Film sharpness: is slower film sharper?

[donbright]

<p>Reading the tech charts for Velvia 50, it is noted that the resolving power of Velvia 50 is the highest that I know of resolving 160-80 lines, with a granularity of 9. So while negative films are finer grained, the resolution of Velvia 50 is highest, and for landscapes this is why I shoot Velvia 50. The contrast of Velvia 50 is hard to overcome with average scanners. Drum scanners have the ability to dig deep into the shadows of Velvia, and when this is done, and printed from a continuous tone lightjet printer, nothing beats it. Large prints from this formula are mesmerizing, the resolution, tonal gradation working together with the punch of transparency film...Oh Yeah!</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>My experience is the same as Wouters images above. Scans I got from a from a pro lab are not nearly as good as the ones I do myself on my Coolscan 5000. Mine are sharper, have more shadow detail and more highlight detail.</p>

<p>Also just a tiny bit of missed focus on the scanner will produce a soft scan.</p>

<p>Another variable to think about is that it's a lot easier to verify a focusing problem on digital. You might have a focusing problem on the F100.</p>

<p>A related issue was when I've used lenses with hard infinity stops where one lens would look great on one camera body and not at all great on another identical body. This is cause by small variances in the register distance between the bodies. The lens mount to sensor distance was ever so slightly different. Enough to cause a visible difference in sharpness. It was hard to conclude this on digital and it would have been even harder on film.</p>

<p>Lenses that don't have hard infinity stops simply don't have to have correct register distance, only that the autofocus is calibrated to the register distance. So they are easier to make. It's also possible for the autofocus to overshoot and go beyond infinity and then go back slightly. With a hard infinity stop there would be a mechanical barrier. So most modern AF lenses goes beyond infinity. On longer lenses, even manual focus ones, the focusing ring went beyond infinity to account for temperature differences. I have a manual focus Nikon 180mm f2.8 ED that is like that.</p>

<p> </p>

[khiem_le1]

<p>Thank you everyone with your detail comments and constructive advice. I haven't been able to log on the forum for the last few days so couldn't answer straight away.</p>

<p>I went back to the same place, this time I used a (4 months expired) roll of Ektar 100 with my FE2 and the results are stunning. The weather was much better than the other day (when I shot and the results did not look sharp at all). Therefore, I can safely conclude the level of light also contributes greatly to details in distance. With more light, it resolves details better and hence give a better definition.</p>

<p>This is a shot that was done earlier today at the same location. Bright sun-light, unlike the other day when it was wet and overcast:<br />Same setting, F100, 24mm f/1.4 G, Fuji Pro 400H, shot at f/7.1 <br /> <a title="Untitled by Khiem Le, on Flickr" href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5336/17454673084_587b5045be_b.jpg" alt="Untitled" width="1024" height="735" /></a></p>

<p>I also tried shooting with a roll of Ektar 100 and the results are stunning. This will be the only film I'll ever use for landscape. There is literally no grain. Colours are rendered beautifully, and the sharpness is, of course, top notch.</p>

<p>This is a few shots done with FE2, Ektar 100 and Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AI-S lens:</p>

<p><a title="Untitled by Khiem Le, on Flickr" href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5322/17889842410_b322554898_b.jpg" alt="Untitled" width="1024" height="735" /></a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lenses that don't have hard infinity stops simply don't have to have correct register distance, only that the autofocus is calibrated to the register distance. So they are easier to make. It's also possible for the autofocus to overshoot and go beyond infinity and then go back slightly. With a hard infinity stop there would be a mechanical barrier. So most modern AF lenses goes beyond infinity. On longer lenses, even manual focus ones, the focusing ring went beyond infinity to account for temperature differences. I have a manual focus Nikon 180mm f2.8 ED that is like that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very informative thank you!</p>

<p>For more photos of today's shoot-out: https://www.flickr.com/photos/khiemnikon/</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>With 35mm, has anyone checked the difference in sharpness between film scanned mounted on slide mounts vs. 35mm strips? </p>

[ivo_ivo]

<p>Subjective impression of "sharpness" depends also on the film's grain structure: finer grain like in Kodak Ektar produce more impression of smoothness than "sharpness"; and on the contrary more pronounced grain structure like in Fuji Pro colour negative films contribute to details looking more acutely defined (in B&W Fuji Acros looks smoother thanks to the finer grain compared to many of the Ilford films which have coarser grain and look "sharper").</p>

<p>The above is observable only if one has a competently made scan, preferably from a dedicated film scanner, as <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5189561">Wouter Willemse</a> pointed out and illustrated above.</p>

<p> </p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Yup I still shoot film but I reserve film for bright light when I can use ISO 100 film. For low light I use digital as film can't do low light handheld as well as digital. For time exposure then sometimes film is better.</p>