Page 11 of 22 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 214

Thread: f64

  1. #101

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Petaluma, CA
    Posts
    2,089

    Re: f64

    Quote Originally Posted by jb7 View Post
    I'm pretty confident that remark is directed at myself, and those who commented that the image posted was pretty fuzzy.
    This comment was not directed at you.

    Quote Originally Posted by jb7 View Post
    Lenny, you've claimed 300MP resolution for the file you posted-
    then subsequently claimed that resolution was unimportant.
    The terms 'Sharpness' and 'Resolution' have been used interchangeably since this thread segued into a discussion about film and digital processing.*
    When some people challenged your claims about the detail picture you posted,
    you reacted in a childish and rude manner, indulged in personal slur, and requested that the thread be deleted.
    It seems as if actual resolution is no more than a belief system around here,
    and unsubstantiated claims are defended by rubbishing those who choose to disagree.
    What I said was that I was not going to worry about f64 anymore. I got jumped on because it went against everyone's beliefs about diffraction and how important it is to shoot with less dof than I like to. The file I posted could have had more explanations about it or I could have done something else with it, it was a quick snapshot and apparently not enough.

    I did not state that all lenses were perfect at all fstops. I did my own test and I got my results. No one was asking a question. What I got was all sorts of people telling me I should learn about swings and tilts, that I should go back and read up about diffraction, choose different developers and talk to other experts.

    Quote Originally Posted by jb7 View Post
    This whole area is a belief system, and relies on acts of faith, and the rebuttal of the laws of the universe, the casting out of non believers, and the impugning of their experience.
    And those folks talking incessantly about resolution can't grasp that it is only a part of the picture. You want to test resolutions, sharpness, accutances, calculate exact megapixels and all that, go ahead. Me, I'm tested out... I want to go photograph.


    Quote Originally Posted by jb7 View Post
    The segue into processing techniques was interesting, if not on topic-
    but the continued rubbishing of those who choose to believe the evidence of their own eyes, rather than counting scanned pixels, is just too much.
    That's what I was doing, looking with my own eyes. At my own film developed in my own darkroom.

  2. #102

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    7,832

    Re: f64

    "What I said was that I was not going to worry about f64 anymore".

    Why bother to post it ?

  3. #103

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Petaluma, CA
    Posts
    2,089

    Re: f64

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Lee View Post
    "What I said was that I was not going to worry about f64 anymore".

    Why bother to post it ?
    Why bother posting anything?

  4. #104

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    7,832

    Re: f64

    "Why bother posting anything?"

    Good point.

    We're all here to share, and stirring things up now and then is part of the fun. We learn from it all.

  5. #105
    A.K.A Lucky Bloke ;-)
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Newton, MA, USA
    Posts
    637

    Re: f64

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Lee View Post
    "Why bother posting anything?"

    Good point.

    We're all here to share, and stirring things up now and then is part of the fun. We learn from it all.
    Visiting the moon, who cares!
    Spending 10 years of research to get there, priceless!

    Somebody is happy with f/64, ?
    Discussion about all possible sources of softness in the image, priceless!

    Just kidding, Lenny

  6. #106
    A.K.A Lucky Bloke ;-)
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Newton, MA, USA
    Posts
    637

    Re: f64

    Quote Originally Posted by sanking View Post
    Armando,

    This is a one-on-one at my home in Easley, SC.

    However, I am going to be doing a digital negative demo one day, and a carbon transfer demo the next, for the New England Large Format Group in April. Attendance is probably limited to members but you could check with Steve Sherman to make sure. steve@steve-sherman.com

    Sandy
    Thanks Sandy. I will check with Steve.

  7. #107
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    5,079

    Re: f64

    Quote Originally Posted by Vaughn View Post
    I use to use Microdol-X at 1:3 with Pan-X -- seemed to give me a nice compromise between fine grain and acutance.
    Back in the deeps of time, I was using Rodinal with Panatomic-X. I figured the film gave me fine grain, and the developer gave me high acutance by not attempting to dissolve the grain. Also a good compromise. That was with small format and I rarely printed larger than 8x10. Pan-X gave me 11x14, but not bigger.

    For many years, the biggest I can print has been 16x20. If I wanted to see grain for 4x5, I would just about have to soak a negative in battery acid after the developer.

    On topic (to protect myself from the On-Topic Police), I always figured that depth of field is a creative decision, while diffraction is a resulting fact of life. The aperture I choose achieves the look I want, and a big part of that look is depth of field (or lack of it). If I end up with too much diffraction, I'll just print smaller. The alternative is a picture that can't be made at all.

    I looked at Lenny's on-screen sample from three times minimum viewing distance, with the idea that my 100-ppi monitor has one third the resolution as a 300-ppi print. From three times minimum viewing distance, it looked quite sharp with considerable micro-detail. Any diffraction present would not have limited print size all that much, it seems to me. If printing optically on materials capable of much higher resolution, then it might be a bigger issue--I do get the notion that even when detail is greater than what we can see, it does have an effect on how the image looks to us. But that seems to me quite a subtlety compared to whether a picture is possible because it has enough depth of field, or impossible because it doesn't.

    Rick "who has several photos that are limited in enlargeability but that are still valid photos that fulfilled their previsualization" Denney

  8. #108
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    10,602

    Re: f64

    I find myself shooting at f/64 rather frequently, at least on 8X10 film, but those kind
    of shots probably won't get enlarged past 16x20, or possibly 20X24. I'm a lot pickier
    with chromes or negs for 30X40 work, which I like sharp, sharp, sharp. When I want conspicuous grain and the nuance of selective focus etc, I hand-shoot a Nikon with high-speed film, and print very small. Love doing both, but very different strategies in each case. But with portraiture, which I do less often, I break all my own rules.

  9. #109

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southland, New Zealand
    Posts
    2,049

    Re: f64

    One can argue ad infinitum about fancy scans on fancy scanners. For an idiot like me scanning 5x7 negatives at 800spi or making contact prints, f64 is not a problem. You need a small aperture to get enough dof sometimes, and it has taken me more than a year to work it out.

    Two examples attached scanned at 800spi. Shanghai 100 in Pyrocat M. I used the fp4 reciprocity chart and ended up with 2 to 3 1/2 minute exposures. Identical window light. 210mm Sironar S. Theese are at 1:1. No sharpening. Used a dof calculator to work out that I only had 5cm of dof to work with, even at f64.

  10. #110

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Petaluma, CA
    Posts
    2,089

    Re: f64

    Quote Originally Posted by Van Camper View Post
    Lenny, so how big would you feel comfortable printing using f64 and your 8x10? I know you have tough standards, so where is your comfort zone?
    Van,
    26,660 pixels divided by 360 is 74 inches. I like to have a little more for b&w, around 450 or so (about 60 inches), so I would probably go to a 4000 ppi scan if I wanted a larger print. The most I've ever printed for my own work is 32x40. However, I've printed for others at 20 feet many times.

    I may be answering a different question than the one you're asking. However, at the risk of starting this argument all over again (Please, No!) I've already said that I am happy with the sharpness I am seeing. Once its there in the scan, with sufficient pixels, it doesn't fall apart...

    Lenny

Similar Threads

  1. my experiance w/ f64 backpack
    By Steve M Hostetter in forum Gear
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 31-Jan-2009, 08:50
  2. Feedback On the f64 Backpacks
    By paul owen in forum Gear
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 30-Jan-2004, 13:18
  3. Shooting all the time at f64
    By Raven Garrow in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 24-May-2000, 20:25

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •