Dan_4341
13-Jun-2004, 15:09
For those who don't print larger than 16x20 (from 4x5), and those who usually need great depth-of-field, that can't be taken care of by movements (i.e. need f32 or smaller apertures), and those who find the decreased dust, lower weight, and general convenience of Quickloads and Readyloads outweigh other considerations, what follows won't matter (maybe that means 90% of the 4x5 shooters out there : -) What follows is probably only of interest in the few cases where the highest sharpness is desired.
The net result of my tests show that I get superior results with Toyo regular holders than with Fuji Quickload holders. Caveat: who knows, maybe I've overlooked something, or did something wrong, and others will get just as good results with either). Here are the details of my results:
It may be known from other postings and articles on the large format forum that regular film holders give a more consistently accurate or flat film plane, than the packet type holders (Quickload, Readyload, etc.). However, I didn't know how significant this was until I had reason to obtain the sharpest possible result in a close up, and in another case, of buildings in the distance. Using 10x and 20x loupes to review my RVP 50 and Provia 100F transparencies shot with Quickloads, I noticied areas of unsharpness that were at the same distance as other areas that were sharp (although for the most part nothing looked totally sharp). Thinking I didn't focus carefully enough, or the camera was not aligned properly, or that there was something wrong with the camera, I did some careful tests.
The tests: I used high quality lenses (Schneider 110xl, 135mm Apo-Sironar S, 90mm f8 Nikkor, 300 f9M Nikkor), focused carefully on different areas, using a 7x magnifier on the groundglass, using an Ebony 45SU, on two different subjects (one distant landscape with fences and building signs, etc, and 12 foot distance series of shots with several resolution targets on a wall). I shot more than 30 comparisons on Velvia 50 and some on Provia 100F. F-stops ranged from F11 to F32. I compared the same F-stop, the same focus, everything - i.e. Quickload RVP at F16&1/3 at 1/8 sec vs Toyo Holder RVP at F16&1/3 at 1/8sec, etc.
Viewing transparencies with a 4x loupe, comparing shots on the Quickload vs Regular Film Holder, no difference can be seen (unless shot at F16 or wider aperture), as the details are too small. With 10x loupe the difference is apparent. With a 20x loupe the difference is easily apparent at a glance and the difference is large in many places on the transparency. The regular holder shots always came out right on the money, whereas the Quickloads shots always showed some areas of unsharpness.
For example I can easily read wording on signs on shots made with the regular holder, but with the Quickloads shots the wording is totally blurred, and nothing can be read. Fence posts are blurred in most places (but not all) on the quickloads shots, but uniformly sharp with regular holder shots.
These details are small on the transparency, and would only be visible for large enlargements (above 16x20 perhaps, or unless someone looks at a 16x20 very close-up). The difference between shots with the two holder types decreases when diffration comes into play, which is around f32 for most lenses (except the 300mm).
So what does it really matter anyway? For me, an amateur, if I'm going to the trouble of lugging LF gear, taking a lot of time and effort and expense, most of the time I want the best results possible, regarless of my subject or potential enlargements.
Otherwise (for me only; I don't mean to imply that others necessarily would feel the same) I would do almost as well as using Quickloads (or Readyloads perhaps) as to use a 6x7-6x9 dedicated roll film camera with a flatter and more accurate film plane (Pentax 6x7, Fuji 680, etc.). I.E. get the same resolution (but inferior tonality in prints 16x20 and larger) as 4x5 Quickloads, and gain a lot of convience and decreased cost. So, I guess I'll be using mostly the Toyo film holders in the future.
I now feel that one of the reasons some people feel that high-end digital may appear to be superior in certain respects to medium format cameras (and scanning backs superior to LF film up to maybe 8x10), is that the imaging plane in the digital cameras/backs is totally flat and very accurate; but not so with film (even 35mm and MF). When film is scanned, which is probably a compromise in itself, then the film image plane was already compromised, then the digital to film comparison is going to be even worse (than if the film image was made with a totally flat and accurate plane).
Also, I've found that in using regular holders I don't have to worry about the packet waving in the breeze, and that it is quicker for me to inserting a regular holder and shoot, than with all the steps involved with a Quickload. However, if the difference in sharpness between the two methods was closer I 'd gladly do 100% of my shooting with the packets, so as not to deal with dust, nor limitations on how much film I can easily take with me on a shooting outing due to weight and bulk.
