Page 11 of 24 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 234

Thread: Is there any real utility to ULF?

  1. #101
    Still Developing
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    541

    Re: Is there any real utility to ULF?

    Quote Originally Posted by bglick View Post
    Nathan, nice post. From test results I have seen, and the lenses I have tested myself here is some findings..... high quality 35mm can have aerial resolutions at diffraction limited values.... the BEST MF lenses are very very close to diffraction limited, specifically Mamiya 7 lenses, (Mamiya achieved 350 lp/mm aerial resolution at f4)..... the best of the modern bunch of 4x5 lenses fall just a tad below the M7 lenses (specifically the 110, 150 SSXL), but there is others, most fall in the normal fl range....most of the older 4x5 or larger image circle lenses fall off up to about 30 - 40% of diffraction limited values... and older vintage LF lenses can fall down to 70% of diffraction limited values. Chris Perez's list of LF lens tests represent a bounty of data in this regard. Kudos to Chris for his contributions. Since MTF data is not available for many vintage lenses, Chris test results often are the best reference.
    Does this imply that, all else being equal, the bigger the image circle of a lens the lower aerial resolution? I only ask because presumably a lens in front of 4x5 that would cover 10x8 would mean 2x the number of lines across the photograph than 4x5? This sort of implies that the best 4x5 lenses should have the smallest coverage which goes against my (admittedly simple) knowlege? Perhaps there is a tipping point around 10x8 that makes lenses a lot harder (or more expensive) to create...

    Interesting thread...

    Tim

  2. #102
    All metric sizes to 24x30 Ole Tjugen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,376

    Re: Is there any real utility to ULF?

    Quote Originally Posted by timparkin View Post
    Does this imply that, all else being equal, the bigger the image circle of a lens the lower aerial resolution?
    To a certain extent, yes.

    Before computer design at least, lenses tended to be optimised for either sharpness or coverage - and improving one reduced the other. Within the central 10 degrees or so a Petzval is at least as sharp as any modern lens, but the resolution drops off very rapidly away from the center. Aplanats have somewhat greater coverage, and are equally sharp in the center (my Meyer Aristoplan 270mm f:7.2 seems to me to be diffraction limited at fwide open aperture - dead center). The early Anastigmats improved the evenness of resolution over the image circle at the cost of some peak resolution (yes, a good Aplanat is sharper in the center than a good Protar).

    I only ask because presumably a lens in front of 4x5 that would cover 10x8 would mean 2x the number of lines across the photograph than 4x5? This sort of implies that the best 4x5 lenses should have the smallest coverage which goes against my (admittedly simple) knowlege? Perhaps there is a tipping point around 10x8 that makes lenses a lot harder (or more expensive) to create...
    It's not so much that there is a tipping point as that the maximum theoretical resolution is a function of focal length. If you think of resolution not in terms of lines on film but as very small angles between light rays, you will see that two lenses with the same angular resolution but different focal lengths will give different resolution on film. So a 150mm would theoretically be exactly twice as sharp on film as a 300mm lens of the same construction.

    There is still a trade-off between resolution and coverage, but modern design methods have allowed lens designers to make lenses with both good coverage and high resolution across the image circle.

  3. #103

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    4,670

    Re: Is there any real utility to ULF?

    Quote Originally Posted by timparkin View Post
    Does this imply that, all else being equal, the bigger the image circle of a lens the lower aerial resolution? I only ask because presumably a lens in front of 4x5 that would cover 10x8 would mean 2x the number of lines across the photograph than 4x5? This sort of implies that the best 4x5 lenses should have the smallest coverage which goes against my (admittedly simple) knowlege? Perhaps there is a tipping point around 10x8 that makes lenses a lot harder (or more expensive) to create...

    Interesting thread...

    Tim
    Generally that is so, as Ole has noted.

    However, there are exceptions. The new Schneider 550 XXL lens, which is a modern multi-coated Dagor design, gives very even coverage over nearly all of its 900+mm circle of illumination. This lens was designed for ULF work and the huge coverage that is needed for these large formats.

    Sandy King

  4. #104

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    781

    Re: Is there any real utility to ULF?

    > Does this imply that, all else being equal, the bigger the image circle of a lens the lower aerial resolution?


    Tim, as a general rule, yes, this is the case, unfortunately. As Ole and Sandy mention, there has been, and always will be a trade-off between resolution/contrast vs. coverage. Hence the continued trend to smaller formats through the years, reversing the "bigger is better" history of photography.




    > Perhaps there is a tipping point around 10x8 that makes lenses a lot harder (or more expensive) to create...


