Digital versus Enlarger print sharpness opinions

[John Olsen]

While admiring some really sharp images in the LF Forum (not those with obvious PS over-sharpening) I've wondered how digital film scans and enlarger prints compare for sharpness. I've been pleased enough with my enlarger prints, but in a comparison today I note that the digital scan sees a lot more detail. Is this comparison typical or is my enlarger lens (Schneider 150mm Componon-S) operating below par? Opinions please.

http://i683.photobucket.com/albums/vv192/johnolsen337/suzukicomparisoncomp_zpszjdhxo5v.jpg

These are cropped from the central focal area of the 4x5 image, about 3 cm on the film.

[Peter De Smidt]

Did you use a glass carrier in the enlarger? What aperture did you use?

[John Olsen]

I use a Beseler Negaflat older, no glass but nice and flat, at f32.

[Drew Wiley]

You struck out before you ever got to first base. If prints are what you have in mind, compare prints to prints, not web simulations. You've only got about a hundred flexible variables between Point A and B, all of which could hypothetically drive the quality either up or down in either case. This reminds me of MBA's
and their Powerpoint presentations - you can prove ANYTHING just by how the data is preferentially selected.

[Peter De Smidt]

F/32 is a problem. You'll be well into diffraction at the aperture. 2 stops down from max aperture is usually optimal, or near so. With the best lenses, you should stop down even less.

[Drew Wiley]

Missed your intermediate post, sorry. But it reinforces what I already know from the first post.

[bob carnie]

IMHO there is no way whatsoever that the enlarger print then scanned on a flat bed Epson will come even close to a direct scan off a Imocan.

You are comparing single generation to two generation steps and your results are predictable.

This is somewhat like comparing a enlarged interneg cprint to contact interneg cprint.

[Drew Wiley]

Not just the f/32 - red flags all over the place, starting with Nega-non-flat an flatbed scan. Probably the paper wasn't flat in the easel either, maybe all kinds of issues which affected the results. Paper scans different than film anyway, and ultimately can't hold as much resolution unless it's completely smooth polyester
medium. Here we go again........................................

[Bob Salomon]

I use a Beseler Negaflat older, no glass but nice and flat, at f32.

To get optimal quality from any enlarger lens there are some very simple requirements:
1 a glass carrier. A Negaflat was fine for printing wet negs for papers. Not for exhibition quality work.
2 a properly aligned enlarger. Best is a Zigaline or similar.
3 printing at optimal aperture and that will be two to three stops down from wide open.
4 printing within the optimized magnification range of your lens
5 properly exposed and focused and developed film
6 proper exposure and development of the print.

You have ignored several of these steps and the print quality is not indicative of what is possible from your negative.

[John Olsen]

Not just the f/32 - red flags all over the place, starting with Nega-non-flat an flatbed scan. Probably the paper wasn't flat in the easel either, maybe all kinds of issues which affected the results. Paper scans different than film anyway, and ultimately can't hold as much resolution unless it's completely smooth polyester
medium. Here we go again........................................

Yes, I know there's a difference between film scan and enlarger. I'm not expecting to get the film scan result through the enlarger. I'm just showing that so you can guess whether my enlarger result is close to what would be expected based on a good piece of film. Thanks.

[Drew Wiley]

OK. Thanks for clarifying that. But based on that, no, not by a long shot. Something is either not level and flat in the film or paper plane or it's a lens issue itself. For example, that Componon will probably perform best around f/8. If you simply have to stop it way further down in order to keep the negative in focus, then you need to address that problem itself first. And ditto what Bob said.

[Greg]

My 2 cents: Couple of related things to consider....

Enlarging photo paper far out resolves any inkjet printer.

Sharpening in PS actually does not add any resolution to the image, only the apparent illusion of more detail.

Oversampling in PS can actually add detail (Astro-photographers do this all the time)

The same 4x5 negative enlarged to 8x10 when put next to an inkjet print made from an excellent scan, well when both viewed from 3 feet away... well if one was actually sharper than the other you wouldn't be able see the difference. You would have to use a magnifying glass.

For one project I did years ago, I copied a survey map drawn in the 1800s with an excellent 4x5 copy set up and made a 20x30 print with the near best of equipment. I also digitally captured the survey map and made a 20x30 inkjet print. I had several people at the Museum look at the two prints. All said the inkjet prints were sharper. In fact the enlarged prints had more detail but the inkjet prints had more apparent visual sharpness and contrast.

