and help to keep the site free for all
Why new lenses doesn't have "fidelity" aka they are s***!
- Thread starter dentist
- Start date
- Status
- Messages
- 300
- Name
- Ham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That was one of the first results I came up with when I went looking, and seemed to support my mental reference point of somewhere in the (rounded) region of 100Mp. There appear to be many others, most that I've seen appear to sustain my perspective, but hey, feel free to post any link that argues. It is always possible that something on the Internet might be wrong, unlikely as that sounds. And no I don't want to get into a discussion of the relative merits of the different types of dot screens and technologies used in digital, each which has an impact on resolution.
Anyhow, as I say, it is complicated. The type of film, the lens, the paper, the nature of the image and the impression on the human eye all go toward the ultimate resolution. Again, there are a wide range of films, and without getting into things like monochrome microfilm, some of the film compounds blast digital out the water, without disucussing the nature of grain vs noise. Whether it is 50Mp, 60, 100, it's irrelevant (plus you get a new sensor every shot). One of the reasons it's irrelevant is that to be any use at all, you have to be able to look at it. So, what then? You scan it? You print it? What to, what with? Sit in a dark room and project your Ektar 25? Theoretical resolution doesn't matter. The dots don't matter, what it looks like matters.
The comment was in the context of a post that suggested our modern display screens were somehow superior and contained more information to printing on 10 x 8. They're not, even if looking at a modern screen can be more fun and possibly more vibrant.
OP
- Messages
- 14
- Name
- Hans
- Edit My Images
- Yes
well you can judge me, no problem what so ever, I believe I had my fair share in different fields.
it is like to say light is photon or electromagnetic wave....
I just open one question : why the "modern" lenses can not handle black and white pics ?
(microcontrast)
also I recommend others to study a bit physics and elec. as it goes to science a magnet can bent light....
- Messages
- 7,701
- Edit My Images
- No
That often keeps me awake at night.
- Messages
- 25,334
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
It’s not that complicated, thousands of us used to shoot film, many of us medium format.
And I can tell you categorically that the output from my 6d blows away 35mm film and IMHO beats 645.
And that is based not on theoretical dot pitch or other nonsense, it’s just from looking at large prints from both media.
- Messages
- 6,469
- Name
- Ned
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think you need a different physics teacher...
- Messages
- 300
- Name
- Ham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Really? Remembering there are two questions going on here. The first, which you are referring to is the ultimate resolving power of film compared to digital sensor. There are huge number of variables here, both in specification and technical details of the capture and output but more relevantly also with the processing software. I stand by my passing assertion that film is capable of higher resolution capture than most digital sensors, but I'm happy to differ and can see little merit or benefit in arguing one side or the other, and nothing I do requires or depends on that theoretical difference - if there is one.
The second question is the point I was making, that the output and resolution on screen is lower than printing on 10 x 8. If you have a 4k monitor that 3840 x 2160, at a 300 dpi, a digital* printer outputs 3,000 x 2,400, at 600 dpi that's 6,000 x 3,600. The context was, because we have these Big! New! Shiny! screens we will see more than we did previously, I'm not sure that is the case for the reasons stated.
*No, I'm NOT going to get started on the relative quality of photographic output.....
Last edited:
- Messages
- 25,334
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Waffle.Really? Remembering there are two questions going on here. The first, which you are referring to is the ultimate resolving power of film compared to digital sensor. There are huge number of variables here, both in specification and technical details of the capture and output but more relevantly also with the processing software. I stand by my passing assertion that film is capable of higher resolution capture than most digital sensors, but I'm happy to differ and can see little merit or benefit in arguing one side or the other, and nothing I do requires or depends on that theoretical difference - if there is one.
The second question is the point I was making, that the output and resolution on screen is lower than printing on 10 x 8. If you have a 4k monitor that 3840 x 2160, at a 300 dpi, a digital* printer outputs 3,000 x 2,400, at 600 dpi that's 6,000 x 3,600. The context was, because we have these Big! New! Shiny! screens we will see more than we did previously, I'm not sure that is the case for the reasons stated.
