sharpest lens ever

[Adamphotoman]

I have to agree with Leigh's post #3
The Apo Sironar S series is excellent. I have several focal lengths 135 / 210 / 300 and they are all outstanding, however;
the longer ones are heavy and require bellows extensions which act as sails in the wind...
So your skill level and care will come into effect.

I now use several 4X5 size scan backs. Proper Zig Alignment of the standards and the copy board takes most of the human error out of the equation. Now direct comparison is possible...with a light hungry flat CCD...

Film is different and so I ask what is your application?

My dollar is best spent on the Apo Sironar S series.

G

[georgl]

Sorry on my tablet I cannot tell if the forum uploaded the pic correctly - when I was uploading it yesterday, the left-hand side felt "mushy" with no clear rendition along edges (the device holding the glass). - film and scanning-technique is exactly the same.

I have switched in smaller formats from "classic" designs from the 1960s-1980s to modern lenses (new element setups, exotic glass, aspherical surfaces, barrel coating against internal reflections...) or at least got the chance to compare them.
I also got a Symmar XL 150 - one of the most advanced LF-designs (just compare it to it's predecessor...) which I really like. I recently got a Ronar 360, but just shot a Tmax with it - couldn't see anything special but it's small...
The performace increase of the newer designs was of course especially noticeable wide open, in retrofocus designs... things that simply don't matter in LF-photography. But even stopped down, they offer a gain in "crispness", lack of chromatic aberration, better flare control...
One example: My old Leitz 2.8/135 was a fine lens, a simple design but nice and sharp. Until I tried the Apo-Elmarit 180, it felt like pulling a curtain away, of course you could see the lack of chromatic aberrations (antennas/branches against the sky...) or the high contrast in very fine detail on high-res scans but the overall "fingerprint" in normal situations (not shooting test-charts all day...) is much better - I would prefer getting the "new look" on a 10€-slide which took me hours to make...

I certainly think that with a modern design approach we could get truly apochromatic, truly (f11-f16) diffraction-limited (maybe even handy tele-designs?) lenses for large format, or a modular approach resembling the old triplet idea (for example what Leica did with it's Modul-System).

Sometimes I like the "look" of older designs as well and certainly don't want to force anyone to buy one of these hypothetical >>3k€ "modern" lenses but it would be nice having the choice. We are talking about a small market for enthusiasts, but when looking at the used prices for 3.5/135 T* Planars alone...

[JBAphoto]

what is the sharpest 4x5 lense ever? or one that produces the best quality colour images in terms of saturation, tonal value etc? I'm asking in terms of personal subjective experience.

This has to be one of the most moronic threads on this forum - Image QUALITY is dependent on lots of factors - In my not very humble opinion tripod choice is one of the most crucial at the neg making stage

The most important lenses, the only ones you should spend sleepless nights over, are your enlarging lenses - Enlarging lenses are the bottleneck through which all your images are filtered - In the case of anyone making digital scans, don't worry about camera lens quality as you will ruin your images in Photoshop whatever their original quality

PS, there is no "e" at the end of lens, that told me a lot to start with

John
Quinninup

[jnantz]

SNIP

or they do solarography, fotograms etc - so not really comparable.

are your classmates making small images and just scanning/magnifying them,
or are they making large chemical free and cameraless images?
huge solargraphs/retina images and photograms can be something to behold,
and in many of ways, much more difficult than any camera made photograph ..

[Mark Kononczuk]

SNIP



are your classmates making small images and just scanning/magnifying them,
or are they making large chemical free and cameraless images?
huge solargraphs/retina images and photograms can be something to behold,
and in many of ways, much more difficult than any camera made photograph ..

Generally, there are as many techniques as talented students, I don't know how all of these images are produced. A few years ago I went to the BOWNIK - 'Gamers' exhibition in Warsaw and was really impressed with the portraits of gamers that were life-size (1:1) And I thought WOW! I can't do that. You can see every hair, pore, etc.I was convinced it was done with some hi-end digital equipment. I later read an interview in which Bownik said he used an LF camera. So, I thought maybe someone on this site might know how to produce images at this level.

[Mark Kononczuk]

This has to be one of the most moronic threads on this forum - Image QUALITY is dependent on lots of factors - In my not very humble opinion tripod choice is one of the most crucial at the neg making stage

The most important lenses, the only ones you should spend sleepless nights over, are your enlarging lenses - Enlarging lenses are the bottleneck through which all your images are filtered - In the case of anyone making digital scans, don't worry about camera lens quality as you will ruin your images in Photoshop whatever their original quality

I have often asked friends : what are the top 5 places you've been to in the world, or what are the 5 most amazing dishes you have ever eaten. People have always been keen to share their experiences and I have learned a lot from this, I have been to places that I would not have dreamed of going to (eg. Varanasi, Transylvania or Ulaan-Bataar.) Not being a LF buff, I was just interested in how to produce a more-or-less sharp image that is say, 2 metres by 1.5 metres without resorting to digitally stitching images together. I have gained a wealth of information from this post. I find it comical that certain people might be offended by spelling mistakes or by simple questions. I apologise in advance for any lack of 'e's or 're's instead of 'er's.
.
PS, there is no "e" at the end of lens, that told me a lot to start with

John
Quinninup

[Mark Kononczuk]

I have often asked friends : what are the top 5 places you've been to in the world, or what are the 5 most amazing dishes you have ever eaten. People have always been keen to share their experiences and I have learned a lot from this, I have been to places that I would not have dreamed of going to (eg. Varanasi, Transylvania or Ulaan-Bataar.) Not being a LF buff, I was just interested in how to produce a more-or-less sharp image that is say, 2 metres by 1.5 metres without resorting to digitally stitching images together. I have gained a wealth of information from this post. I find it comical that certain people might be offended by spelling mistakes or by simple questions. I apologise in advance for any lack of 'e's or 're's instead of 'er's.
.

[Mark Kononczuk]

[QUOTE=Dan Fromm;916824]

You're welcome. You might want to buy a copy of John Williams' book Image Clarity. There's no reason to reinvent high-resolution photography.

Good luck, have fun,

Dan

Ok, thanks. I will.

[jnantz]

Generally, there are as many techniques as talented students, I don't know how all of these images are produced. A few years ago I went to the BOWNIK - 'Gamers' exhibition in Warsaw and was really impressed with the portraits of gamers that were life-size (1:1) And I thought WOW! I can't do that. You can see every hair, pore, etc.I was convinced it was done with some hi-end digital equipment. I later read an interview in which Bownik said he used an LF camera. So, I thought maybe someone on this site might know how to produce images at this level.

i know exactly what you mean ....

the reason i asked about the solargraphs
is because they are highly unstable images.
typically they are done using a pinhole camera that is left in a perch / tree
for 6 or 7 months, and they are a small scrap of paper that was put into a 35mm film canister.
the light stains an image on the paper ...
they can't be fixed because there isn't really a chemical reaction, the image turns white in fixer ...
even extremely dilute hypo/sodium thiosulfate fixer buffered with sodium carbonate...
and if left a pitchblack room/storage the image will turn completely grey. the usual way of capturing
the image is by scanning or xeroxing it ( xeroxes are archival ) and then enlarging it
like one would any digital negative ... and the process of scanning or xeroxing the image ruins it.

it isn't that i can't imagine a large camera obscura being made, like a shed, and photo paper left in it for 6months ...
kind of like a very long abe morell photograph without a camera ....
and then the stained unstable image displayed as an installation piece and the image, as well as its deterioration/greying
is the "art"... but i have a feeling your fellow students just enlarged small images instead.

is there any way to view you and your fellow students' work ?

thanks !
john

[E. von Hoegh]

I have often asked friends : what are the top 5 places you've been to in the world, or what are the 5 most amazing dishes you have ever eaten. People have always been keen to share their experiences and I have learned a lot from this, I have been to places that I would not have dreamed of going to (eg. Varanasi, Transylvania or Ulaan-Bataar.) Not being a LF buff, I was just interested in how to produce a more-or-less sharp image that is say, 2 metres by 1.5 metres without resorting to digitally stitching images together. I have gained a wealth of information from this post. I find it comical that certain people might be offended by spelling mistakes or by simple questions. I apologise in advance for any lack of 'e's or 're's instead of 'er's.
.

That's a huge print. You need an 8x10 negative for that.