    I would add some caveats to this statement to make it more accurate. First, it's not just lens design and MTF that limits resolution, it's the apt. you are forced to shoot at using the longer fl lens for the bigger format, to accommodate the DOF in the scene. So with a DOF shot (i.e. not infinity, not flat subject) the larger format lenses often have two strikes against them, smaller apertures required, and often less resolution to begin with, due to the larger coverage. IMO, there is a tipping point in this balancing act, and it falls between 4x5 and 810. If the shot requires some DOF, then 4x5 is the crown jewel. However, if the shot does not require DOF, then additional gains can be appreciated jumping to 810. IMO, this is one of they reasons 4x5 has dominated LF photography for many years. Of course, their is other reasons that are obvious, such as size, no need for prints larger than 4x5 can produce, larger and better lens selection, etc. I also think 4x5 will continue to hold its own in the future due to our excellent films and optics for this format size.


    ULF faded many years ago for a very good reason - the advent of higher resolving films which allowed equal resolutions with smaller formats via enlargements.... todays digital trend, (downward in format size) is merely a continuation of the ULF to LF trend 50 - 70 years ago. Both times, it was higher resolution recording media that allowed (or welcomed) the use of shorter fl lenses. Shorter fl's lenses (relative) is one of the few physical laws of optics, that works in our favor. These shorter fl lenses, have the potential to produce much higher resolutions and faster shutter speeds. This same principle is what opened the flood gates for the f2.8 digicams - which are taking over the world. At f2.8, (most common) diffraction limited aerial resolutions are about 530 lp/mm. Compare this to f64 on 8x10, 23 lp/mm. oh yeah, also a "small" gain in shutter speeds, just 8 stops :-)
    Last edited by bglick; 17-Jan-2008 at 07:35. Reason: spelling

  5. #105

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Austin TX
    Posts
    2,004

    Re: Is there any real utility to ULF?

    bglick, splendid info on lens matters. These latest posts get a bit more at the point of the original post.

    I've not used any ULF format cameras but have historically done 35 mm. to 8X10. I agree that as the format goes up beyond about 5X7 it becomes more noticeably difficult to capture the plane of focus using movements and my photos became more static. I didn't always mind this depending on the subject matter but I always seemed to gravitate back to the 4X5 format for the flexibility.

    By the way bglick you seem to be into lens design and I seem to remember a pioneering company, I think in CT, that specialized in computer optical design in the 70s' or 80s'. They did design work for Leitz and Nikon - I think. I wonder if they are still in business?

    Nate Potter

  6. #106

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    781

    Re: Is there any real utility to ULF?

    Thanks for the kind words Nate

    > I agree that as the format goes up beyond about 5X7 it becomes more noticeably difficult to capture the plane of focus using movements and my photos became more static.


    Yep, this is another good point which I avoided previously, as the discussion revolved around format / apt. / diffraction / format size. However, as you suggest, another reason 4x5 is such a sweet spot for photography is movements. While, rise/fall corrects distortions or alters composition, it's the tilts that can ease the focus issue and prevent stopping down (degrading the resolution via apt. diffraction) as the only form of capturing the image plane. But to utilize tilt, you must have sufficient image circle, which 4x5 lenses offer. You also will benefit by the relatively shorter fl lenses (vs. 8x10 or larger), as a 300mm fl lens requires 2x the tilt as a 150mm lens. So as you double the format, you eat up the image circle first by the larger format size, then, to make matters worse, you need 2x the degrees in tilt for equal focal plane placement..... quite often, you simply don't have enough enough image circle for all these requirements, so you resort back to stopping down as the only option to attain adequate focus from near to far - which brings on apt. diffraction. Even when you can tilt with the larger formats, it's often the very poor resolving portion of the image circle you are capturing. So due to the over-sized image circles available to 4x5, combined with the shorter fl's which require less degrees in tilt.... 4x5 will very often provide you with an alternative focus means (tilt), allowing you too open up several stops vs. keeping the standards parallel. Yep, another "feather in the cap" for the 4x5 format.

    As a general rule, if I have an infinity scene, or a scene with very little depth, I will use 8x10, or the occasional ULF. Otherwise, 4x5 has proven untouchable in versatility, size, weight, etc. Of course, 5x7 is a nice compromise of the two. I have recently acquired a 5x7 back also, so I might eventually settle on one format as most of my lenses have very large coverage, and I really hate carrying so much gear. I think QT figured this out looooong ago!


    I am not aware of the optical design firm in CT you refer to...hmmmmm.....

  7. #107
    David Vickery
    Join Date
    Oct 1998
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    216

    Re: Is there any real utility to ULF?

    If you want proof that Optics is not a relevant issue when deciding whether or not ULF has utility for you, the potential user, or for those of us already using ULF cameras, just look at a good Albumen Print by Carleton Watkins. The High Museum of Art in Atlanta, Ga. has a print on display that is absolutely amazing--for its superb optical quality(sharp throughout-foreground to background-you can count blades of grass if you want), for its beautiful tonality, and for the complete Craftsmanship in its execution. The one in particular that I am thinking of is a 16x20 contact print made over One Hundred years ago!! I can't remember the name of the print and I can't find it on the High's web site, but if any of you have been there and seen it and really looked at it then you know what I am talking about.
    Sudek ambled across my mind one day and took his picture. Only he knows where it is.
    David Vickery

  8. #108
    David Vickery
    Join Date
    Oct 1998
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    216

    Re: Is there any real utility to ULF?

