Is this resolution or what?

[jschweigl]

The red box denotes the detail area shown below<br><br>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?

photo_id=1113945&size=lg"><br><br>

Detail shown at original size, unsharpened by scanner or

Photoshop:<br><br>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?

photo_id=1113949&size=lg"><br><br>

 

Leica M7, Summicron 2/35 ASPH, Agfa Copex Rapid @ 40 ASA, developed

in Spur Nanospeed, dilution 1+9, 7 min at 20° A red filter was used

because I shot some clouds before - otherwise it wouldn't be that

hard. Scanned on Nikon LS4000 at 4000 dpi. No sharpening whatsoever.

 

I think I like that film.

[terry_rory]

Yes its very sharp. Can we see one of the cloud shots, that you mentioned, please? I love interesting cloud formations. I even have a couple of good cloud sites in my 'favourites'.

 

Thanks.

[ray .]

Agfa makes good stuff. I just wish they'd bring back Portriga Rapid for those of us who still make silver prints.

[roger c]

I've actually seen sharper from a Minoltina-S 40mm f/1.8 lens (the sharpest, if not the most contrasty, lens I've ever used - probably a lucky fluke knowing Minolta quality control). I have a 30" x 20" print from it which convinced me to sell my SLR gear and stick to RF cameras! Try Fuji Reala if you're into colour prints - it doesn't miss much.

[msitaraman]

OT: Another vote for Portriga.

 

Speaking of new B&W developers and the like, does anyone here know anything about the new Jobo line of developers?

[john_amiet3]

Johann, Can you really attribute the resolution to the film you used? I believe other films eg. Ilford Delta100 would do equaly well. In fact, you result is the product of of a series of factors. The camera, the light, the developer, the film, the photographer, the scanner. did I miss something? Probably! My point is that unless you did this pic under controlled conditions, you can't just attribute the result to the film. For example, I know the scanner you quoted is a good one. Without it, no film would look its best. Possibly, your control over all the above elements is the real key to the quality. Now that will be hard to deny. :-)

[john clark]

A lot depends upon the scanner you have used. The following two scans were made using a Canoscan FS2710 and the film is Delta 100. The bottom one shows what I believe to be a smaller film area than you have above, though I think that your scanner (with higher resolution and dynamic range) makes a better job. However, it would be naive of anyone to judge the lesser scan (mine) as having a lower resolution than your image - simply due to the scanning variables.<br><br>Here's the two images:<br><br><table width=100% align=center><tr valign=top><td align=center width=120><img src="http://www.photo.net/bboard/image?bboard_upload_id=23061" alt="Original (cropped)"></td><td align=center><img src="http://www.photo.net/bboard/image.tcl?bboard_upload_id=23062" alt="Enlargement"></td></tr></table><br>The left hand image is the original cropped image and the right hand side one is the enlargement. These too are unfettered by Photoshop, though I think they represent less of a demonstration of lens or film 'resolution' as opposed to one of scanner quality. I'm happy with my Canon scanner but I mainly shoot MF these days and don't scan it (it doesn't fit into the FS2710 :-) <br><br>John

[todd frederick]

John,

 

Now that is what I call good resolution, and I like the subject in your crop much better than the whole fountain.

 

I had a good friend who spent most of his photographic life making density strips and taking photos to measure denisty on his densitometer.

 

I guess, every one has his "own thing" to do, but I can't understand why people will waste film (and very precious time from their lives), just to test resolution. Johann's photo may show good resolution (but, so what!): the subject of the photo is just a big blob of cement in the middle of a field of grass! Why photograph that?

 

If you want to test resolution at least find something interesting to photograph.

 

Take a look at Vuk's photos below regarding Jupiter lenses. He was testing the lenses, but, at least the subject is wonderful to view!;-)

[jschweigl]

Actually, I liked that blob of concrete util I I had the neg, because it was too contrasty. But then I liked its sharpness 'cause I usually don't get along without unsharp masking. That's all. I'm just trying to burn a lot of film / developer combos, trying to find a few with a look I like, and Copex was the last station on this quest. After having scanned a few more I would have taken a different one. I I were out to test resolution, I'd use a test target, tripod, controlled ligthing and all for that, but that's not my intention. Talking about Vuk's recent series, I have a Jupiter 8 mounted on a defunct Zorki and collecting dust for years. Have ordered an M39 adapter ring and will give it a try soon. I'll point it to a wall and hope the lens will create the same nice lady as it did for Vuk ;-)<div></div>

[todd frederick]

I like that much better. I think your blob of cement needs Vuk's model sitting on it! ;o)

 

I too sometimes take photos of things I see that look interesting, but just don't look good when printed.

 

There's a story about Ansel Adams, regarding a hopeless effort at photographing a tree stump in northern New Mexico, and on the way back to Santa Fe, he saw what would become his Moonrise: Hernandez, New Mexico. So, failures can lead to success when one least expects it.