*No, I'm NOT going to get started on the relative quality of photographic output.....
Borderline impenetrable b******t.
I’ve got 20x16 prints, from film and digital, and I can categorically state that digital beats 35mm film at around 10mpix.
- Messages
- 300
- Name
- Ham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
TL;DR?
1) I'm happy if you think you are right, theoretical capability isn't worth arguing over because, reasons
but
2) Dots is dots is dots.
TheBigYin
Moderator
- Messages
- 16,677
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
there's another rule you might consider following... have another day off to go read the rest of the rules as linked, otherwise you may find you're on a longer holiday next time.
Conduct and behaviour
- Don't swear. Don't be offensive. Be polite. Don't bore everyone with drivel. Don't moan about moderation.
- Post in English.
- If you think someone needs to be reminded of the rules, report it to the mods and leave them to deal with it. If you retaliate then you'll be treated the same, regardless of who started it.
- If a moderator posts with an instruction, don't ignore it.
- Teensy bit rude? Shouldn't be viewed by kids or anyone at work, use the "NSFW" thread prefix.
Last edited:
TheBigYin
Moderator
- Messages
- 16,677
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
I still shoot film occasionally, and i've some 35mm transparency stuff (Velvia 50) from BITD that was scanned on a proper wet mount drum scanner at 5k/inch and they're pretty amazing - 37.5mp or thereabouts (call it 7500x5000 dots) - the file size is actually a bit bigger as the scan was done complete with "film rebates" but useable actual image, yeah, 37.5mp. BUT the thing is, scans on that kind of kit used to cost STUPID money to have done - so - unless you were a magazine producer, or perhaps a graphics house preparing posters, you'd not bother with 35mm, and jump direct to 120 or 5x4, because the cost of getting drum scans done was largely in the setup time of wet mounting the damned bit of film onto the drum.
So, almost nobody did that with 35mm, instead the scans they have on 35mm are generally from Noritsu, Fuji Frontier or Kodak Pakon setups - which are good, when done properly they're an order of magnitude better than you'll get out of flatbeds like the Epson V750's et al. - but, as you say Phil - for "resolving power" they start to get a little out of their depth when matched with a digital slr using comparable lenses at around 10mp... (in my case i'm talking a EOS-1v/EOS3 body and modern EF L lenses, so the old medium is using comparable lenses to the new)
With all the old computers i've got around here, I keep getting tempted by picking up a drum scanner - but then I remember how little I actually shoot these days, and the thought of dedicating 5 foot of desk space, or the size of a single wardrobe to housing something that would get fired up once a month or less gives me the reality check I need.
Last edited:
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,737
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
This thread has at least had me thinking about the lenses I really like. At the moment I really like my Minolta Rokkor 50mm f1.8 MD, which is an old manual lens, but I use my modern Sony 35mm f2.8 more because I can take pictures quicker with it especially people shots with face detect.
I know this thread has provoked some... reaction... but it's been entertaining and thought provoking for me
I know this thread has provoked some... reaction... but it's been entertaining and thought provoking for me
- Messages
- 1,690
- Name
- Lloyd
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I’ve seen the original article pop up every now and then and it never fails to make me chuckle. The author doesn’t control for lighting/contrast/subject at all.
Tarantino shoots his films on that Panavision because he wants to shoot film, he’s the old-school romantic type.
Modern lenses can handle black and white just fine, that’s more of a post processing problem than a lens problem. Go to a gallery and study some silver gelatin prints done by a master printer to really see how you should approach your black and white conversions. I have a print from Jacob Aue Sobol that was shot on a Leica M Monochrom and it looks stunning and it’s easily on par with the darkroom prints I’ve seen. A few years ago Sebastiao Salgado showed Genesis at the Natural History museum which was a mix of both digital and film (a Canon 5D/1DS III and Pentax 645), the prints were huge and stunning regardless of the camera/medium used. Too many people think that desaturating and dropping an S-curve on a raw file is enough for good b/w when that really isn’t the case for most cameras.
