Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 85

Thread: Diffraction. When does it really matter with LF?

  1. #11
    Mark Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Stuck inside of Tucson with the Neverland Blues again...
    Posts
    5,885

    Re: Diffraction. When does it really matter with LF?

    Jim's post reminds me of a little trick I learned from ancient markings on a couple of my old shutters: put little paint/pencil marks on the aperture scale at 1 inch and 1 centimeter. It makes the bellows extension math incredibly simple. 30 cm extension at 1 cm aperture? f/30. 45cm extension at the same aperture? f/45.

    For a smaller apertures, a mark for .5 cm is almost as simple.
    "I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Hamilton, Canada
    Posts
    1,735

    Re: Diffraction. When does it really matter with LF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Sawyer View Post
    For large format, this is key. If you're contact printing, (no enlargement of the negative), forget diffraction. It will barely show up at f/256.



    Nitpicking, but isn't 1:1 and f/16 nominal really f/32 effective?
    They are from a light exposure point of view, because light obeys the inverse square law , but does that mean that diffraction, which does not rely on the inverse square law, is the same at 1:1 and f/16 is the same as infinity and f/32. My gut tells me not.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Oregon now (formerly Austria)
    Posts
    2,703

    Re: Diffraction. When does it really matter with LF?

    For me, depth of field trumps diffraction degradation every time.

    I shoot 4x5. If I have to stop down a lot, I just reduce the maximum enlargement size I can get from that particular negative. Printing 8x10 from 4x5 film, I can stop way down, even to f/64, and not get objectionable diffraction degradation.

    Also, it seems that scenes that need a lot of stopping down are the ones I don't want to enlarge much anyway; things like close-up still lifes, natural details, etc.

    One of the big advantages of large format is that one can use movements to optimally position the plane of sharp focus in a scene and thereby be able to use a smaller aperture than one would need without movements to get everything acceptably sharp. Mastering view-camera technique is a real help.

    Best,

    Doremus

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    7,959

    Re: Diffraction. When does it really matter with LF?

    Quote Originally Posted by cowanw View Post
    They are from a light exposure point of view, because light obeys the inverse square law , but does that mean that diffraction, which does not rely on the inverse square law, is the same at 1:1 and f/16 is the same as infinity and f/32. My gut tells me not.
    Bryan, your gut is mistaken. See, for example, H. Lou Gibson's Close-Up Photography and Photomacrography, EKCo publication #N-16.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Hamilton, Canada
    Posts
    1,735

    Re: Diffraction. When does it really matter with LF?

    The nearest library copy is the centre of Canada, that is Toronto. One day I will get there

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    7,959

    Re: Diffraction. When does it really matter with LF?

    Quote Originally Posted by cowanw View Post
    The nearest library copy is the centre of Canada, that is Toronto. One day I will get there
    Inexpensive at on-line used book stores.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Collinsville, CT USA
    Posts
    1,673

    Re: Diffraction. When does it really matter with LF?

    In the late 1970s and early 1980s I shot a lot of waterfalls in New England with my 8x10 and a 12" Wollensak Velostigmat Series II. All exposures shot at f/64 or f/90. At the time I made contact prints on Varigram or Varilour FB paper. Around 10 years ago scanned the negatives and made digital negatives to print Platinum/Palladium prints from. Loss of sharpness from diffraction is definitely in the original 8x10 negatives if you look at them under a low power X4 Loupe. Holding the prints side by side at arm's length, most people would say, resolution wise, that the FB prints are a tad bit sharper than the Platinum/Palladium prints. Aesthetically and tonality wise, the Platinum/Palladium prints far outshine the FB prints. Several of my friends/relatives are not photographers and when asked which print is sharper, all responded that the Platinum/Palladium print was definitely sharper. When I am doing Photomicrography or Photomacrography diffraction, to me, is a major concern and factor. When I am shooting outside with my 8x10 or 11x14, diffraction matters little to me. The image matters all to me. If I were concerned with loss of sharpness from diffraction, I just might never take out my 8x10 and 11x14 ultraWA pinhole cameras. To me the final image in the final print is what matters the most...
    Comments most welcome

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    7,959

    Re: Diffraction. When does it really matter with LF?

    Re Greg's post #17 above, +1. Sharpness is overrated.

  9. #19
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    14,778

    Re: Diffraction. When does it really matter with LF?

    From my own practical needs, I try not to go smaller than f/32 for 4x5 format, or smaller than f/64 with 8X10 film (or smaller than f/45 if a large print like 30X40 inch is in mind). Obviously, I'm referring to enlargements; I rarely contact print.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    201

    Re: Diffraction. When does it really matter with LF?

    Hi all,

    Good thread...thank you.

    So, I've re-read the thread and here's what I was able to get out of it....

    - There are rules of thumb to determine diffraction
    - There are generalities that guide users with how to avoid diffraction
    - There a school of thought that goes something like this...'so what, just shoot more'
    - There a school of thought that understands the compromises involved in photography so pick the one that most important to you at the time of the shot
    - Large format affords the user unparalleled flexibility to minimize diffraction, take advantage of it

    Pretty good, I can roll with that.

    Thanks!!
    Adam

Similar Threads

  1. DOF and diffraction
    By 6x6TLL in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 22-Aug-2020, 13:20
  2. No more diffraction??
    By Wally in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 16-Mar-2009, 10:01
  3. About Diffraction
    By Chad Shindel in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 8-May-2006, 16:11
  4. Diffraction
    By Douglasa A. Benson in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 15-Oct-2001, 18:37

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
  •