sharpest film currently on the market?

Discussion in 'Darkroom Developing and Printing' started by Sam Carleton, Jan 21, 2005.

  1. Sam Carleton

    Alan Smithee Guest

    What does POTA stand for?
     
    Alan Smithee, Jan 22, 2005
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Sam Carleton

    Sam Carleton Guest

    I don't want a 13 x 18 cm, but a 20 x 30 INCH!!!! 35mm T-Max 100
    would be fine for a 13x18 cm print, I want a poster of the image.
    Oh, and here is the link to the image, again:

    http://www.miltonstreet.com/scarleton/images/black.jpg

    The idea is to get a poster size of the image.

    Sam
     
    Sam Carleton, Jan 22, 2005
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Sam Carleton

    Alan Smithee Guest

    Alan Smithee, Jan 22, 2005
    #23
  4. Sam Carleton

    Alan Smithee Guest

    You want to blow up the 4 MP image to 20X30? Lower your image's DPI in
    photoshop. Take a giant step back when you view the printed output. It'll
    look fine in the living room BTW.
     
    Alan Smithee, Jan 22, 2005
    #24
  5. Sam Carleton

    jjs Guest

    jjs, Jan 22, 2005
    #25
  6. Sam Carleton

    Tom Phillips Guest

    POTA was originally published by a photo researcher
    and chemist named Marilyn Levy as an extended range
    developer to capture extremely wide luminance ranges
    on the order of 20 stops (i.e, atomic bomb blasts.)
    Various references say she worked for (1) US Army
    Signal Corps Laboratories (2) US Navy Photo Optics
    Technical Area. I surmise POTA is an acronym for
    Photo Optics Technical Area since it was simply
    sodium sulfite (30 g) and Phenidone (1.5 g) in a
    liter of water.

    Original publication was in Photographic Science and
    Engineering, v. 11 p. 46 (1967) and later generally
    referred to as "POTA".
     
    Tom Phillips, Jan 22, 2005
    #26
  7. Ilford Delta 100 or Fuji ACROS are both T-grain type films which give
    excellent sharpness and very, very fine grain. Ilford Pan F is a lovely
    conventional grain film with similar results.
     
    LR Kalajainen, Jan 22, 2005
    #27
  8. Sam Carleton

    Hemi4268 Guest

    Also format (negative size), meaning the larger the
    This is completely untrue. This is the most misunderstood subject in
    photography.

    Image detail is only governed by three things.

    Focal Length
    Distance
    Film Speed

    Film format has NOTHING to do with image detail.

    Larry
     
    Hemi4268, Jan 22, 2005
    #28
  9. Sam Carleton

    Hemi4268 Guest

    POTA was originally published by a photo researcher
    In fact it came from the Manhattan project itself. Every time you see an
    atomic blast on TV it's usually the Trinity test blast done in April 1945. A
    combo of a very slow speed high resolution film developed in POTA.

    Larry
     
    Hemi4268, Jan 22, 2005
    #29
  10. Not completely true either.

    If your enlarging a 35mm negative to 8x10 and an eight x ten negative
    to 24 x30 and looking closely at detail then yes your are probably 100%
    correct. However if thirty mm is enlarged to 8x10 and the 8x10 is
    contact printed at 8x10, then Format Does play a critical sharpness and
    detail rendering roll.
     
    Gregory Blank, Jan 22, 2005
    #30
  11. You must have a different definition of image detail from the one to which
    I am accustomed.

    A simple exercise in limits shows this.

    Imagine an extremely small format camera, whose film has 10 grains in
    height and 15 grains in width. So 150 entities capable of rendering
    whatever image the optical system can project on the film. Clearly, the
    greatest possible limit on image detail would be about 150 elements.

    But with a film like TriX in a format of 24x32mm, with well over a million
    grains per square inch, the greatest possible limit on image detail would
    be over 1.5 million elements.

    Now with a 20 square inch negative instead of a 1.5 square inch negative,
    that bound goes up. It goes up as the negative area until you reach the
    limit of lens resolution or the film resolution, whichever happens first.
     
    Jean-David Beyer, Jan 22, 2005
    #31
  12. Hmm, the Swiss write and the Americans ecrit ...
    Yes. The difference is really significant with a Micro-Nikkor, tripod,
    mirror lock-up, no wind, no trucks. But that's how I take most of
    my pictures.

    With a 28-105 zoom all films give equally fuzzy images.
    As you say, one man's Big-Mac is another's Tournedos Henri IV.
    There's a lot of freezers full of the same, and Plus-X sheet film, APX-25,
    Kodachrome 25, Brovira, Portiga ...
    Yes. But I have used a 25a filter to the same effect since I was in
    high-school. My grandmother didn't like the results: "My skin is white.
    You make me look like a corpse!"
    TP has farther limits. It's all relative, so what is your point?

    You like PanF, I like TP. There is no point arguing this further.
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Jan 22, 2005
    #32
  13. I'll buy that.
    Now we are in trouble.
    Even a 3x4" reproduction of a 4x5" negative when printed in a magazine
    looks significantly different from 35mm. A 2-page spread, well they don't
    do 2-page spreads form 35mm except for news items.
    Bloody high. Try it with a contact resolution target and a microscope.
    Or use a loupe and look at the print border.

    Got a copy of "Outdoor Photographer" (I think that is the one)? It's all
    35mm ads and reviews. But all the gorgeous shots are noted to have been made
    with Toyos, Wistas, Linhoffs ... There is no problem telling 4x5 from
    35mm. (And I wonder why the magazine isn't chock full of LF ads?).

    Rent/borrow a 4x5 for a weekend. Try it for yourself. Then get down
    on your knees, spread your arms and shout to the sky "I Believe!".
    Compare? Yes, I have. Every day.
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Jan 22, 2005
    #33
  14. Well, actually I have around 200 meters of TP in the freezer and no PanF at
    all.
    What I just wanted to say is that other films may have interest and in the
    case of the original poster, he would be inspired to give them a try.

    Regards,
    Claudio Bonavolta
    http://www.bonavolta.ch
     
    Claudio Bonavolta, Jan 22, 2005
    #34
  15. Sam Carleton

    John Guest

    I have to disagree. A 105mm lens on 35mm may well resolve
    100lpmm and be used to photograph a portrait using TMX (140lpmm
    resolution) of a subject at 10 ft. (I like round numbers) but it's not
    going to be equal in detail to a photograph made on a 5X7 camera using
    a 500mm lens. The degree of enlargement is most likely not going to be
    the same AND the larger negative will have more image information
    contained in the silver matrix. The 35mm negative has 864mm.sq. and
    the 5X7" negative has 22580.6mm.sq.

    When it comes down to it, there is no replacement for good ol'
    displacement. Walk tall and carry a bigger camera.

    Regards,

    John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
    Please remove the "_" when replying via email
     
    John, Jan 22, 2005
    #35
  16. Sam Carleton

    Alan Smithee Guest

    Alan Smithee, Jan 22, 2005
    #36
  17. Sam Carleton

    John Guest

    And then get a 5X7 camera, blow off a few casual images and
    hold that negative up to the light. You can't help but say "Now that's
    more like it !". I still have 3 4X5's but frankly I wish someone had
    told me about 5X7 when I got into large format.

    1) You can use a lot of 4X5 lenses on 5X7 cameras.
    2) The negative allows for great contact prints.
    3) Enlargers are easy to find.
    5) There's still a good selection of films available.
    6) The camera is not much heavier than a 4X5.
    7) Along with the 4X5 back I can use a 6X9 C2N rollfim holder.
    8) I may also be able to use my RB backs on a Graflock back.
    9) If I really wanted to, I could mount a 35mm camera body
    and use the entire 5X7 as one heck of a shift lens.
    10) I like the 1:1.4 aspect ratio.


    Regards,

    John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
    Please remove the "_" when replying via email
     
    John, Jan 22, 2005
    #37
  18. Sam Carleton

    John Guest

    I personally think that Pan F+ is one of the best films of the
    last 30 years but unfortunately Ilford chose not to make it in
    sheetfilm.

    Regards,

    John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
    Please remove the "_" when replying via email
     
    John, Jan 22, 2005
    #38
  19. Sam Carleton

    Tom Phillips Guest


    Of course it does. The bigger the film format the bigger
    the detail; focal length is related to format.
     
    Tom Phillips, Jan 22, 2005
    #39
  20. That's true, and it will leave more TP for the rest of us... to paraphrase
    Wallace & Grommit.
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Jan 22, 2005
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.