Print resolution of photography books and 8X10 LF ie Stephen Shore "Uncommon Places"

[dg1]

<p>Sorry about the awkwardness of the subject line, I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out how to frame my question. In a photo book such as "Uncommon Places" by Stephen Shore, the book presents prints of work done with an 8X10 view camera. I'm wondering about the relationship of the incredible resolution provided by such a camera vs the resolution of the prints in the published book which are of approximately 10X8 (slightly larger). I don't know what resolution the book's prints are, but I assume there's a point where much of the LF camera resolution and detail is lost on the paper. At what print size and resolution would LF resolution be moot? Could a smaller format or certain digital camera resolution produce the same image quality as represented in the book? I don't use LF but have done some MF in the past and now just digital and I'm not sure I understand the process used in producing these art photography books. If you can figure out what I seem to be asking please inform me.</p>

<p> </p>

[RobertChura]

<p>Resolution is a lot lower on a 8x10 view camera lens than 35mm. Tonal range is better in large film and that is what you would notice in a well printed book by a quality printer. </p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Dean, You have a very good question. I shoot a lot of large format (I hope to get an 8x10 camera again). A great print is definitely better with an 8x10" than 35mm - you can definitely see the difference. When I read your questions, it reminded me of buying all the Ansel Adams books from the time I was a kid. Then, when I was in my late 20's, I saw an AA exhibit, and was awe struck. I instantly realized that the "live" print could not be reproduced well in a book. AA talks about this in a few writings. I recall his book, "The Print", talking briefly about how to prepare prints for publication. I don't know if this is a good answer or not. In a book, it is very difficult to tell AA's MF, 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 images apart. I'm sure you would see the difference in the live print.</p>

[michael_briggs2]

<p>While theoretical lenses for 35 mm cameras can deliver better resolution than the best lenses for 8x10 cameras, in practice, with most photos with 35 mm cameras being taken handheld and 8x10 cameras being used on a tripod, the differences in numerical factor between the resolutions are not huge. As an example, the datasheet for the 300 mm Apo-Symmar-L shows good MTF curves for 20 lppm at f22: http://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/datasheets/ApoSymmarL/ApoSymmarL_56_300_2.pdf. Someone will probably cite that some 35 mm lens that can do 100 lppm, but pictorial films will lose a lot of signal at that spatial resolution. The practical difference in resolution, on the negative, is much less different. When you compare same size prints, because the 8x10 film requires less enlargement, 8x10 easily has more resolution. No book can show the full capability of an 8x10 film because book pages aren't large enough -- I've seen meter size prints from 8x10 films in museum shows that had great print quality. No way that a print from 135 could have the same appearance. Of course, a 35 mm or digital camera can be used for subjects and types of photography impossible with an 8x10 camera. </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

From a purely technical perspective it's impossible for a mechanical reproduction to come close to what is possible in a photographic (silver-gelatine) print. The best magazine or book reproduction uses a screen of around 300 dots per inch, which is reckoned to be about the limit of resolution of the unaided human eye at a normal reading distance. However, the dots used are of a pure black or single colour and only vary in size to give the illusion of continuous tone. This naturally limits the range and subtlety of tones that can be shown.<p>Your question is an interesting one Dean, because it basically asks "wherein does image quality lie". It certainly doesn't lie in pure detail or resolution, but that is a part of it. And the fact that we can effectively see through book reproductions and grasp some idea of the quality of an original would appear to rule out pure tonal quality as the definitive factor. But again, tonal quality is also a part of it. So I think we must come to the conclusion that the whole of an image is greater than the sum of its parts, and not worry too much about resolution, acutance or any of the other technical minutiae that can become a distraction from the process of creating pictures.<p>For myself I would rather see a poor reproduction of a great picture, be it a photograph or painting, that a great reproduction of a poor picture.

[janne_moren]

Shorter point: resolution is one factor of image quality, but not the only one; nor, necessarily, the most important one. Tonal range, the combined effect of focal length and angle of view, the extra possibilities inherent in a camera with movement as well as any number of other subtle factors all influence the image as much as the resolution.

[dave_redmann]

<p>IMO, although with equivalent technique and basic lens etc. quality you would certainly expect an 8x10 inch camera to capture a lot more image quality than a 35mm camera, the simple realities are that:<br>

* for 8x10-inch or A4 prints either printed in a book, or optically enlarged, or printed digitally, 35mm film and compact digitals will often show some grain / noise and lack of fine detail, but by the time the film size reaches 6x7 (cm, nominally), and quite possibly 6x6 or 645, or you use a good DSLR of somewhere in the 12 to 16 MP range or higher, the printing technique, not the original capture, is going to limit the print;<br>

* unless you are contract printing onto glossy paper, the 8x10 is unlikely to show any major advantage over 4x5 or medium format film, or the better current DSLR's, until you are printing quite large--somewhere roughly in the range of 16x20 inches to 30x40 inches, depending on exactly what is the point of comparison;<br>

* as a practical matter, today, the joy of an 8x10-inch (or larger) camera is contact printing, or alternative processes that require contact printing; and<br>

* as a practical matter, for the largest sizes I ordinarily print (8x10 and 11x14 inches) and for most measures of quality (resolution, grain / noise, tonality, dynamic range), and for most images, 35mm film and compact digitals are the only quality-limiting capture methods. Medium and large format film and current DSLR's all look great.<br>

Of course, with any camera, if you use less than optimal technique (hand-holding, mediocre lens, etc.), you may get a less than optimal result.</p>

 

[dan_south]

<p>I'm confused. A frame of 135 (35mm) film contains about one-and-a-half square inches of film area.</p>

<p>A sheet of 8x10 film contains about 80 square inches. It's actually a little less due to the intrusion of the edges of the film holder, but it's a LOT of surface area regardless.</p>

<p>I accept that if you took 1.5 square inches out of that 8x10 sheet (even from the very center) that it would not have as much resolution as the 1.5 square inches of film in a frame of 35mm. That's not surprising, because the lenses we use on 35 mm cameras focus all of their resolving power on a very small image circle.</p>

<p>BUT...when you factor in all of the detail that resides in the other 70-plus square inches of that 8x10 image, the 35mm frame clearly doesn't have "higher resolution". The 8x10 contains a LOT more information even though that information isn't as tightly packed in terms of lp/mm. It's like comparing a fully-loaded commuter turboprop plane to a 747 with a passenger in every fourth or fifth seat. The sparsely-loaded 747 still carries more passengers than the fully-loaded commuter jet. That's why you can make very large prints from a sheet of well-focused 8x10, stand 8 inches away and be amazed at the details that you can see.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>Dan, I don't think that anyone is suggesting that 8x10 film can't capture a ton more detail than 35mm film (although I do think that with practical lenses and working apertures, the difference is much less than the roughly 56x ratio of their image areas).</p>

<p>But when you are talking about a reproduction that is (1) not an original contact print on glossy paper and (2) roughly 8x10 inches, the limits of the printing process (and human vision) mean that the resolution, grain / noise, and tonality requirements of the print are not very high. Under these circumstances, with good lenses, any medium- or large-format camera, or any of the current 14+ MP DSLR's, should be able to capture more than the print can reproduce.</p>

 

[beamoflight]

<p>Well, since there is not much difference between offset printed matter and digital prints from for example my Epson R2400, maybe these two images will show you the difference in quality between what a large format negative (in this case a contact print of a 4x5 400 ISO negative) can display, and the quality of a digital print on the R2400.</p>

<p>The scans were made at 1200 ppi (pixels per inch), and since most modern computer monitors run at about 100-150 ppi, looking at these images is like viewing them through about an 8 or 12 times enlarging loupe. So this is how you would see these images while looking through such a loupe.</p>

<p>Please note the Epson print was on Harman fibre based <strong><em>matte </em></strong>paper, and hence does not have a very high maximum black. In addition, I could probably have it adjusted a bit more in PS.</p>

<p>Yes, the difference is REALLY that shocking. But in reality, when viewed at non-enlarged conditions, the Epson print looks great. To show you this, the overview images are scans at 100 ppi. This means that when you view them on screen, they are about the "real-world" size...</p>

<p>The line pattern is an offset print scan at 1200 ppi, just as a last reference.</p>

<p> </p>

[beamoflight]

<p>Sorry, here are the scans I wanted to include.</p>

<p>Top two images are the analog contact print scans at 100 ppi and 1200 ppi. Again, the 100 ppi scan about represents real world size on most computer monitors, the 1200 ppi scan an 8-12x enlargement. Bottom two images Epson R2400 scans at the same resolution.<br /> I now noticed, after insertion, that Photo.Net automatically downsizes to fit allowable page width and doesn't allow you to see the full resolution.... Grrr! Be aware of it, it is displayed at slightly below 100%</p>

<p>Still, I think you can see the difference in quality easily.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/forum/photo_net/print_resolution_of_photography_books_and_8X10_LF/Print_resolution_4x5contact_vs_EpsonR2400.jpg" alt="" /></p>