into the ballpark as far as LF landscape photography is concerned.

OK, I am not conducting tests at f11 and 16, I do my normal 8x10 landscape photograhy at these f stops! And I will continue to, as it produces the results most everyone I have surveyed find the most appealing... Sure, I pay a price for this, many times I have to put the 8x10 camera to rest and use 6x9 or 4x5 instead as that is what the scene calls for. I work under the philosphy, use the format that best suits a scene you find desireable to record on film, hence why my 6x9, 4x5 and 8x10 stand ready at all times.....

Bill

[Michael Kadillak]

A good rule of thumb in the field is to only stop down as much as necessary. With 8x10 that means that f16 is not that abnormal an f stop selection given the right set of circumstances and it does not have to always be just an "infinity" photograph.

I must say that I do not even give the weight a second thought as the expansive ground glass is a marvel to work with and it is well worth the effort. With modern glass like the 450 M Nikon, the Schneider 305 and the 600mm Fuji you have massive coverage well beyond the movements on 8x10.

Have fun!

[robert_4927]

Bill , Of course I meant 16x20 and 20x24 contact prints shot with a 16x20 and a 20x24 camera. In 1932 there was a group formed by a few decent photographers called the f64 club. Now a couple of these hacks had names like Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Imogen Cunningham just to name a few. The reason they called it this was the fact that they favored making photographs in which everything was sharp. Now of course you have less lens diffraction at f16 than at f64 but you also have no depth of field. The adverse effects of light diffraction does not become an issue in a contact print until you start reaching f stops in the f128 range. (and then not always depending on the lens) The poster here asked how to achieve a near and far composition much like Adams' Mt Williamson. Suppose you tell him how to do that at f16 and achieve the depth of field needed for such a composition. I know nothing about photoshop so maybe you can increase depth of field in there. But I do know how to achieve it in the camera and it is not at f16. As far as older LF optics go I have some 8x20 images shot at f64 with a 30" red dot artar and a 355 g-claron that are so sharp they'll cut you like a straight razor. And guess what the images are as sharp in the foreground as they are in the background, avoiding what Rory is talking about that" flattened perspective". Now I'm sure you are well schooled in light diffraction. So I'm sure you will agree that no matter what lens you use adverse effects of light diffraction will increase anytime you stop down. But not to the point where you sacrifice image sharpness and definition to achieve the desired depth of field. Now you say that everyone you surveyed finds your f16 shots more appealing than say Ansels shots at f64. I would love to see some of this amazing work. Could you post some picks for us? I might be old school but I will give credit where credit is due. So if your images ( or technique) blow Ansels away I promise I'll start shooting all my landscapes at f16.

[bglick]

Robert......

> Bill , Of course I meant 16x20 and 20x24 contact prints shot with a 16x20 and a 20x24 camera. In 1932 there was a group formed by a few decent photographers called the f64 club. Now a couple of these hacks had names like Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Imogen Cunningham just to name a few.

Sure, i remember them.......

> The reason they called it this was the fact that they favored making photographs in which everything was sharp. Now of course you have less lens diffraction at f16 than at f64 but you also have no depth of field.

hence why I clearly defined the fact I only use 810 format when the scene allows me to....now if I only had one format camera with me (810), and no other formats, i would feel differently, as I would hate to pass on some scenes, so I would sacrifice on my sharpness criteria to capture the scene.

> The adverse effects of light diffraction does not become an issue in a contact print until you start reaching f stops in the f128 range. (and then not always depending on the lens)

Well, this is a relative issue.... as its all according to how much resolution the printing media can hold. Ctein in his first book demonstrated through "people testing" that added resolution in prints past 5 lp/mm, although can not be "resolved" as in B&W line patterns, they can be clearly be discerned and put into order of sharpness, all the way up to 30 lp/mm. I am not suggesting there is readily available media to resolve 30 lp/mm, other than film. But there is many high resolving papers and printing processes wheareas we can see these differences.

> The poster here asked how to achieve a near and far composition much like Adams' Mt Williamson. Suppose you tell him how to do that at f16 and achieve the depth of field needed for such a composition.

I understand, but I was responding to your points.....

> As far as older LF optics go I have some 8x20 images shot at f64 with a 30" red dot artar and a 355 g-claron that are so sharp they'll cut you like a straight razor.

Again, this is relative, it has to be compared to something else...... I have some of the sharpest LF lenses made, and even they don't hold a candle to mamiya 7 lenses.... the differences are huge. And as Chris's tests have demonstrated, most of the time, technology continues to trump yesteryears lens designs. But I do agree, even a lower quality optic that covers a massive format, and is shot without too much diffraction, focussed at some point where defocus of the near/far is not extreme, then it can outperform modern optics of smaller formats at equal final print sizes. But these cases are more the exception to the rule..... If I had it my way, I would only shoot infinity scenes with a 20x24 camera with a decent lens, at f11.... nothing would touch the sharpness. But not enough of those scenes to warrant the trouble, and there is no lenses that cover that format which are anywhere near sharp vs. todays more modern opics.

