Resonse to MF vs. LF resolution

[todd_tiffan]

Here are a few comments on the Thread Danny started on why his LF chromes are soft compared to the ones on smaller formats.

 

<p>

 

Lots of good responses, especially the ones that discussed practice rather than theory. The ideal situation where your subject exist on one plane, as in a lens test target, rarely occurs for me in my feeble attempts at landscape photography. I shot med. Format for several years and can tell you that you rarely ever shoot at f5.6, or even f8. Usually you're trying to max out DoF and using F22+ (you can't take a near-far shot w/o this if you have no movements. So I think the "ideal" resolution of med. format lenses is quickly compromised in practice (at least for my work). Of course the same is true for LF, But you have a bigger piece of film to help compensate AND the movements can make ALL the difference.

 

<p>

 

Todd

[alan_gibson]

Thanks for your contribution. In the future, please respond in the

thread in question, rather than starting a new one.

[ronald_lamarsh1]

Great answers; I read many sources on this subject and quite a few are

of the opinion that 6x9 s so close to 4x5 that there is little

difference. And given the quality of lense that is standard on most MF

you have to get a pretty expensive one for 4x5 to show a real

difference, especially at enlargements of 11x14 or smaller. The

greatest advantage for me is camera movements, single sheet processing

and probably best of all the added TONAL SEPARATION. Straight

resolution and fine grain are not the best determiners of photographic

quality.