Jump to content

Film maximum sharpness?


Julian Thompson

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Maximizing sharpness from film has been a challenge ever since Barnack saddled us with small negatives. For two primary reasons:

 

1) Diffusion - gelatin film coating spreads light: Rainbow Jello - especially if it has silver-iodide crystals floating around in it.

 

2) Enlargement - no lens is perfect, as Jaap alludes to. So putting an image through any additional optical system will always subtract some sharpness.

 

Solutions:

 

1) Use thin emulsions. This is one of the advantages to the microfilms like Nanopan, in addition to fine grain. The coating is extremely thin, so light doesn't have much chance to diffuse between the front and the back. A "surface developer" can simulate a thin emulsion by only developing the silver exposed on the top of the emulsion, and not developing the silver deep down where the light was spread around. Unfortunately, color film is by natural a thick stacking of multiple emulsions, so these principles don't apply (Kodachrome (RIP) being thinner than most thanks to the dye couplers being in the developer, not the film layers).

 

2) Avoid secondary optical systems - i.e. shoot a big original that can be contact-printed without a scanner or enlarger or slide-projector lens getting in the way:

 

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2006-08/mammoth-camera-george-lawrence.jpg

 

For the best of both - shoot Daguerreotypes. A big original plus a surface-development process (mercury vapor reacting directly on a silver plating, with no gelatin at all). September

 

Photographic sharpness has gone downhill ever since Fox-Talbot invented the "negative" in 1841. ;)

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46154000/jpg/_46154580_fox_talbot.jpg

 

More seriously - study the work and principles explored in the Gigapxl project: http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery.htm Look at the pix and crops (!!) and read about the theory and technology they applied.

Edited by adan
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Knowing the effect you want is pretty important. Would Leonardo da Vinci have been better equipped with a Phase One back, say 65 mpix, to capture the Mona Lisa. Or; would an MP with Fuji Reala have done a better job than a brush and some sticky oil paints. :D

 

Personally, I'd go with the MP. :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

#01 is simple overview of full negative. #02 is a 100X magnified print. The full print measured 8x12 feet !

This was shot with an M3 & 35 Summicron (v.1) @F/4 for 1/4 sec on microfilm. Development in 1:100 Rodinal for 5 min to flatten the contrast to something printable on a #3 paper. Enlarged through a 50mm Elmaron on a Pradovit-Color 250. After this job, I wondered just how much better did Leitz think they needed to improve their lenses !

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

test_01.jpgtest_02.jpg

 

This is a fairly rough scan of an uninteresting shot on which needed to be fully stopped down due to fast film speed. All auto settings, no special care while I was deciding whether to bin it. A reasonable scanner should produce at least this level of detail. A very good one ought to resolve a bit more. And anything on low speed film without diffraction effects ought to be a step improved again.

Edited by ndjambrose
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

 

Fuji Velvia 100F ,R8 mit adaptiertem Zeiss Superachromat 250,

Coolscann 8000.

 

Andreas

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rolo, almost split my gut on that frame with the 3 kids. I'm curious, how did the parents like it.

 

BTW, sharpness is overrated. Some of the most beautiful images & high impact frames I have seen didn't feature the sharpness. Content is king.

Edited by roguewave
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rolo, almost split my gut on that frame with the 3 kids. I'm curious, how did the parents like it.

 

The B&G had it in the album, but the parents wanted him destroyed !

 

The week after the wedding, his father took him for a walk in a country park and the little bastard raced back to the company owned car and scraped a line right around the car with a rock before his father got back.

 

When he explained the problem to his boss, there was complete understanding - "you need to respray the whole car at your cost, or resign". A boss with a lot of common sense, IMO.

 

BTW, M3, 35mm Summicron Asph and Fuji Superia film. Beautiful tones from that combination, before I changed predominately to digital and spent a fortune. :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest joewehry

BTW - Just listened to a 2008 Podcast from Kodak regarding their Portra films, and may shed some light on sharpness and film.

 

If I can paraphrase this correctly, when they updated the natural / vivid color lines of Portra, they actually worked more on color saturation, shadow detail and gradation, and slightly decreased the sharpness detail. Their thinking is that more and more film shooters are working hybrid and scanning their film images, and that this process can introduce more sharpness. So they did not want to add sharpness on top of sharpness.

 

For a more accurate explanation/ discussion, you can find the podcast on Kodak's website or subscribe via iTunes, dated 2/27/2008 and titled Portra Films.

 

Then of course, whatever else lens / aperture / film speed / grain / developer / paper choices will contribute to the sharpness.

 

Best wishes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Everyone,

 

If you want to extract maximum sharpness from film, you should not be using a scanner at all but a completely chemical process. There is a great deal of information on the film that the scanner is not recording.

 

People who claim that digital photos are sharper or have higher resolution than film photos are almost always comparing with digital film that has been scanned rather than film alone.

 

Erwin Puts's recent tests show that film alone produces sharper more detailed pictures than the M9. This is hardly a surprise consdering that fine grained films can have a resoluton equivalent to 50 - 60 mb.

 

I assume that one day digital will be able to out resolve film, but that day is not here yet.

 

Cheers!