An interesting thing I learned in my years studying LF.... the ULF cameras of yesteryear were quite often using print media as the film, as the 16x20 was the final print size.... this was a near perfect system in its day. It was not till film was developed, or better said, till film became very high resolving, that the photographic community could take advantage of the benefits of shorter fl lenses....this continues today, all the way down to digital sensors that have 9mm diaganols! Therefore, high resolving film / digital sensors enable smaller format sizes, which enables the use and benefits from all the attributes of shorter fl lenses. So today, ULF benefits are very few vs. yesteryear. Soon, 810 wil fall into ULF category!

> And guess what the images are as sharp in the foreground as they are in the background,

It may appear this way, as many variables such as the viewers eyesight, magnification, etc. But if you focus somewhere between the near and far, the exact focus point MUST be sharper than the near / far...by a lot! If not, you have defied optics principles.

> So I'm sure you will agree that no matter what lens you use adverse effects of light diffraction will increase anytime you stop down. But not to the point where you sacrifice image sharpness and definition to achieve the desired depth of field.

Again, too many variables to comment.... how much DOF, how large of a format, what perspective is the lens, WA, Normal, Long, etc... this all effects whether anything was "sacrificed" , or possibly you have sacrificed too much.

> Now you say that everyone you surveyed finds your f16 shots more appealing than say Ansels shots at f64.

Did I say I compared my shots with Ansels? I don't think so?

> I would love to see some of this amazing work. Could you post some picks for us?

I posted the link above to some of my shots, most all of them are 8x10.....but the differences you would be looking for is not possible viewing small images on a PC monitor. But have a look and thanks for the kind words...

> I might be old school but I will give credit where credit is due. So if your images ( or technique) blow Ansels away I promise I'll start shooting all my landscapes at f16.

It's nice to see you are open minded! I think Mike summed up the response to this best... as a rule of thumb, you shoot as wide as the scene will permit, it's that simple, the wider atp. you shoot (within the constraints of near/far) the sharper the image, considering the same format. Sometimes this is not possible if you prefer not to have a blurred foreground / background, so you stop down and gain near / far sharpness at the expense of sharpness at the point of exact focus.....no free lunch, specially in LF photography, UNLESS you are shooting brick walls or infinity scenes!

[robert_4927]

Bill , Have a look at William Corey's web site. These images were shot with an old Kodak process lens and a 8x20 Korona using f90 and f128. You may find his work interesting to you.

[Michael Kadillak]

Robert:

I have been up to Boulder, Colorado and met with William Corey's (purchased an enlarger from him - great guy) and had a first chance opportunity to discuss and view his color 8x20 work in person. Yes, there are times when a particular photograph will NEED to be shot at F90, but not regularly. It all depends upon the visualization he desires to put on film and he is a master photographer in this regard. You can look over the online portfolio and tell which ones these would be. But remember that he is shooting 8x20 and F90 + on this format is not as optically degraded as it would be on 8x10. For the purposes of this discussion, lets not compare apples to oranges.

Cheers!

[bglick]

Thank you Mike......

And also, resolution is NOT the only effect people pursue, although it is quite common amongst LF shooters. Sometimes they desire the blurred effect vs. the sharp focus point, sometimes they desire the excellent color tonality of larger film as its not pushed as far during enlargements...in the case of Mr. Corey, I have communicated with him in the past, and one of the most compelling features of his big camera is the fact he loves the huge ground glass as an aid to composition. These are just some of the variables that make people choose certain formats, lenses, etc. With so many variables, it becomes obvious how generalized statements become misconstrued through out many of these threads. Hence why this forum is such a bounty of knowledge to help people decipher through the maze....

In my case, I am driven by the final print and max. amount of sharpness that can be delivered at a given print size....then I work backwards from there. But that's my idea of photography, others differ in what they desire, that is the beauty of the "artistic expression" aspect of photography.

[Rory Roopnarine]

When the 8x10 arrives in a few months I will certainly see for myself what is possible. Bill is right about not being able to fully appreciate the merits of the medium by looking at photographs on the net. Nevertheless, Bill's photos are a source of inspiration along with those of Lars Åke Vinberg at 8x10.se. If I may be so bold, I'd really like to see some more photos from Ken and Michael!

Thank you everybody for your input and the education. I will certainly let you know how it turns out!