    Does it need to be emphasized that the photographer who wishes to expose hundreds of rolls of film per day or the equivalent in sheets, that ULF does not have utility for them and the goals of that type of image making? Isn't this obvious?
    Sudek ambled across my mind one day and took his picture. Only he knows where it is.
    David Vickery

  9. #109

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    781

    Re: Is there any real utility to ULF?

    > If you want proof that Optics is not a relevant issue when deciding whether or not ULF has utility for you, the potential user, or for those of us already using ULF cameras, just look at a good Albumen Print by Carleton Watkins.


    David, ULF users can maximize the benefits of the big format. For example, an infinity shot on 11x14 with a modern oversized 8x10 LF lens is truly breathtaking. No doubt about it. It will look superb whether it was contact printed, or enlarged. As mentioned in the deleted posts, ULF still has a niche IMO. However, it doesn't change what was discussed above regarding the limits imposed by apt. diffraction.


    Even Ansel Adams shot atop a tall ladder, in his later years, as he too was trying to reduce the amount of DOF, so he could limit diffraction effects by opening up more. I shoot atop an RV with 810 and 11x14 to do the same. So there is tricks at every level to maximize a given formats utility.

  10. #110

    Re: Is there any real utility to ULF?

    This thread is about the relevance of using ULF cameras. Someone responded that there is not and proceded to cite all kinds of resolution arguments, MTF tables, that enlarging is better and should be considered and of course the ever present digital.

    Well, while all these rationalizations sound reasonable as an attempt to demonstrate there is no relevance for ULF, in the end the proof is in the pudding. Somtehing that those of us who actually USE and photograph with these size have known for a long time.

    So in an effort to show and yes discredit all thes rationalizations I am posting pictures and magnifications done with a 12x20 Korona camera, a Nikon Nikkor 450 M lens and Ultrafine 125 film.

    I took two shots of this scene, I liked the clouds on negative one better than the other one so I had this extra negative that I do not use and decided to cut for this demonstration.

    The first picture is a shot of the finished 12x20 print. All the scans are straight, no manipulations, not even sharpening on photoshop.

    Then, I cut up the 12x20 negative and the second shot is the section I cut to put on my scanner. This scan was made at 100 dpi resolution. I then scanned the same cut at 2400 dpi and cut off a part that looked the same as my negative under a 10x loupe. And this is the third picture.

    Bear in mind that all the scans have no sharpening in photoshop not even to correct for the loss in resolution when scanning.

    So lets examine the arguments that were proposed.

    1.Because you have to use small apertures you loose resolution and the resolution of the lenses used is not adequate for these formats.
    --- BS. This shot was taken a f/45, for 5 seconds, in windy conditions as you can see by the movement of the branches in the tree.

    2. Difficulty to mantain squareness of the camera, film flatness and parallel standards.
    --- These are reasons borne out of inexperience and ignorance in the format. These shots were taken with a 90 year old Korona 12x20 camera with S&S holders. A little bit of care, a good tripod and good holders take care of this. If a 90 year old camera is capable of this kind of pictures, the modern ones are far more capable. My Wisner has stops to set parallel standards and I have yet to see a modern ULF camera that is not square both to an horizontal and vertical axis.

    3. I can disregard circle of confusion because the lens does not see format size and the depth of focus is unimportant. I want to see the print at any distance I want.
    --- specious argument. This person wants to look at a print that is 10 feet x 16.66 feet from a 10 inch distance. If that is the case, so be it...but clearly it is demonstrated in these pictures that even at close examinations the lenses and film are capable of delivering outstanding images.

    Conclusion: Theory and tables are good to form an intial impression, but nothing beats experience, knowledge of the material and actually using the cameras to verify that the initial impression obtained form the theory are accurate. IOW, bigger IS better

    PS, I forgot to add that the negative under a 10X magnification looks far sharper than the scan.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails LFULFP.jpg   LF2.jpg   LF1.jpg  

Similar Threads

  1. New utility by Jeff Conrad: Sun/Moon calculator
    By QT Luong in forum Feedback
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 23-May-2011, 09:45
  2. How does one tell if they have a real Toho?
    By Jeff Rivera in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 31-Jul-2004, 17:47
  3. What's The Real Aim For An Artist?
    By domenicco in forum On Photography
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 5-Mar-2002, 22:13
  4. Steve Grimes'"Utility Sinar Lens Boards"
    By Robert J. Triffin in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 9-Nov-2001, 07:46
  5. Arca Brainbox utility?
    By Steve Singleton in forum Gear
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 27-Apr-2000, 01:49

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
  •