Is there any real utility to ULF?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The whole argument and debate seems sort of pointless (the BG/Jorge one) as its likely as relative as defining "what is art".

I have to disagree with this. If the person making these claim posted I did not choose/have chosen ULF because.... then it is fine with me, we all have reasons to do or not do, like or not like what we do. But when someone cathegorically procalims there is no longer any usefulness for ULF and presents arguments which appear reasonable then someone reading those arguments sees no opposition then they might decide the arguments were correct.

I want to shoot ULF for as long as I can, part of that is not only shooting it, but encouraging other people to try it, without film your camera as well as mine are nothing more than expensive fire wood....

[bglick]

>But when someone cathegorically procalims there is no longer any usefulness for ULF

I agree Jorge..... but the problem is, that person NEVER MADE SUCH A CLAIM! At some point, you must respond to what a person ACTUALLY writes. But after several thousand posts, it's hard to teach an ol dog, new tricks.


> the accuser... a new comer with 32 posts...

But Jorge, all his posts are logical ? Doesn't that account for something here? It's not all about volume, what about some substance?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

>But when someone cathegorically procalims there is no longer any usefulness for ULF

I agree Jorge..... but the problem is, that person NEVER MADE SUCH A CLAIM! At some point, you must respond to what a person ACTUALLY writes. But after several thousand posts, it's hard to teach an ol dog, new tricks.


> the accuser... a new comer with 32 posts...

But Jorge, all his posts are logical ? Doesn't that account for something here? It's not all about volume, what about some substance?

OTOH, if you the end goal is the final print, and you are not stuck on contact printing, or anti digital (scanning and printing) then, the ULF case is weakened tremendously, or almost dismissed

I am sorry, I thought it had been you who posted this. Must have been your double I guess. Funny, now that I read this again you say "not stuck on contact printing"..LOL... The main reason someone buys an ULF is exactly to DO contact prints...certainly no one buys a 20x24 camera so they can enlarge the negative... Should have caught that from the beguinning and realized you have no idea about ULF.

And yes for most of us who use an ULF the end goal is

the best possible final print

.

[David Vickery]

You can get the same quality from a 35mm negative made into a print that you can from a 12x20 negative... if you contact print the 35mm negative.

No. You can get the best possible print from 35mm by contact printing it -- that is, it will be as good as it can be, but it will not be as good as a 12x20 print. The 12x20 negative has a vast amount of information in it that a 35mm sized negative will never have --- Assuming two negatives of equivalent execution. That is the reason for using larger film sizes. The larger the film the more information contained within it.

[timparkin]

Lets see, a troll with more than 2000 posts, member of this forum since it was back at photo.net.... the accuser... a new comer with 32 posts... yep I am a troll alright.

I don't disagree with you on the above statements. What I disagree on is this falacy that digital is soooo much better at everything....

OK.. You are exhibiting troll like behaviour.e.g mostly ad hominem and straw man attacks...

It's difficult to have a rational discussion when each response ignores many previous responses and makes such huge assumptions about people's intentions.

Both myself and bglick have said that if you don't want to use digital and are contact printing then ULF has great utility (we agree) but if you ultimate goal is resolution then it's utility is arguable at best (and included various evidence to back up the statement).

Your only reponse is to say that because we're "pro digital" (huh?) we must be wrong and that it's obvious ULF is better because why would people do it otherwise (an odd argument)..

Jorge, If you are still offering to send a slice of the negative to me I am more than happy to get this scanned on a howtek 4500 and I will do the same with a 4x5 negative taken with a 150 Sironar S at f16. I'll then upload the scans - would this be an adequate test for you? (my mail details are on the http://pollenation.net site).

Tim

[timparkin]

No. You can get the best possible print from 35mm by contact printing it -- that is, it will be as good as it can be, but it will not be as good as a 12x20 print. The 12x20 negative has a vast amount of information in it that a 35mm sized negative will never have --- Assuming two negatives of equivalent execution. That is the reason for using larger film sizes. The larger the film the more information contained within it.

Hi David,

I think the argument has been 'The larger the film the more capable it is of containing more detail' but the problem is that this detail can get blurred by issues such as the 11lppmm cap on resolution caused by f64 diffraction.. We were trying to find out if there is an optimum size of format that maximised detail. The analogy is arguing that if you want more depth of field you just stop down.. but if you stop down too much then diffraction effects start to decrease the quality of the result..

So the potential for more detail can be realised if you don't stop down too much.. Once you stop down beyond a certain point, then the advantages of large film are cancelled out by diffraction..

I don't mind taking part in these sorts of discussions as long as there is real information being exchanged (either through experience, experimentation or calculation) but we seem to be hitting the limits of this now and have moved onto "yes it is" "no it isn't" type conversation...

Tim

[David Vickery]

Hello Tim,
I don't think that lp/mm is the only requirement for a fine print.
I think that there is more to the information contained in the film than just lp/mm. I didn't say "detail". I said information, and I think that it is the sum total of the film--micro contrast, tonal quality, etc.-- that determines the potential quality of the final image.
Since the question is about the utility of ULF, and since the overwhelming majority of ULF images are contact printed, I just don't agree that Diffraction is a limiting factor.

But I guess that if the question isn't about using ULF cameras to make negatives for fine prints of some sort, but about maximizing detail, then I have no interest in the argument and none of what I said would be relevant.

[bglick]

> OK.. You are exhibiting troll like behavior.e.g mostly ad hominem and straw man attacks...

Thank you Tim for being the voice of reason here. One of the reason Jorge continues taking subjects out of context, altering the topics, etc., is because very few people on forums have the energy or the willingness to engage him. I tried it, but it becomes a full time job, as Jorge can NOT be wrong and has limitless energy and time to defend his mistakes / biases.


Although he did get a scare, regarding the two lenses he owns, with the same fl, at the same f stop, but have different diam. apt. openings. While this may have occurred, anyone with the most basic and simple understanding of photo optics would have realized this is NOT possible. A few posters finally stepped up and emphasized this B&W case to him, and yet, he still tried to squirm his way out of this one.... at first, his reasoning was, their is a difference between Copal 0 f32 vs. Copal 3 f32. He described the Copal 3 as having a larger Entrance pupil at the same f stop as Copal 0, since it was a larger shutter. Anyway, this is what we are up against. While the average forum PRO would be humiliated and embarrassed by making such an elementary mistake (while acting like the highest authority on ULF on planet earth), Jorge comes back with 5x the fuel in his tank, and will change the topic, then attack even stronger to bring down others, so he can gain superiority - regardless of how senseless the subject matters becomes. He is determined to be the ultimate authority on photography, but the more he posts, the more it becomes obvious, he needs to stop screaming, and start learning.





> It's difficult to have a rational discussion when each response ignores many previous responses and makes such huge assumptions about people's intentions.


Tim, I sure you realize, its not just you, he does this to everyone. Which is how he wins these exchanges, the other person defaults, out of frustration. Jorge considers these victories.





> Your only reponse is to say that because we're "pro digital" (huh?) we must be wrong and that it's obvious ULF is better because why would people do it otherwise (an odd argument)..


Sheeeesh, glad other people are picking up on this..... after 21x, I got tired of typing it. After someone counters Jorges position, he assumes the person must be a covert marketing agent sent down from the Digital headquarters to convert the last few film users over to digital. I gotta admit - it's humorous...






> I think the argument has been 'The larger the film the more capable it is of containing more detail' but the problem is that this detail can get blurred by issues such as the 11lppmm cap on resolution caused by f64 diffraction.. We were trying to find out if there is an optimum size of format that maximised detail. The analogy is arguing that if you want more depth of field you just stop down.. but if you stop down too much then diffraction effects start to decrease the quality of the result..


BINGO! This is nothing more than applied elementary photo optics. Thank you for the perfect recap.... It really is that simple....






> So the potential for more detail can be realised if you don't stop down too much.. Once you stop down beyond a certain point, then the advantages of large film are cancelled out by diffraction..


EXACTLY.... AND, it also matters what you are comparing it to, cause smaller formats offer lenses of higher MTF values, which actually increases aerial resolution. Cause remember, what gets recorded on film is a function of the film MTFs combined with the lens MTF, and this is brought together by the simple 1/R equation. If anyone is the least bit interested, I will lay this out again.




> I don't mind taking part in these sorts of discussions as long as there is real information being exchanged (either through experience, experimentation or calculation) but we seem to be hitting the limits of this now and have moved onto "yes it is" "no it isn't" type conversation...


I feel the same way Tim.... The purpose of these forums is, people helping each other, and the sharing of information. But when Jorge is involved, he can't discuss the issues without defending his chosen format, his passion for that format is so great, he refuses to accept the fundamentals and limits of photography. (well, combined with his lack of knowledge)


To reiterate the other issues that surfaces... as a few other posters talked about choosing a format based on how it feels for your style, sort of like trying to define art, etc. In many ways, I fully agree with this. I gave the analogy of people buying old wooden boats (throwbacks to the 50's), vintage cars, etc. The performance of these rigs are often very inferior to other options available to them, but that is not what matters to them, its the feel and enjoyment of that particular boat / car, etc. My position on "utility" was only based on the sheer resolving capability of the different formats, not peoples personal preferences towards a given format. That needs no discussion, cause it's based on the vanilla / chocolate preference. If you like making 16x20 contact prints, ULF is the way to go. And yes, sometimes, ULF is the BEST tool for a given shot. Anyway, NO matter how many times I presented this, Jorge stomps on it.... with.... YOU ARE DIGITAL, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND CC, YOU USE ULF, BUT YOU DON'T OWN, SO THIS MAKES YOU DUMB. etc. etc.


As for the digital stitched vs. ULF debate, this is a bit absurd. Again, no boundaries, just screaming. To break this down to its simplest elements.... a 8x20 piece of film has 160 sq inches. A full size digital SLR sensor has ~1.5 sq inches. If you combined 107 stitched shots, the virtual digital sensor size will equal the size of the 8x20 film, 160/1.5 = 107. The 107 would be net shots, after overlaps, etc. So, if this is equal to taking ONE shot of the SLR, and comparing it to a 1 x 1.5" section of the 80x20 film. As you will see, its senseless to even do the experiment.....


Now, for arguments sake, lets say the 8x20 is shot at f64, which delivers a MAX. apt. diffraction value of 23 lp/mm aerial resolution. (it will never hit this high, but its irrelevant) Now, compare this to a 35mm lens, that can be shot at f8 when stitched, or 188 lp/mm aerial resolution delivered to the SAME SIZE recording media area. Now, if this is not bad enough, next, you look at a 16MP sensor, vs. the cropped 1 x 1.5" piece of film, and analyze which has more resolving capacity. This varies with the film type, but regardless, there is NO film of this size that can match a 16MP sensors resolving capability. When you combine via 1/R, the 8x higher aerial resolution of the 35mm lens, with the huge gain in the digital recording media, the difference is so dramatic, it's not worth discussing. This is why such a generic comparisons that Jorge purports, i.e. I CHALLENGE THE WORLD TO FIND A STITCHED DIGITAL TO MATCH MY ULF...... with no boundaries in place, the challenge is absurd.


However, if you want to compare a single shot digital vs. film, thats a sensible argument. And there is many applications where ULF would win. But that would not be sufficient for Jorge, he also wants ULF to beat a 3 GigaPixel stitched shot. When a subject is static, and all the other elements allow you to stitch as you please, there is practically no limit to how much resolution you can have with stitched digital. Somehow, these basic premises elude Jorge, just like the Copal 0 vs, Copal 3 issue I mentioned above.... it's basic photographic concepts at work here, no rocket science.

[bglick]

> I just don't agree that Diffraction is a limiting factor.

David, I agree with this 100% within the context of how you present it. And again, this goes back to the application of the format to the desired final product. I don't think anyone has ever argued this point. Although ULF does force diffraction to radically reduce aerial resolution of lenses, when combined with film, the total will "almost" always record more lp/mm than the avg. human eye can resolve on the print. When you combine this with the lack of noise from ultra tight grain (from zero enlargement), you surely have the potential for gorgeous prints at that size.

Of course, even here, there is some caveats, as if you jump up too high in format size, and are forced to deal with DOF, you may use apts. that do bring the final image resolution below what the human eye can resolve. I have seen this many times with 20x24 contact prints.


However, there is can be a "perfect storm" of variables that can negate what I wrote above, such as combining, the use of inferior lenses from the early 1900's, large DOF in the scene, poor film registration, low MTF film, long exposures creating blur, etc. etc.

But, when properly executed, I doubt you will ever get an argument with your position - from anyone! Hence the beauty of a well executed contact print....and that is, IMO, one of the best utilities of ULF today.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Some of the utility of ULF, in portraiture and figure work at least, has nothing to do with resolution, diffraction, lenses, film, tripods, or cameras, but rather the interaction between the photographer and the subject. The big camera can make the setting into more of an "event," particularly for people who are used to being photographed, and requires that the subject collaborate in the process by knowing when to hold still and understanding a bit about what the photographer is doing.