After going thru this exercise I did find that another photographer, who has a website, Ken Rockwell, already came to a similar conclusion (about the sharpness difference) long before I did. I wonder, if anyone else out there has come to a similar conclusion, even if the difference is not important to them (you) ?
The net result of my tests show that I get superior results with Toyo regular holders than with Fuji Quickload holders. Caveat: who knows, maybe I've overlooked something, or did something wrong, and others will get just as good results with either). Here are the details of my results:
It may be known from other postings and articles on the large format forum that regular film holders give a more consistently accurate or flat film plane, than the packet type holders (Quickload, Readyload, etc.). However, I didn't know how significant this was until I had reason to obtain the sharpest possible result in a close up, and in another case, of buildings in the distance. Using 10x and 20x loupes to review my RVP 50 and Provia 100F transparencies shot with Quickloads, I noticied areas of unsharpness that were at the same distance as other areas that were sharp (although for the most part nothing looked totally sharp). Thinking I didn't focus carefully enough, or the camera was not aligned properly, or that there was something wrong with the camera, I did some careful tests.
The tests: I used high quality lenses (Schneider 110xl, 135mm Apo-Sironar S, 90mm f8 Nikkor, 300 f9M Nikkor), focused carefully on different areas, using a 7x magnifier on the groundglass, using an Ebony 45SU, on two different subjects (one distant landscape with fences and building signs, etc, and 12 foot distance series of shots with several resolution targets on a wall). I shot more than 30 comparisons on Velvia 50 and some on Provia 100F. F-stops ranged from F11 to F32. I compared the same F-stop, the same focus, everything - i.e. Quickload RVP at F16&1/3 at 1/8 sec vs Toyo Holder RVP at F16&1/3 at 1/8sec, etc.
Viewing transparencies with a 4x loupe, comparing shots on the Quickload vs Regular Film Holder, no difference can be seen (unless shot at F16 or wider aperture), as the details are too small. With 10x loupe the difference is apparent. With a 20x loupe the difference is easily apparent at a glance and the difference is large in many places on the transparency. The regular holder shots always came out right on the money, whereas the Quickloads shots always showed some areas of unsharpness.
For example I can easily read wording on signs on shots made with the regular holder, but with the Quickloads shots the wording is totally blurred, and nothing can be read. Fence posts are blurred in most places (but not all) on the quickloads shots, but uniformly sharp with regular holder shots.
These details are small on the transparency, and would only be visible for large enlargements (above 16x20 perhaps, or unless someone looks at a 16x20 very close-up). The difference between shots with the two holder types decreases when diffration comes into play, which is around f32 for most lenses (except the 300mm).
So what does it really matter anyway? For me, an amateur, if I'm going to the trouble of lugging LF gear, taking a lot of time and effort and expense, most of the time I want the best results possible, regarless of my subject or potential enlargements.
Otherwise (for me only; I don't mean to imply that others necessarily would feel the same) I would do almost as well as using Quickloads (or Readyloads perhaps) as to use a 6x7-6x9 dedicated roll film camera with a flatter and more accurate film plane (Pentax 6x7, Fuji 680, etc.). I.E. get the same resolution (but inferior tonality in prints 16x20 and larger) as 4x5 Quickloads, and gain a lot of convience and decreased cost. So, I guess I'll be using mostly the Toyo film holders in the future.
I now feel that one of the reasons some people feel that high-end digital may appear to be superior in certain respects to medium format cameras (and scanning backs superior to LF film up to maybe 8x10), is that the imaging plane in the digital cameras/backs is totally flat and very accurate; but not so with film (even 35mm and MF). When film is scanned, which is probably a compromise in itself, then the film image plane was already compromised, then the digital to film comparison is going to be even worse (than if the film image was made with a totally flat and accurate plane).
Also, I've found that in using regular holders I don't have to worry about the packet waving in the breeze, and that it is quicker for me to inserting a regular holder and shoot, than with all the steps involved with a Quickload. However, if the difference in sharpness between the two methods was closer I 'd gladly do 100% of my shooting with the packets, so as not to deal with dust, nor limitations on how much film I can easily take with me on a shooting outing due to weight and bulk.
After going thru this exercise I did find that another photographer, who has a website, Ken Rockwell, already came to a similar conclusion (about the sharpness difference) long before I did. I wonder, if anyone else out there has come to a similar conclusion, even if the difference is not important to them (you) ?