Steven's question reminds me that there is a 'sticky' film holder, and one can make his own, which keeps the film from falling forward under its own weight.
Steven's question reminds me that there is a 'sticky' film holder, and one can make his own, which keeps the film from falling forward under its own weight.
I always thought it was the glass used. From what I have read the LF lenses are not as sharp as say 35mm lenses and the expense to make a LF as sharp would be astronomical.
*************************
Eric Rose
www.ericrose.com
I don't play the piano, I don't have a beard and I listen to AC/DC in the darkroom. I have no hope as a photographer.
Intriguing; I have noticed this and was just thinking about it yesterday during a printing session. With 35mm the grain focuser use to, well pop with grain, and sharpness. With 4x5 you can never see the sharp grain and crisp lines as you can with a 35mm negative. I can’t believe it is film flatness either because you would see some part of the negative sharp and crisp, and some of it fuzzy. I would agree with Paul that it has to do with the optics or the film base. It would be interesting to try a 35mm lens on a 4x5, and see if the image circle that you get is sharper than a regular LF lens? It would be interesting to assemble a 35mm body, or back to a LF camera also. Or is it the shorter distance from film to focal point that makes the difference?
Dan
I remember reading there is a difference in holders too. All do not exactly place the film at the correct point, ie there are debth differences from one holder to another.
Then humidity can make the film bow.
All these problems are solved with the Sinar holders at a price you can`t afford.
It is diffraction losses. The negatives from my contax 35mm look like they were etched on the negative. 8x10 is not nearly as sharp, no matter what I do.
Don't tell me it is film flatness either because there would be areas on the negative that were really sharp and other areas where it isn't.
Arial cameras would not have a diffraction problem because there are no DOF issues and they can shoot those big lenses wide open.
I've also seen in prints the "8x10 look" (great tonality but soft) and have been working hard to eliminate it from my 8x10 work.
After much experimentation, I have been able to achieve 8x10 chromes and negatives which look sharp corner-to-corner when viewed through a 10x loupe. Still perhaps not quite as sharp as 35mm or my Mamiya 7, but with color film you are doing well to get 60 lpmm so the difference is not significant. For me, the issue was not film emulsion issues or flatness. Proper tripod mounting helped (I now always use a long lens support brace, even with short lenses). But the big difference was having lenses that are well corrected for the application, benefit from relatively open apertures (f/16 and f/22 for distant subjects) and have plenty of coverage (so that one is shooting through the "sweet spot" of the lens most of the time). Unfortunately this equates to big, modern, expensive 8x10 glass (read Super Symmar XL's, plasmats and a relatively exotic telephoto). So I use the big glass close to the car, and my lighter Fuji-A's and C's for hiking.
Smaller apertures (f/32 and smaller) reduce but do not eliminate the differences between lenses in my experience.
"Acutance". Well-defined grain edges look sharp. Ask anyone who uses fast 35mm film and develops in Rodinal. Of course it's an illusion, and masks the lack of detail; but to the non-discerning eye it looks good, and perhaps more pleasing, than the smoother, more hi-res large-format image. People have claimed not to like TMX-100 for this very reason- too much resolution and not enough micro-contrast.
Eric Rose I always thought it was the glass used. From what I have read the LF lenses are not as sharp as say 35mm lenses and the expense to make a LF as sharp would be astronomical.
Well, one can get outstanding glass that was exceedingly expensive - former government lenses used for mapping and recon, and not all of it terribly old and outdated. Of course, some have no diaphram, and the shutters aren't easily transported to LF, and the lenses tend to be very large, but those are not obstacle to the, ah, obsessed?
I haven't read all the responses in detail so forgive me if I cover ground that has alrady been covered. The main point is that the 8x10 trannie was already at it s presentation/use size. You woul dhave needed to make an 8x10 enlargement of the 35mm slide and then do a side-by-side comparison to make this accurate.
John, why not actually do it and see what you think?
Eric Rose: I always thought it was the glass used. From what I have read the LF lenses are not as sharp as say 35mm lenses and the expense to make a LF as sharp would be astronomical.
jj: Well, one can get outstanding glass that was exceedingly expensive - former government lenses used for mapping and recon, and not all of it terribly old and outdated. Of course, some have no diaphram, and the shutters aren't easily transported to LF, and the lenses tend to be very large, but those are not obstacle to the, ah, obsessed?
Um, guys, a while ago I got a 210/9 Konica Hexanon GRII. I was so impressed by what it did for me on my tiny little 2x3 Speed Graphic of nothing at all that I shot it against my 200/4 MicroNikkor AIS. In test shots at ~ 45' and at 1:2, at f/8 (MicroNikkor) or f/9 (GRII), f/11, and f/16, both lenses on a Nikon. The GRII won at both distances and all apertures. If the GRII were a bit easier to use on a Nikon, I'd retire the 200 MicroNikkor.
Not all decent lenses for 35 mm are sharper than all decent lenses for larger formats. And the decent lenses for larger formats need not be particularly exotic.
In the last year I've sold three 240/9 Dagor-type G-Clarons. Before I sold 'em, I shot each on a Nikon. Damn! they're good.
Cheers,
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks