I don't question the viability of any method; I like some of my silver prints more than some of my digital prints for various reasons.Originally Posted by bob carnie
But I cannot make an enlarger print that has the sharpness and clarity and sense of detail that rivals a digital print from the same negative.
I don't know how my enlarging methodology could be improved; it's something I labored over for years. I'd be interested in comparing notes.
Having seen your prints with both workflows I agree, both methods are viable and have their unique possibilities. And you are a master printer with both methods.
And no one would argue that great prints were made in the past with analog printing, using both in-camera and negatives enlarged in the wet darkroom. That said, there is no question in my own mind but that the quality of the work I do today with carbon transfer is far superior to what I was doing in the days before I adopted a hybrid workflow, i.e. scanning my negatives, correcting the files, and printing from digital negatives. And back then I was printing mostly with well exposed and developed LF and ULF in-camera negatives, not enlarged negatives, so the quality of the negatives was already very high.
Sandy
Last edited by sanking; 18-Jun-2011 at 13:56.
For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
[url]https://groups.io/g/carbon
Back to the original question where I think the OP meant to compare say the best small or medium area digital design lens to perhaps the best large format lens for 4X5. Keeping the film the same for both and using the highest resolution film possible the difference on the negative from a contrast and resolution measurement I think would be small. Exceptional lenses from Mamiya and Leica and say the Schneider SSXL series for LF would make the difference slight at critical apertures for each. Making a 30 X 40 optical print from the best of both at the same magnification would simply replicate the small differences between the two. MTF data indicates that the digital designs would have a small edge for resolution and sharpness and this might be seen on film and print if the multitude of other variables are controlled.
Introducing a digital printing sequence for one and not the other changes the ball game and is irrelevant to the OPs post. As has been pointed out though there are inherent practical advantages to the various camera formats which have very significant effects on the image quality within the whole film frame such as film flatness and the ability to use camera movements; but again the OP wishes not to consider this in his suggested comparison.
Nate Potter, Austin TX.
J. Maxwell,
- Compression: The 47mm is going to have deep distances projected and more vividly perceived than the equivalent shot with a longer lens in the 4x5 format which will slightly compress the subjects one behind the other. So as a start, the feeling of the two are going to be slightly different.
- Next, to get the same DOF: the apertures would have to be set differently, a smaller aperture for LF by the ratio of their respective focal lengths. This has a number of consequences.
- First the resolution of the large format lens will decrease. Not necessarily important for magnification. So with say just 20 lp/mm and a 4 ln/mm consideration at 25 cm viewing distance to obsess about the 20x24 print, there would be no problem at all. The 6x6 would not be so compromised as the f stop would be more open. However, given a deep enough DOF, one of the lenses might run out of sharpness sufficient to make its corresponding 20"x24" print look perfect. The digitar lens would still be faced by lack of film flatness and a practical lmit of about 80 lp/mm, 20 at the best circumstances, the 20"x24" final print could just make it.
- Next, a far more significant issue, using the same film, the LF shutter speed would be slowert, and if the LF bellows need to be extended, then this will need compensating further.
So now, if DOF s equalized, we are comparing two systems differing in how deep subjects at different depths seem to be and taken at, for certain, different shutter speeds. That means that anything the moves could be different, such as water, branches or the pose of a model. Also, in getting equal DOF, (i.e. reducing the aperture), one system or the other might be robbed of resolution, getting just short of delivering a seemingly perfect print viewed at 25cm, to enjoy every nuance of the artistry!
So, before one looks at resolution or contrast, the pictures are already gong to be esthetcally different. Isn't art and consequent feelings the idea of what we do? Besides, the digital lenses are limited to mage circles of ~ 70mm. So, unfortunately, there are no digital lenses, outside of the military and NASA and the like, available for exporting to the LF world, as yet!
What it comes down to is that MF and LF simply take different pictures, even using the same identical lens! That's if one fills the frame with the same subject. If however one uses the same lens, shooting position, film and magnification of the identical extent of the subject, the pictures should be absolutely indistinguishable.
Asher
Note that Paul is describing what results he gets. That is important. All these discussion turn into a pissing contest to see who's the best printer, but that is not particularly relevant to most people
I know that the prints I make using a digital hybrid workflow are closer to my visualization than the ones I used to make in my own darkroom. I'm happy to admit that my darkroom work never really achieved excellence by the standards of many here, and I'm quite sure the same is true for my digital printing. But in each case, I did the best I could given the constraints of life at that time.
And that applies to a very high percentage of photographers, even art photographers who want to maintain control over their own processes to the extent possible even if it means making some compromises. Controlling the process is part of the fun, and also part of the satisfaction of the result.
When people come here are ask questions, the answers that are profoundly beyond what they could achieve in their own darkroom or with their own digitally based equipment are interesting in defining what is possible at the endpoints of certain paths, but it's not relevant to what might be achieved with the equipment and budgets most photographers deal with.
When I had a darkroom, I used an Omega D3, an ancient B&L Tessar 139mm enlarging lens, a non-glass carrier for 4x5. I aligned everything well enough to see sharp grain structures on the surface of the paper using a Peak enlarging magnifier, and they were still there in the prints. Contrast? Probably not optimal with that old lens, but that's just a change in paper grade. I used RC paper because I didn't have the wash capability for prints bigger than 11x14, or the ability to dry the paper so that it would be flat enough to mount without a press (which I didn't have). I can achieve so much more scanning those same negatives using my Epson 750, and printing them on my 3800 even just using Epson's Advanced Black and White driver with regular Epson Premium Glossy. Imagine how much better it will be when I switch over to a fiber paper and use a better printer driver (I have downloaded but not yet experimented with the Quadtone RIP). That's a compromised world, but it's the world many of us live in.
Rick "who will appreciate not receiving a snooty response to admitting a willingness to compromise" Denney
Another (albeit more artistic than technical) aspect that could be considered a component of image quality (aside from things like sharpness, acuity, resolution,...) is how well the final product matches the photographer's intent. For the vast majority of us, the digital technology (such as Photoshop) allows much more creative control than would be possible with a full analog process. The ability to spend hours (or not) applying selective changes to luminosity, hue, and saturation in selected areas of the image for us means the final product more closely achieves our artistic vision.
I know not everyone will agree, but I would trade a small amount of sharpness, resolution, or acuity to have more total creative control of the image. Especially with color images. The f64 group will struggle with this. But there are plenty of masterpieces that have been created that have nothing to do with resolution, sharpness, or acuity.
Thanks to all for the informative, and largely civil responses. I've shot Hasselblad and Rollei 6008 for over 15 years and only recently got into large format, having drum scans made from primarily chrome images. But even at 20x24 enlargement, the hues and smoothness of tones in the LF image were noticeable somehow. That's not to say I haven't been extraordinarily pleased with the images produced by the marvelous Distagon 60/3.5, the 100mm planar or the 180mm sonnar. They're all capable of producing stunning images.
My main purpose for the 47mm XL on the Linhof Technikardan is to capture the stunning scenes around the central California coast (including Sequoiah Forest) and the desert landscape of the Mojave. I have no commercial interests, so this is purely for personal satisfaction. To paraphrase Christopher Burkett, there's enough ugliness in the world already, so I'd like to surround myself as much as possible with beautiful imagery. Since I'm still relatively new to LF, I'll make sure I take along my Hasselblad assortment just in case. BTW, I'm especially fond of the output achieved by Magnachrome.com (they print directly onto aluminum). It's the closest thing to my all-time favorite: Cibachrome, but nobody does that anymore commercially.
Thanks again to all!for the very helpful answers.
I was just making rhetorical points with a bit of my usual ornery sarcasm for the
sake of hypoerbole. I personally enjoy fine prints regardless of the camera format
involved, the workflow, the final medium, or even the genre. Sandy is one of those
persons who has done a wonderful job of taking a medium which some people would have called extinct many decades ago, applying new ways of going about it, and then reissuing it in modernized form. The same could be said for a traditional darkroom, and I see absolutely no reason on earth that if someone wants to make
world-class prints, either monochrome or color, they can't do it with just a little
persistence on a minor budget. I like working with my fancy darkroom toys, but I
certainly didn't start out that way, and I make just as many small prints as large
ones. My first LF enlarger was a well used Chromega tank which was made precise by taking a pair of tinsnips and a cheap set of spark plug feeler guages, and snipping off the correct shims. I still sometimes use that enlarger and those silly shims are there to this day! I got quite a laugh one day walking into Ctein's darkroom and seeing his whole enlarger apparatus held together with copious amounts of duct tape! But what the heck, it works for him and he still manages to
sell a fair number of traditional darkroom prints as well as digital ones.
Asher - I've seen LF film prints made with custom aspheric lenses. Most of us would
shudder at spending even 1% of the actual price of these things. I dealt with the
owner of the local corp at one time; they were also involved in the correction lenses
for the Hubble. The results would be a little difficult for most of us to believe, and
the manner in which they dealt with atomospheric haze and even dense fog would make a traditional Wratten aerial filter look like something Louis Leakey dug up by
comparison. But even if we could personally afford things like this, it probably wouldn't have an appreciable effect on our final prints. There are just many more relevant factors than MTF. If you're in the espionage business, well, that's different.
Well, if you're in the espionage business you'd be reading MTF curves differently. You'd be looking for the lens can record the finest discernible detail, which would correlate to the highest spatial frequencies rendered at 10% MTF (or something like that).
If you're interested in making sharp looking prints, you'll look for the lens records the highest MTF value in 1 to 5 lp/mm range (on the final print ... so if you're making 5X enlargements you'd look at 5 to 25lp/mm, etc.).
And of course, people care about things besides sharpness or fine detail. Some don't care about this stuff much at all. MTF might not be so useful to them.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks