How sharp can you get?

[Turner Reich]

Take a second look at all of your own photographs, is there one that's significantly sharper than the the others?

[mealers]

Take a second look at all of your own photographs, is there one that's significantly sharper than the the others?

My prints all look the same when it comes to sharpness. But a friend has been making a few enlargements in my darkroom and his 6x6 negs from a Bronica SQA still look sharper than my 4x5?

I have taken on board all the replies to this thread but somethings not right here. I'm going to do some tests tomorrow and I'II report back.

[eddie]

i use a RB67 and the photos are very sharp and nice. at times i think they are sharper than my LF stuff. but after really trying i was able to get very sharp images with LF too. one of my sharpest lenses that i use most often is my caltar 375mm. i have an 8x10 transparentcy that blew my mind the other day!

also as noted above once i start to make any kind of enlargements the field changes. i sold a print that the customer wanted 24x30 (scanned and wet printed from a machine) from my mamiya. it was shot on 400 neg film IMO the enlargement was too much for the combo. i have yet to try one that big from my LF stuff. i will soon though.

one more thing. was the mamiya 7 scanned and sharpened in PS maybe? or some other technique used?

eddie

[Frank Petronio]

I can make a 6mp digital camera file look sharper than anything at a 6x9 inch print size.

It looks like mush when enlarged 30x40.

Same thing for any smaller versus larger film. Your 35mm film Nikon or Canon lenses are far sharper than your Schneiders and Rodenstocks if you only use a 24x36mm portion of your large format film.

Where you get diminishing returns is in low light, handheld shots. You simply can not make the same shot using your 4x5 versus your ISO 25,000 Nikon D3 or even Tri-X in a Leica. In that case, the smaller format will ALWAYS be sharper, even without cropping.

[Nathan Potter]

Mike, there is always the possibility that your film plane is not quite in the exact plane of the ground glass. This could be worth checking out carefully. I'd photograph a resolution target and check the quality of the image on film.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[paulr]

Summary: the reason you got so many answers is is that there are so many ways to make a less than sharp negative.

LF gives you more ways to make a sharp one; it also gives you more ways to make a blurry one.

There are a lot of variables, and it can be hard to know if you're seeing the best that your equipment is capable of (and if you're not, why not).

[Jon Warwick]

I have used a Mamiya 7 + 80mm lens for many years.

Hand-held, I can consistently get sharper images with the Mamiya 7 than I can with my Hasselblad .... this probably owes to the lack of mirror vibration, the lack of mirror black-out when the shutter opens, better hand-held ergonomics, more ideal lens construction for rangefinder cameras that yields higher resolution, etc.

This was a primary reason for me buying a Mamiya 7 in the first place, despite already having a Hasselblad. When using a tripod, however, and using the mirror-up facility on the Hasselblad, the differential is much more narrow, in my experience.

Now ..... for LF! I've very recently just started using 5x4, with a Super Symmar 110 XL that has a reputation for being one of the sharpest LF lenses around. I was disappointed by the first print that I got back .... it certainly lacked the same sharpness at 20"x16" than I was used to from the Mamiya 7.

This seems to have been more of a printing issue in the traditional darkroom, or perhaps poor technique on my side, however. The next 2 prints (sized to 24"x20" off the 5x4 nergative) were highly sharp .... by my eye, the "sharpness" was very comparable to what I would expect at that size from the Mamiya 7.

The key difference, however, was the utter smoothness of the print from LF .... there would have been a clearer grain structure at that size off the Mamiya 7's negative. The grain from MF can oddly can add to apparent sharpness, but the prints from the 5x4 are just super-super-smooth at that size (essentially grainless).

I've recently seen drum-scanned & Lightjet-produced prints to 50"x40" at an exhibition that I believe were taken with a Mamiya 7. You know what, the detail in the prints still looked very "sharp", albeit the grain at that size was very noticeable close up.

The bottom line is that I haven't found the Mamiya 7 to be hugely sharper than the 5x4 camera & lens that I'm using for prints up to 24"x20". But I acknowledge that the Mamiya 7's lenses are probably more contrasty, and I think seeing grain structure from the smaller negative can also add to apparent sharpness at times, at least for smaller prints.

Is it harder to get an ultra-sharp image from LF?? Yes, I think it certainly is. In the same way as sharpness from my hand-held Hasselblad disappointed me when compared to what I could consistently get from my Leica rangefinder, which meant I had to work harder to improve my technique with the Hasselblad (ie, bolt it to a tripod, use mirror lock-up), so too do I think that one's LF technique needs to be even better than when using a medium format camera. The longer shutter speeds, wind hitting the bellows, etc ... none of these help. But with flawless technique, and ideal conditions, I think one should get magnificent sharpness from LF that would start to really shine through over MF when you get very big prints done (so 30 inches plus).

[Bruce Watson]

The key difference, however, was the utter smoothness of the print from LF .... there would have been a clearer grain structure at that size off the Mamiya 7's negative. The grain from MF can oddly can add to apparent sharpness, but the prints from the 5x4 are just super-super-smooth at that size (essentially grainless).

This is the point I was going to raise, but you've already done such a good job that all I need do is reiterate and reinforce it.

The smoothness is one of the big draws of LF for me. The smallest print size I really like is 50x40cm, and that's were a 5x4 inch film really starts to shine. Big smooth and sharp prints... who could want anything more?

[Ken Lee]

Keep in mind that 4x5 is at the bottom-end of the Large Format tool set.

With 5x7 and larger, you can often use the same lenses as you use for 4x5 - or lenses of the same quality. With even less enlargement, things can get so smooth, it's... brutal.

[mealers]

Mike, there is always the possibility that your film plane is not quite in the exact plane of the ground glass. This could be worth checking out carefully. I'd photograph a resolution target and check the quality of the image on film.

Nate I'm beginning to think this maybe the problem. I did pick up quite a few DDS's of ebay a while ago, a mixture of Toyo, Fidelity Astra and Fidelity Elite's.
I've just read through this old thread http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=35538 and I'II try the test with the ruler tomorrow.

One other thing, I have just the standard ground glass that came with my Shen Hao when I bought it new. It does seem a little grainy and is quite tricky when it comes to critical focusing, would it be worth investing in a new ground glass?