This thread should be interesting to follow....

[Corran]

Assuming you don't do unsharp masking when enlarging (I'd like to learn and experiment with this personally), you can make much sharper inkjet prints than enlarged prints from the same negative. I've seen it over and over with my work and others, and many people I respect say the same thing. I prefer real darkroom prints for aesthetic reasons though.

I'm sure there will be many people who disagree.

One thing though - Greg above says "Enlarging photo paper far out resolves any inkjet printer." I'd like to see a source/test/etc. about that, and more importantly, a test to show actual max resolution on paper, not theoretical maximums based on specs and lab tests.

[Greg]

Forgot to include:

Edge of Darkness, The art, craft, and power of the high-definition monochrome photograph by Barry Thomton, Amphoto Books is a definitive guide to making "sharp" photographs. I'd advise anyone interested in achieving "sharp" prints to buy this book.

[Jeff T]

The negative was scanned on Imacon while the print was scanned with an Epson scanner.

You derived these images from two different methodologies using different tools and I can see the images are different but I cannot see if one has more detail than the other.

I can see that the Imacon image has more contrast, and more sharpen, however, I prefer the smooth gradation of tones of 8x10 print scanned with the Epson scanner.

Is it possible that the imacon image had more sharpening?

[Greg]

Greg above says "Enlarging photo paper far out resolves any inkjet printer." I'd like to see a source/test/etc. about that, and more importantly, a test to show actual max resolution on paper, not theoretical maximums based on specs and lab tests.

Simply put a X5 Loupe up to a 100 year old stereo photo card, then put the loupe up it up to the sharpest inkjet print you have. We commonly flatbed scan 1/2 of the stereo card (image is 3" wide) and print it as an 11x14" print for display. Do same with with a 3" wide section of an inkjet print and you will be amazed at the difference. FYI Sterio cards were made by contacting the stereo negative images onto photo paper way back then.

Q.E.D.

[John Olsen]

The negative was scanned on Imacon while the print was scanned with an Epson scanner.

Is it possible that the imacon image had more sharpening?

Yes, there's the question of different scanners. However, viewing the print with a loupe gives me the same impression as the Epson scan. The sharpening was the same (PS 21%), but it was pretty minimal. I don't think that's driving the result.

I've redone my enlarger alignment as suggested above and loaded the same negative into a Beseler anti-newton glass holder for a test print at f11 to f16 tomorrow. (I just have to consider how to throttle back the light in my enlarger to allow an f11 exposure. Kodak Wratten ND or perhaps a Hasselblad polarizer?)

[mdarnton]

Sharpening is definitely fair play. Sharpness is a dance between resolution and contrast, which considers both together. On film you can't do anything about that, but scanning you can increase the contrast part of the equation which results in more REAL sharpness, as it is defined these days.

Following the thread of the resolution of contact prints, this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/father-digital-image-printing,1545-3.html

[djdister]

Yes, I know there's a difference between film scan and enlarger. I'm not expecting to get the film scan result through the enlarger. I'm just showing that so you can guess whether my enlarger result is close to what would be expected based on a good piece of film. Thanks.

Why didn't you compare an inkjet print from the digital file with a photo print from the negative?

[Corran]

Simply put a X5 Loupe up to a 100 year old stereo photo card, then put the loupe up it up to the sharpest inkjet print you have. We commonly flatbed scan 1/2 of the stereo card (image is 3" wide) and print it as an 11x14" print for display. Do same with with a 3" wide section of an inkjet print and you will be amazed at the difference. FYI Sterio cards were made by contacting the stereo negative images onto photo paper way back then.

Q.E.D.

To be fair, that's an anecdotal piece of evidence that most of us can't compare (as I don't have any of those handy). Also, the only valid test would be two prints from the same negative, one wet print and one scanned and inkjet printed. Since a bit of unsharp masking is practically one click away for the digital file, I believe the inkjet print will always be sharper.

[Peter De Smidt]

Of course you can do unsharp masking ala Howard Bond and Lynn Radeka with a photo enlarger.

[Corran]

You're absolutely right. As I mentioned earlier, I would love to try it myself. I do not have the materials or any idea how. How many people today are routinely doing USM in the darkroom?

[John Olsen]

Why didn't you compare an inkjet print from the digital file with a photo print from the negative?

Good question: I don't have a quality inkjet printer, just an all-in-one from Epson. I did the Imacon scans in hopes that my local print vendor would sell scads of prints. (They sold none.) However, the scans do point out a loss of quality in my enlarger process. The question here is whether I'm doing as well as can be expected or underperforming.

[Oren Grad]

One thing though - Greg above says "Enlarging photo paper far out resolves any inkjet printer." I'd like to see a source/test/etc. about that, and more importantly, a test to show actual max resolution on paper, not theoretical maximums based on specs and lab tests.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?8375-Resolution-of-photopaper

[Corran]

Good link Oren. From what I'm understanding, the debate is largely meaningless as both mediums are likely going to have more resolution than we can easily perceive. I'll leave the examination of prints under a microscope for other people. Therefore the resolution of a print depends on the system, from negative to scanner/enlarger to (editing and then) printing. I still posit that due to the simple and easy access to sharpening in the digital realm that ultimately one could expect more sharpness from a digital print. If one does USM in the darkroom, I have no idea.

Looking at some prints I was just toning earlier today though, I notice that my prints are definitely sharp but have a slight roundness to them that kind of looks unsharp sometimes. That's part of the wet print look in my mind. Whereas my ink prints are just sharp as can be. I've had a lot of people ask me about how I sharpen for print and final print sharpening was a big component to the digital editing classes I used to teach.

[Maris Rusis]

I use an ordinary enlarger, Simmon Omega D2V, with ordinary El-Nikkor enlarging lenses. Everything has been accurately aligned and the alignment has been stable for years. This system easily resolves out every visible grain in a negative as image detail point in the positive. As far as I'm concerned there is no "latent" or "hidden" extra sharpness lurking just beyond reach.

[Bob Salomon]

Yes, there's the question of different scanners. However, viewing the print with a loupe gives me the same impression as the Epson scan. The sharpening was the same (PS 21%), but it was pretty minimal. I don't think that's driving the result.

I've redone my enlarger alignment as suggested above and loaded the same negative into a Beseler anti-newton glass holder for a test print at f11 to f16 tomorrow. (I just have to consider how to throttle back the light in my enlarger to allow an f11 exposure. Kodak Wratten ND or perhaps a Hasselblad polarizer?)
What kind of light source does your enlarger have? You should easily be able to print a properly exposed and processed negative of transparency at f11 in a normal amount of time with a standard condenser or color head 45 enlarger.

[John Olsen]

What kind of light source does your enlarger have? You should easily be able to print a properly exposed and processed negative of transparency at f11 in a normal amount of time with a standard condenser or color head 45 enlarger.

I have Beseler condenser and colorhead 45 light sources. Measuring the light on a white paper with the lens wide open gives 4.5 ev on the Pentax spot meter with either one. I do a lot of 8x10s that print at f32, 15s or so. I'll need to cut the light a lot or the exposure will get to be too fast to allow for burning and dodging.

[LabRat]

I have Beseler condenser and colorhead 45 light sources. Measuring the light on a white paper with the lens wide open gives 4.5 ev on the Pentax spot meter with either one. I do a lot of 8x10s that print at f32, 15s or so. I'll need to cut the light a lot or the exposure will get to be too fast to allow for burning and dodging.

Try bulbs with a much lower wattage than you are using... Or an ND filter, or slower paper such as warm tone (developed neutral)...

Test your enlarger lens for optimum aperture by using a test target negative, or a neg with fine details, such as a semi distant shot of a bare tree, etc... Use a good grain magnifier, and try the different f-stops while observing the grain/details at the different stops... From wide open, you will see the grain would be fairly sharp (on contrast edges), but sometimes a little color fringing (if you roll the focus wide open, you might see the color changing at different focus points), and as you stop down, the contrast of the grain will get a little harder/brittle/smaller (with the grain separated), until the grain will start to "bridge" to the surrounding grains (as diffraction sets in)... This is a good focus point as a little diffraction will smooth out the granularity, so about 1/4 to a half stop (smaller) past the "sharp" point is good compromise...

Steve K

[Bob Salomon]

I have Beseler condenser and colorhead 45 light sources. Measuring the light on a white paper with the lens wide open gives 4.5 ev on the Pentax spot meter with either one. I do a lot of 8x10s that print at f32, 15s or so. I'll need to cut the light a lot or the exposure will get to be too fast to allow for burning and dodging.

All you need to do with your color head is dial in equal amounts of RGB. They, together, will form a ND filter.

[Michael R]

You're absolutely right. As I mentioned earlier, I would love to try it myself. I do not have the materials or any idea how. How many people today are routinely doing USM in the darkroom?

It isn't the most enjoyable process (my opinion) but I do some darkroom masking. Most of my masks are not "classic USM" but variations on the theme. I've never liked the typical unsharp mask "look", but masks can be very powerful tools.

A hybrid approach to darkroom masking is easier, if you skilled at both darkroom and digital.

[cowanw]

All you need to do with your color head is dial in equal amounts of RGB. They, together, will form a ND filter.

I confess I am a bit surprised to hear you say this. it may well be true for colour printing, but I think, we are discussing black and white here. And the Beseler colour head is a yellow, magenta and cyan subtractive head.
In such a system, cyan has no purpose in exposing Black and white papers other than acting as a minus red, which has no impact on Black and White papers..
It is sufficient to dial in Yellow and magenta which are minus blue and minus green.
However, to conclude that dialing in equal amounts of each filter will maintain the same grade is problematic. Beseler uses Kodak values and Ilford Multigrade, for example, specifies 41 yellow and 32 magenta to be a grade 2.

[Armin Seeholzer]

The week point is really f32 here in my opinion! I most of the time use f 11 on my Rodagon and very seldom f16 on my 150mm lens!

But I think digital will be sharper anyway but not by much as it is now!

[Corran]

A hybrid approach to darkroom masking is easier, if you skilled at both darkroom and digital.

I've thought about this (I would say I am more skilled at digital work than darkroom) but I assume you still need some sort of registration system, and a reliable digital transparency printing setup. Neither of which I have.

[Bob Salomon]

I confess I am a bit surprised to hear you say this. it may well be true for colour printing, but I think, we are discussing black and white here. And the Beseler colour head is a yellow, magenta and cyan subtractive head.
In such a system, cyan has no purpose in exposing Black and white papers other than acting as a minus red, which has no impact on Black and White papers..
It is sufficient to dial in Yellow and magenta which are minus blue and minus green.
However, to conclude that dialing in equal amounts of each filter will maintain the same grade is problematic. Beseler uses Kodak values and Ilford Multigrade, for example, specifies 41 yellow and 32 magenta to be a grade 2.

Just use equal values of the three colors to get ND for any process.

[Tin Can]

I've thought about this (I would say I am more skilled at digital work than darkroom) but I assume you still need some sort of registration system, and a reliable digital transparency printing setup. Neither of which I have.

I thought USM traditional was done all in darkroom.

I just got a loaner Kodak Punch set and will try it.

Reading LFPF Unsharp article here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/unsharp/). Is a link to an internal page still allowed?

Here is an easy pictorial way of understanding USM (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/unsharp-mask.htm), found this external link at the end of the above LFPF article.

[cowanw]

Just use equal values of the three colors to get ND for any process.

I remain confused.

Supposing one uses white light for a grade 2 print.
then adds 41 units each of yellow, magenta and cyan.
I think you are saying this would be a grade 2 print with a longer exposure time.
But Ilford lists 41 Yellow and 32 magenta as grade 2, approximately a 25% difference in the magenta setting.

I will add Paul Butzi's quote re cyan.

"Finally, recall that black and white printing papers are insensitive to red light. Adjusting cyan
filtration adjusts how much red light strikes the paper (because transmission filters subtract their
complementary color). Because of this, for black and white printing purposes, cyan filtration
makes no difference at all, and we can ignore the cyan contribution to neutral density"

[Drew Wiley]

Of course you can edge sharpen with conventional film. Why on earth do you think the designers of PS etc linked it to "Unsharp Masking" programs, specifically named after routine graphics techniques that have been around many decades. Edge sharpening with a film mask is simple. You can even easily control the amount of sharpening. I used to frequently do this for originals taken on TMX100, which doesn't have particularly good edge (Mackie) effect. Nowadays I prefer simply to use films that do.

[Corran]

Read more carefully Drew.

[Drew Wiley]

Corran - you only need to print digital masks if you've working with film bigger than 8x10. There was a time when you could get huge sizes of various graphics
films. You still can get some of them, but the cost these days makes generating inkjet masks more tempting. Or maybe someone is just more comfortable doing it one way or the other. I prefer to do it all darkroom style. One can post-register things on a lightbox for infrequent or learning purposes, but on a critical production
basis punch and register gear makes life vastly easier. One more advantage of true film use.

[Drew Wiley]

Corran - what did I miss? (Just noted your intermediate post). Masking is a huge field that can be either as easy or complex as you need. It's a powerful tool SET,
not just one thing.

[Corran]

My point was not that it can't be done, it is just obviously much more involved and requires more equipment and such than a Photoshop action.

I really would like to learn the process. I have read the links that Randy posted a couple of times before, and while I understand the concept, putting it in action is of course another thing altogether. I would bet I'd pick up the process quickly if someone showed me. Anyway, perhaps this is getting off-topic (masking).

[Jac@stafford.net]

I am slowly learning how to use punched registration to control negative qualities.
Does that count any more?
.

[Drew Wiley]

The problem with masking is that much of the strategy is dependent upon your specific medium. Simple unsharp masking for black and white printing has been
taught in numerous workshops and articles, such as those by Howard Bond and the current marketers of simple registration gear. We Cibachrome printers masked our lunch. I'm one of the few people who masks color negs for RA4 printing, but even there it has significant benefits. Advanced color printers still getting involved in things like dye transfer printing really need to get immersed in it, both conceptually and equipment-wise. So this topic does need to be approached on a case by
case basis, even though much of the lab equipment can be used for multiple options. Workshops are more of an open question, since threshold interest is small.

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...]We Cibachrome printers masked our lunch. I'm one of the few people who masks color negs for RA4 printing [...]

I look forward to your information telling us where we can see your prints.
Until then.
.

[Drew Wiley]

I really don't know if there will be a teaching space or not. Probably not. Don't want to bother with the liabilty insurance, duplicate equipment etc. And color chem can be nasty. Showing these things (other than basic techniques) is futile on the web. You really do need to see prints in person. Sometimes fly-ins are arranged. But it's a waste of my time unless someone is serious about purchasing. So much to still do before the next phase. But at least my lab is getting very close to how I want it for the duration of life expectancy. What is more likely to shut me down prematurely is arthritis in the hands. When I clean those expensive pin registered pieces of glass it's right in the sink over a soft landing.

[Luis-F-S]

I remain confused.

Supposing one uses white light for a grade 2 print.
then adds 41 units each of yellow, magenta and cyan.
I think you are saying this would be a grade 2 print with a longer exposure time.
But Ilford lists 41 Yellow and 32 magenta as grade 2, approximately a 25% difference in the magenta setting.


If instead of 41Y & 32M for Gr2, you dial in 71Y, 62M & 30C you will in effect have the same Gr2 setting with 1 stop (0.3 ND) less light. For 2 stops (.6 ND), you would dial in 101Y, 92M & 60C. It's just arithmetic. L

[Drew Wiley]

Except that cc settings on enlargers vary from one kind of colorhead to another, as well as by the condition of the filters. So it's flawed arthitmetic, but "good enough for government work" as the old adage goes.

[John Olsen]

I have heeded several lines of advice above and obtained better results. I realigned the enlarger, although it was pretty close, and put the negative in a glass carrier. Then I redid the original version at f32, as below. I used fresh developer and updated to the current Ilford paper. The result is about what I had before, so I don't think alignment or negative stage were the problem. Then I slid in a Wratten ND 0.08 filter and opened up to f11.3. I tried with two focusing aids and focusing wide open versus focusing at f11.3. The best seemed to be from focusing at the exposing aperture. The before and after comparison below represents the central 3.5 cm of the negative. I think this is a substantial improvement, so thanks to the several LFers who commented.

http://i683.photobucket.com/albums/vv192/johnolsen337/Feb%2012%20comparison%20LFF_zps0f9uazst.jpg

[Corran]

Is focus shift ever an issue with enlarging lenses? I always focus wide-open.

[Michael R]

My point was not that it can't be done, it is just obviously much more involved and requires more equipment and such than a Photoshop action.

I really would like to learn the process. I have read the links that Randy posted a couple of times before, and while I understand the concept, putting it in action is of course another thing altogether. I would bet I'd pick up the process quickly if someone showed me. Anyway, perhaps this is getting off-topic (masking).

It can seem overwhelming at the outset, but once you get into it the logic is pretty straight forward and making unsharp masks is fairly easy (some other masks are more of a pain).

In the beginning I cobbled together a registration system and it worked perfectly without a lot of fancy stuff. It's not as complicated as some make it out to be.

A good resource to begin with would be Lynn Radeka's kit (just get the booklet for starters, not the gear). It contains a lot of good demystifying information, step by step procedures, instructions for building your own registration system etc. If you decide to pursue it further, you can go from there.

I don't use "classic" unsharp masks in my B&W work, but variations on the theme can be useful for local contrast control, burning and dodging etc. For those purposes I use them occasionally when there is no other way. Other people use masks routinely.

It's a good technique to learn about, and if you're ever in a position to make masks digitally, you'll be able to apply the concepts using your photoshop/editing skills, which opens up all sorts of possibilities.

[Tin Can]

I have been to Lynn Radeka's site. I forget much.

I'm just going to try some things, it's how I approach most things. DIY

[Michael R]

Nothing wrong with that. DIY can usually work.

Unsharp masks are part of a broader category called contrast reduction masks. These are essentially low contrast positives of varying types. The "classic" unsharp mask (for the purposes of enhancing micro and local contrast) is a fairly thin, low contrast, slightly fuzzy positive. When sandwiched with the original negative, two things happen. (1) Overall contrast is reduced and (2), the unsharp edges of the mask combine with the sharp edges of the original negative to create enhanced edge contrast on small scales. As a consequence of (1), you use a higher paper/filter grade when printing, which results in an amplification of the small scale contrast effects (2).

[John Olsen]

Is focus shift ever an issue with enlarging lenses? I always focus wide-open.
I thought that I saw a small benefit, but it was too subjective to convey in my scans of prints. (One of the commenters above suggested it, so I gave it a try.) Maybe it was only that I felt that the focus was better while I was doing it. The big deal in this is that I've been printing mostly with too small of an aperture, and this is a nice lesson for me.

[Tin Can]

Nothing wrong with that. DIY can usually work.

Unsharp masks are part of a broader category called contrast reduction masks. These are essentially low contrast positives of varying types. The "classic" unsharp mask (for the purposes of enhancing micro and local contrast) is a fairly thin, low contrast, slightly fuzzy positive. When sandwiched with the original negative, two things happen. (1) Overall contrast is reduced and (2), the unsharp edges of the mask combine with the sharp edges of the original negative to create enhanced edge contrast on small scales. As a consequence of (1), you use a higher paper/filter grade when printing, which results in an amplification of the small scale contrast effects (2).

I'll keep all that in mind. Thanks for a concise description.

[Bob Salomon]

Is focus shift ever an issue with enlarging lenses? I always focus wide-open.

Not with good ones.

[Corran]

It may be helpful to define that, or perhaps just give some examples of lenses that do exhibit focus shift. I consider my EL-Nikkors to be very good.

[LabRat]

Like I mentioned before, let a good focusing magnifier tell you...

And I'm sure you know that attaching a piece of photo paper the thickness the same as your printing paper to the bottom of your magnifier will shim it to the height of your paper on the easel...

Also negs will pop a little in the carrier, even a little sometimes in glass (depending on the carrier design/condition) due to IR produced by the lamp, so add a heat filter if none is there... Sometimes FB paper pops a little in the easel due to changes of humidity from taking it out of the package...

Go through the entire alignment/carrier/enlarger systems, looking for play, gaps, misalignment, heat issues, vibration, etc... These might make a little of a difference...

Keep up the good work, John!!!!!

Steve K

[Michael R]

Corran: I would not worry about EL Nikkors.

For a quick and dirty test, focus (with your grain magnifier) wide open, then stop down a few stops while observing the grain through the magnifier. See if goes obviously fuzzy. Then, tweak the focus after stopping down and see if the grain can be made sharper. Depth of field increases as you stop down so it can be difficult to judge - and that's a good thing because we humans tend to overestimate our focusing abilities.

Note however this assumes the negative is staying flat throughout the test. That can be a "gotcha" in this type of test.

[Corran]

Yeah I've been meaning to buy a better grain focuser. Mine isn't great and the eye relief sucks, especially with my glasses. Plus the grain on T-Max 100 is really hard to see! And yes, I shim the bottom of the magnifier with a piece of paper.

[mdarnton]

With every enlarging lens I ever used, including El-Nikkors and Componon-Ss, I often came to a different conclusion about what was good focus after stopping down. . . consistently enough that I always stopped down before final focusing. A good grain focuser like the Peak or Omega models do a better job seeing this than the cheaper ones, and they also will help you learn what the best opening for each of your lenses is. Degradation through diffraction happens quite early in the range, you will be surprised to find.

The nice thing about the long-mirror Peak and Omegas is that you can check (and perform) alignment by viewing the corners. This is more accurate than a level because it's real. This is how, for instance, I discovered that one of my El-Nikkors was slightly decentered, by scanning the whole field an noting some strange changes across the field that shouldn't have been there.

[Corran]

I will look for one of those, thanks.

[Bob Salomon]

With every enlarging lens I ever used, including El-Nikkors and Componon-Ss, I often came to a different conclusion about what was good focus after stopping down. . . consistently enough that I always stopped down before final focusing. A good grain focuser like the Peak or Omega models do a better job seeing this than the cheaper ones, and they also will help you learn what the best opening for each of your lenses is. Degradation through diffraction happens quite early in the range, you will be surprised to find.

The nice thing about the long-mirror Peak and Omegas is that you can check (and perform) alignment by viewing the corners. This is more accurate than a level because it's real. This is how, for instance, I discovered that one of my El-Nikkors was slightly decentered, by scanning the whole field an noting some strange changes across the field that shouldn't have been there.

What kind of glass carrier do you us? If you have a good, really good, enlarging lens it will not shift focus between wide open and optimal aperture. That is one of the main reason that really good enlarging lenses have a pre-set aperture mechanism on most focal length enlarging lenses.
DOF while focusing an enlarger is the
Sat thing you want to focus precisely. That, and the brightest possible image, are the reasons why you should do your focusing at maximum aperture.

[mdarnton]

In point of fact, I did use glass carriers, home made ones because I didn't find Omega's own sufficient (why did they make a 4x5 carrier where the neg sort of floated loosely between the glasses, anyway?). I guess those Componons weren't your company's "good" lenses, then. Maybe the APOs would have been better.

Real life trumps theory and your corporate owner's spec sheets, Bob. I'm guessing I wouldn't have found "Possible decentering may be a problem" anywhere in Nikon's advertising either.

We won't even get into the potential rat's nest of actinic focus vs visual focus. I suspect APO lenses were made for a reason, though--if no reason, why make the lenses?

[Bob Salomon]

In point of fact, I did use glass carriers, home made ones because I didn't find Omega's own sufficient (why did they make a 4x5 carrier where the neg sort of floated loosely between the glasses, anyway?). I guess those Componons weren't your company's "good" lenses, then. Maybe the APOs would have been better.

Real life trumps theory and your corporate owner's spec sheets, Bob. I'm guessing I wouldn't have found "Possible decentering may be a problem" anywhere in Nikon's advertising either.

We won't even get into the potential rat's nest of actinic focus vs visual focus. I suspect APO lenses were made for a reason, though--if no reason, why make the lenses?
If you are finding a focus shift when stopping down to optimal aperture then you need new lenses.

Of course there is a reason for Apo enlarging lenses as well as G series enlarging lenses and WA enlarging lenses and standard enlarging lenses as well as different grades of beginner or budget enlarging lenses. Also for duplicating lenses. There were/are lots of different labs that had very different requirements for lenses. For example, all those One Hour labs used entirely different lenses in their printers then the lenses in package printers then the lenses in home dark rooms or the lenses in labs specializing in mural and billboard printing.

[Peter De Smidt]

He doesn't need new lenses if he's getting the results that he's after.

[Tin Can]

A long question. Perhaps the wrong place.

Below are 2-24X36 inch poster prints. I know the age of both. The left is 35 years old, shot with handheld Leica 35mm by a shaky heavy drinker. Non professional. He had it printed 24X36" in Chicago. I assume it was done as cheaply as possible. It's like thin newspaper. It has not aged. It seems to be a very evenly focused enlargement, that in my eyes has astounding detail or sharpness considering source 35mm neg.

The one on right is at least 20 years old poster reproduction of a 1968 BSA magazine ad. I assume it originally was an 8x10 chrome. No other info.

They are almost equal in sharpness.

I apologize for the flash burn iPod shot, but this copy image is not the point.

What enlarger lens and paper would have been used to create the one on the left 35 years ago?

And yes that is me and my favorite motorcycle. The girl and bike in the right image probably convinced me in 1968 to lust for both. I was 17. :)

146538

[Jac@stafford.net]

BSA 65A! Cool. I don't remember taking that pic, but I was a shaky... :)

[Thalmees]

Hi John,
Thanks for your update after the re-alignment. Thanks for the subject.
Why you do not re-scan the print on a higher resolution ?
There is a generation gap, not justified, because one side(film scan) is not an end in the production chain. I think a higher resolution on the print scan, can eliminate or narrow the gap.
Given the two images from your test:
1. A second(2nd) generation image, Film scan image/virtual drum.
2. A third(3ed) generation image, Gelatin print scan image/flat bed(f/11.3; realigned, glass carrier, ND0.8).
At this level of testing, can we conclude that:
"" On the monitor/LCD(comparing virtual images), the sharpness of a third(3ed) generation gelatin print flatbed scan, can almost equal the sharpness of a second(2nd) generation virtual drum scan from the same film "" ?
Is this conclusion compatible enough with your testing at this level ?
I can easily imagine the deference between the inkjet print from the film scan, compared with the gelatin print itself.
You may go ahead to complete the test, by printing the film scan(3ed generation print) and comparing with the gelatin print f/11.3(2nd generation print).
Please do that, if possible.
Both sides are end result in the production and there is no unjustified gap.
Thanks John for the interesting topic.
Thanks for the above and well written posts by other members.

[John Olsen]

You may go ahead to complete the test, by printing the film scan(3ed generation print) and comparing with the gelatin print f/11.3(2nd generation print).
Please do that, if possible.
Both sides are end result in the production and there is no unjustified gap.
Thanks John for the interesting topic.
Thanks for the above and well written posts by other members.
I'll try a print from the scanned film as you suggest, to eliminate the "generation gap." I hadn't done it before because I don't have a top-of-the-line printer. It might be interesting.

Now I'm getting very interested in the other side of this thread, in which folks are commenting on lens qualities: this is a 30-year old lens - maybe it would like a good cleaning?

[Bill_1856]

It's important that tests like this be done, to satisfy us what the possibilities are; but unless the results show a clear difference then it doesn't make any difference what one does to get his desired results.

[Peter De Smidt]

This thread has demonstrated the helpfulness of doing this type of thing, as his prints now are significantly sharper.

[Thalmees]

IMHO, the test is very conclusive at this level.
Even when considering the scan of the un-aligned optical print in the comparison, leave alone the aligned optical print.
There is another gap. A technological gap. A misleading gap. Unfortunately, and IMHO, an abused gap among photographic communities over the cyberspace.
My apologies for any reader who find my words inappropriate.
Monitor world is another thing !
Amazing, clarity, contrast, back illumination, etc... Etc...
When you come to reality, every thing turned to be really factual !
I think, scanners(as well as sensors), specially the good ones, are black holes between virtual universe and real universe.
The clear difference between the first generation(leave alone second generation of film scan) digital image on the monitor, and it's digital print, is widely known and appreciated as part of the production sequence of the digital image. The difference is big as far as I know. Please correct me if you wish.
So, the expectation about the scan of the digital print from the film scan above, is IMHO very predictable, regardless how the quality the digital printer has.
What I wish to know, is the type and surface of paper that John used to get that clean scans from his prints ?

[cowanw]

Well I have done the darkroom testing regarding the neutral density issue.
and never say never.
Firstly using the Zone vi blue green additive enlarger, adding equal amounts of blue and green do not equate to neutral density. It is important to maintain the relative amounts of each colour. So that , if you find a time of 10 sec for green and 2 second for blue ( in split printing), neutral density of one stop would be a setting of 5 sec for green and 1 sec for blue.
Using an LPL dichroic colour head enlarger, I printed a good print at grade 1 (68 yellow and 10 Magenta) and 10 seconds. I then added 50 units to both (118 units yellow and 60 units magenta) gave a print that was substantially the same as the first print.
As expected, the cyan has no effect on B&W papers: adding 50 units or zero units to the prints accomplished nothing except to make the enlarger lamp colour look more cyan (or minus red in a subtractive system).

So on my subtractive enlarger equal parts of yellow and magenta do indeed act as a neutral density.
On my additive enlarger equal parts of blue and green are not a neutral density.
Cyan or red are neither here nor there.

thanks for the teaching moment.

[John Olsen]

IMHO, the test is very conclusive at this level.

What I wish to know, is the type and surface of paper that John used to get that clean scans from his prints ?

I'm using Ilford Multigrade Fiber Base "classic" glossy surface. Thanks for asking.