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so glad others are chiming in about large prints with film. I've done many 6x4-foot prints but I'm blushing at the thought of 8-12-foot prints. WOW. So much is lost when you scan a negative. I agree that there is so much material contained within a negative that the scanners are not picking up. If anyone ever gets a chance to look through a 100x grain magnifier of Tech Pan 25 ASA negative, you will know what I'm talking about. Even a well-exposed and properly exposed Tri-X has so much detail it's scary. The weak link in most cases is the photographer's tech. There are many links in the image chain: good lens properly focused, lens hood, stopping the lens down a couple of stops, proper support, flat film, proper developing ...00.

Yet I also agree that content is far more important than sharpness as a rule of thumb.

In saying that, I often shoot wide open with no tripod with fast film :p. I'm going for a look; sharpness is but one link in my chain.

 

Gregory

Edited by Nikkor AIS
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another tidbit to add to this discussion. Certain popular films, like Tri-X, provide only ok resolution. You don't have to go to microfilm either to improve upon it. I've found T-Max 400 has noticeably more resolution than Tri-X. I would imagine T-Max 100 would be even better, but the finer grain might give the perception of less sharpness even though it has more resolution than the 400 variant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another tidbit to add to this discussion. Certain popular films, like Tri-X, provide only ok resolution. You don't have to go to microfilm either to improve upon it. I've found T-Max 400 has noticeably more resolution than Tri-X. I would imagine T-Max 100 would be even better, but the finer grain might give the perception of less sharpness even though it has more resolution than the 400 variant.

 

I have recently done some testing with a view to simplify my darkroom work, the goal being to use only one film plus two developers or two films plus one developer. The films I had selected were TMY and TMX.

 

TMY is certainly an amazing film with regard to resolution. Pulled to 200 and using a suitable developer (I used Rollei) it resolves almost as much as TMX pushed to 200 and developed in Xtol 1+1 or SD2525 from Spur.

 

Even pushed to 800 and developed in TMAX developer TMY resolves almost as much as pulled to 200. With regard to grain, it is another story, there the differences are greater. (BTW, I generally print and scanning is an exception.)

 

On the other hand, the fine grain of TMX does NOT give the perception of less sharpness - provided the right developer is used. I prefer SD2525.

 

With regard to the term "almost" used in the comparisons above, it means one small step on the USAF chart. I guess it would be unnoticeable in real life unless a tripod is used. Other factors, like light, will affect perceived sharpness more. Get up early in the morning if you want sharp looking landscapes!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the use of a tripod is essential. Test your own technique: shoot three frames of the same subject, all @ 1/1000 if you like. The first casually handheld, the second with braced elbows & tightly drawn neckstrap, the third with a steady tripod. Examine the film under the highest magnification practical (projected wall-size is handy). You will be astonished how much difference a tripod makes to the sharpness of your pictures. You certainly don't need one all the time, but be aware if its impact. I had attached a contact print of the negative to that 8x12 foot print--but nobody believed it was 35mm. I explained, "For serious work, I always use my Linhof." ( My Linhof is a rather massive tree-stump like tripod). You might also need a muscular friend to carry the damn thing. For most work, the Leitz table tripod is the most valuable tool in my kit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if Julian is using semi-pro (I put films like Portra in this category) or consumer color films, then sharpness is not going to be anywhere near what is possible with b&w.

 

I personally don't think it matters, partly because film grain adds very much to the perceived sharpness of a printed image, and also because the apparent sharpness of digital that we see on-screen while pixel-peeping at 100% often doesn't translate to extra detail when the final image is printed at moderate sizes.

 

I'm also finding that the largest variant is the lens I'm using: the Noctilux doesn't do anything for eyelash detail on film, the 28 Elmarit certainly does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ismon : I agree that that the tripod is the only way to get maximum sharpness out of your camera. You are being kind by asking people to do the test at 1/1000 of a second try the test at 1/125 second and its no mans land as far as not introducing camera shake IMO. While many of us "think" they can handhold at 1/60 sec and often lower, if truth be told when doing so we are introducing camera movementt into the image chain equation. Dont get me wrong, I do it all the time:p. I just know Im not getting maximum sharpness possible. Sometimes getting a slightly softer something is better than a perfectly sharp nothing.

Plastic Man: As for the Noctilux and eye lashes. Hmm. Stop that bad boy down to F8, slap the M camera it's attached to on a tripod , use cable release on slow B+W film and come back and tell me the Noctilux isnt sharp. But I get your point @ 1.0 the Noct isnt designed to give mazimum resolution. But it does give a look that no sharp image can replicate as well. I will on occasion stop my Noct down and Im not hurting for sharpness. Im sure that the Lecia 50 1.4 ASPH is sharper at F8 but ..OO, you cant have them all. And the Noct is what I got.

 

 

 

Gregory

Edited by Nikkor AIS
Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to this discussion I can clearly see here that your scanning technique and software is just critically important, regardless of your actual hardware.

 

Here are 2 scans of the same image - both are 100% crops - the larger one is when I was pushing the V750 to 20MP per file and the second is now at 3200 dpi (about 13MP).

 

Also my workflow has changed hugely - but the hardware is identical! It's bizarre!

 

Needless to say the first scan is just horrible - the second is now getting somewhere but it's me ages to even get this far!

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...