Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 51

Thread: Resolution Comparison Between Films?

  1. #41

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,565

    Re: Resolution Comparison Between Films?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jody_S View Post
    I'm not going to comment or speculate on military technology, but for a couple of years I experimented with a Konica imagesetter infrared film, on a rather thin base. There was a very noticeable difference in resolution between that film and anything else I've ever shot. I gather that's why people still pay high prices for long-expired Kodak Tech Pan.

    Of course that's not why I shoot large format. If all I cared about was resolution, I would buy the latest dSLR and fancy lenses and not have to worry about chemicals and scanner resolution.

    Interesting, what EI did you use for the imagesetting film ? Now that kind of film it can be bought at $8 per m2 , it can be a choice for ULF experimentation...

  2. #42
    (Shrek)
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,012

    Re: Resolution Comparison Between Films?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    Interesting, what EI did you use for the imagesetting film ? Now that kind of film it can be bought at $8 per m2 , it can be a choice for ULF experimentation...
    About 0.2? 3 stops lower than the lowest setting on my Pentax V. I bought 3 100ft x 12" rolls for $20 ea, IIRC.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,565

    Re: Resolution Comparison Between Films?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jody_S View Post
    About 0.2? 3 stops lower than the lowest setting on my Pentax V. I bought 3 100ft x 12" rolls for $20 ea, IIRC.
    thanks

  4. #44
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    16,810

    Re: Resolution Comparison Between Films?

    Tech Pan is just that - designed for technical and forensic applications. I still have plenty of 8x10 for certain lab applications. I don't know what anyone sees in it for general use; but I tried it for that long ago, just like many people. There are way better pictorial options, esp for LF.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,565

    Re: Resolution Comparison Between Films?

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    Tech Pan is just that - designed for technical and forensic applications. I still have plenty of 8x10 for certain lab applications. I don't know what anyone sees in it for general use; but I tried it for that long ago, just like many people. There are way better pictorial options, esp for LF.
    With TP you may get the "usual" LF image quality in a MF shot, and even a careful 35mm shot can be near as sharp as many 4x5" shots. Of course it also has drawbaks.

    Adox CMS 20 is even more extreme than TP, but it can be used perfectly with a careful processing, I have several CMS 20 4x5" shots that are atonishingly detailed, YMMV if this is important or not.

    Anyway CMS 20 sensitometry with POTA at ISO 6 allows a regular pictorial usage with not many limitations, you have 6 easily usable stops, 4 linear, so with accurate metering it is suitable for many scenes.

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/53687643@N04/45541983072

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	SP32-20200521-105817.jpg 
Views:	19 
Size:	65.8 KB 
ID:	203970

  6. #46
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    16,810

    Re: Resolution Comparison Between Films?

    Fine for a spy Minox copying a piece of paperwork decades ago, Pere. Might still be fun today for some. But for large format and even medium format general photography, many much more practical films have been engineered. Finer grain can be helpful; but for me, overall tonal response and detail acutance combined with realistic speed are factors a lot more important than sheer fineness of grain. Yes, a careful 35mm shot with a very selective film and exceptional lens can be nearly as sharp as a truly sloppy 4x5 shot taken with a grainy film and marginal quality lens; but that's not using the same set of scales. It was the marketing ruse Kodak employed for early Tech Pan ads in popular photo magazines, and had little relation to real world applications. I thumbed through some old 6x7 Tech Pan negs yesterday of a quite interesting scene, but quickly shuffled them back to the bottom of the stack simply due to the relatively disappointing printing qualities of Tech Pan. The day before, I encountered a Tech Pan 6X6 print of me in the mountains taken by a friend using a very high quality Zeiss lens, and who routinely shot Tech Pan for years, and knew all the relevant tricks. The lack of tonality in the extremes was highly evident as usual. Tech Pan was extended red, so could kinda wiggle into the threshold of infrared applications using a 29 filter, yet provided fine grain unlike true infrared films. That made it quite useful for certain forensic applications, but not really as a substitute for infrared films or the kind of ghostly look they provide of foliage.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    889

    Re: Resolution Comparison Between Films?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernice Loui View Post
    Uber film resolution alone is only one potential facet of an expressive image.
    Consider the expressive abilities of prints made using sorta-focus or Soft-Focus lenses.


    Bernice
    That's the least of it - the high contrast resolution of a film matters if you are trying to image a 0.6m object on Earth from space, while the MTF performance and RMS Grain don't have significant impacts in that particular application, nor does the latitude need to be terribly great. On the other hand, for photography at ground level, high contrast resolution is irrelevant if the MTF is not good, nor the RMSG anywhere close to films near enough 3 stops faster. The fixation on high contrast resolution is a lazy, macho numbers game that willfully ignores almost the entirety of photographic science's approaches to understanding the ability of photographic emulsions to record and reproduce information since the early 1950's!

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Forest Grove, Ore.
    Posts
    4,156

    Re: Resolution Comparison Between Films?

    Quote Originally Posted by ClickCL View Post
    Hi, I'm curious if anyone has a resource or personal opinion on the resolution differences between films? I have very little experience with LF but have a decent amount of experience shooting other formats up to LF. . . .
    What size print do you want to make. Are you scanning?

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Posts
    25

    Re: Resolution Comparison Between Films?

    Quote Originally Posted by ClickCL View Post
    Hi, I'm curious if anyone has a resource or personal opinion on the resolution differences between films? I have very little experience with LF but have a decent amount of experience shooting other formats up to LF.

    I have noticed that generally E-6 films seem to have an edge over C-41 films, but with that said, there are so many variables it's hard to confirm if what I am seeing is reality. I would be very interested to see a side by side test done or hear some of your experiences. Also, where do you think silver gelatin stands against the two. Obviously we would be comparing like film speeds and more specifically the fine grain, slower films.

    I have a project I'm preparing for and I'm trying to determine which film I want to work with. I can only imagine, if film resolution is noticeable on my smaller formats, then on the scale of an 8x10 it would make a significant difference, no? Thank you in advanced for your help.


    EDIT: I realize now, I should have posted this in the Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing category. If there is a way to move or delete this thread, that would be great. Thanks

    No problem, thread moved. --Oren
    B/w films generally have larger grain than color negative or positive at a given ISO. There are certain film/dev combos that this doesn't hold for. I've found that grain size and acutance are often at odds with each. With fine grain developers being low acutance, and high acutance being higher grain. There really isn't any winning with either option. Either your grain is super fine, but the image is soft when enlarged, or your edges are crisp, but the grain is larger. In my experience, the better option digitally is finer grain, then sharpen. In the darkroom, the higher acutance developers often enlarge farther since the grain is pleasant. Finer grain developers just get mushy if you enlarge them too far. Everyone gets too hung up on resolution, I can drum scan anything I want at 8000 ppi. Does that mean I can make a print from file at 300 ppi? Not necessarily. The limits of b/w film seem to be around a 12x enlargement, which means you need a 4800ppi scan. I usually use fp4, maybe bigger enlargements can be made from rpx 25 or cms 20. Though I would think that the lenses become the limiting factor.

    For color slide film, there isn't much grain at all. Most the image is dye. The more you enlarge a slide, the softer I gets, though the grain shows up more. Sharpening really helps slides. Color negative film has noticable grain compared to slide, but finer grained vs b/w. Ektar 100 can be enlarged up to 16x before the grain becomes too large for my taste. Where e100 or provia just gets soft at this enlargement.

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

  10. #50
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    16,810

    Re: Resolution Comparison Between Films?

    Hmm ... I just start to notice Ektar grain at around 10X, up close, that is. At what point it might become apparent to a casual observer, I can't say. But 10X is my personal boundary of maximum enlargement. I would't go that big with any chrome film. It has nothing to do with the respective grain sizes, because we're really talking about distinctions in dye clouds rather than grain clustering per se like in black and white films. And given the fact chromes are inherently more contrasty, apples to apples subject contrast range wise, chromes therefore have more evident micro distinctions.

    It will be interesting how my next round of internegs from old 4x5 of various chromes (Ekta 64, several generations of Provia and Velvia, plus Astia and previous Kodak E100G) - all contact printed onto Portra 160 (unsharp supplemental silver contrast included in most cases) - how they'll turn out in RA4 prints. Previous one enlarged onto 8x10 Portra, or 8x10 contacted to 8x10, responded wonderfully. In most, I avoided open sky subjects, but did do a couple of those. But my aim in only around 7X enlargement from these 4x5 contacts. Don't expect visible grain will be an issue. With the still bigger 8x10 ones, grain in undetectable even in 30X40 inch prints. The whole "grain" topic tends to get overblown in my opinion, at least in color film applications.

Similar Threads

  1. lens that can take advantage of hi resolution films like CMS20
    By brighamr in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 14-Jun-2015, 10:37
  2. How Lower Resolution Lens Works on Large High Resolution Wet Plate Negative
    By Mustafa Umut Sarac in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 16-Jan-2014, 15:04
  3. T-Max 400, HP-5, Tri-X comparison?
    By artflic in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 25-Sep-2010, 18:25
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 9-Jul-2010, 02:19
  5. Real resolution of films?
    By Glenn Kroeger in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 26-Jan-2001, 18:19

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
  •