As for film’s resolution, for 35mm you’re typically about 10-15mp for 400ISO film, finer grained films will be in the 30mp territory. But discussing numbers is pretty unimportant and boring since both film and digital are well past the point of sufficiency for most forms of printing.
Tarantino shoots his films on that Panavision because he wants to shoot film, he’s the old-school romantic type.
Modern lenses can handle black and white just fine, that’s more of a post processing problem than a lens problem. Go to a gallery and study some silver gelatin prints done by a master printer to really see how you should approach your black and white conversions. I have a print from Jacob Aue Sobol that was shot on a Leica M Monochrom and it looks stunning and it’s easily on par with the darkroom prints I’ve seen. A few years ago Sebastiao Salgado showed Genesis at the Natural History museum which was a mix of both digital and film (a Canon 5D/1DS III and Pentax 645), the prints were huge and stunning regardless of the camera/medium used. Too many people think that desaturating and dropping an S-curve on a raw file is enough for good b/w when that really isn’t the case for most cameras.
As for film’s resolution, for 35mm you’re typically about 10-15mp for 400ISO film, finer grained films will be in the 30mp territory. But discussing numbers is pretty unimportant and boring since both film and digital are well past the point of sufficiency for most forms of printing.
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I know I shouldn't be wading in here, but what the heck...
How do you like your images? Chromatic aberration? Astigmatism? Spherical aberration? Coma? Vignetting? Field curvature? Distortion? Lens flare? Personally, I'll go for "none of the above", please, if that's an option.
The last 400 years of the development of optics, since the invention of the achromatic doublet in 1729, has been about reducing these defects. But it is these defects which create "character". Anamorphic lenses have character. Petzval lenses have character. But the point is that modern lenses don't take away character, because light doesn't have character to start with. What you're complaining about is that modern lenses don't have all the annoying defects that lenses used to have in the old days.
This is so wrong it's laughable.
How do you like your images? Chromatic aberration? Astigmatism? Spherical aberration? Coma? Vignetting? Field curvature? Distortion? Lens flare? Personally, I'll go for "none of the above", please, if that's an option.
The last 400 years of the development of optics, since the invention of the achromatic doublet in 1729, has been about reducing these defects. But it is these defects which create "character". Anamorphic lenses have character. Petzval lenses have character. But the point is that modern lenses don't take away character, because light doesn't have character to start with. What you're complaining about is that modern lenses don't have all the annoying defects that lenses used to have in the old days.
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
It's interesting exploring the 35mm film v full frame DSLR topic. I did an experiment a couple of years ago using a Canon 6D pitted against a Canon EOS-3 loaded with Kodak Ektar 100 print film. Both cameras were fitted with the same lens (Canon EF 24-105 L IS), tripod mounted and the photos were taken immediately after each other, using the same shutter speed, aperture and ISO on a day when the light was constant and not varying. Five shots of the same subject were taken with each camera, and the best shot from each camera was chosen for comparison. The film from the EOS-3 was then sent to a good quality lab and a high-res scan was done using a Noritsu scanner. The 6D was set to produce a JPEG at its highest/finest resolution.
As @Phil V has already said, the 6D resolved more detail than the scanned negative produced. However, I then printed both images at A4 and asked a random sample of 5 people to pick which image they preferred the look of. The majority vote went to the film image, which I found quite interesting. Now if the image had been printed at large poster size this might have been different, as the additional clarity and resolution of the digital image may have shone through, but I suppose it depends on how far people were standing from the poster to notice that.
As for lens characteristics, these days I think the majority of people into 'enthusiast level' photography seem to want 'sharp and straight' as a priority, but then comment about 'lovely bokeh', etc. In the old days, some people would buy a lens because it could give a certain look if shot in a certain way. Here's an example of the swirly bokeh an old 1950s triplet type lens can give when shot wide open, which can be used to provide a certain 'look' on an image (and before anyone says it, I know I missed the focus on the eyes!).
Steampunk by J White, on Flickr
Yes, that lens has character, but how would you like to have that character all the time when shooting wide open? Perhaps, like having your favourite food for every single meal, you might get a bit bored with it before too long? It's alright having character, but as someone once said, show me a character and I'll show you an eventual pain in the ar*e. So, give me sharp and straight for everyday type photography, and if I want a bit of 'character' then I'll pick up an old film camera and lens and go the full hog.
As @Phil V has already said, the 6D resolved more detail than the scanned negative produced. However, I then printed both images at A4 and asked a random sample of 5 people to pick which image they preferred the look of. The majority vote went to the film image, which I found quite interesting. Now if the image had been printed at large poster size this might have been different, as the additional clarity and resolution of the digital image may have shone through, but I suppose it depends on how far people were standing from the poster to notice that.
As for lens characteristics, these days I think the majority of people into 'enthusiast level' photography seem to want 'sharp and straight' as a priority, but then comment about 'lovely bokeh', etc. In the old days, some people would buy a lens because it could give a certain look if shot in a certain way. Here's an example of the swirly bokeh an old 1950s triplet type lens can give when shot wide open, which can be used to provide a certain 'look' on an image (and before anyone says it, I know I missed the focus on the eyes!
). Steampunk by J White, on FlickrYes, that lens has character, but how would you like to have that character all the time when shooting wide open? Perhaps, like having your favourite food for every single meal, you might get a bit bored with it before too long? It's alright having character, but as someone once said, show me a character and I'll show you an eventual pain in the ar*e. So, give me sharp and straight for everyday type photography, and if I want a bit of 'character' then I'll pick up an old film camera and lens and go the full hog.
Last edited:
StephenM
I know a Blithering Idiot
- Messages
- 4,982
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It might be a fairer test to have the negative printed conventionally, as it's not impossible that a top quality enlarging lens could find more detail than the scanner.
That said, as a film die hard, I have found that
a) prints from scanned 35mm negatives are better than darkroom prints from them at A4/10x8.
b) a digital camera wins hands down over 35mm
c) black and white prints from 6x7 (scanned) negatives are preferable to ones from a digital camera, but in colour the result is the other way round and finally
d) sheet film still gives the best prints for me.
Personally, I'm still puzzling over basically glass is like a capacitor and damage the wavelength.
I assume in the final analysis, that if "less glass more fidelity, every pass of light through, losing more character.... " the best images would be made with a pinhole and have no glass involved. Presumably in a vacuum though, to prevent air damage to the light?
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
Don't forget to add a still, cool, clear day, as heat haze and shimmer can also add to the adverse stochastic equation. How far do we go in search of fidelity?
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 23,548
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
I know - bizarre. I have a little electronics background from building and even designing guitar amps. We would use capacitors to control frequency in the signal, but it's all about shaping and control - there's no damage, although poor design might cause the loss of some signal.
If one were to compare modern lenses using the amplifier analogy, one would say that the tones have never previously been so transparent, clear and un-distorted.
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
Damn it! Of course, that's where I've been going wrong... I should have been using valve powered lenses on my digital camera! :banghead: I don't suppose you happen to know if Dumble do a 24-70 f/2.8 in Canon EF mount?
Last edited:
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 23,548
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
Damn it! Of course, that's where I've been going wrong... I should have been using valve powered lenses on my digital camera! :banghead: I don't suppose you happen to know if Dumble do a 24-70 f/2.8 in Canon EF mount?
Is the the one with the Crystal Lattice?
I'm sure Mesa have a bigger zoom with the famous (patented) double rectumfrier. 
- Messages
- 12,772
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
So, so, so, so very tempting......
TheBigYin
Moderator
- Messages
- 16,677
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
yeah, that wasn't a challenge... especially combining the two, even if it is curiously satisfying to swear fluently in say Polish or Italian (and came in handy when someone was running a swear-box in the office during lent this year... fortunately if I avoided English and French I got away with it
)
D
Deleted member 49428
Guest
Exactly
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I enjoy watching Inspector Montalbano with subtitles. I've learned lots of Italian swear words.
- Messages
- 7,701
- Edit My Images
- No
It's probably a bit like vinyl records. Partly hipster fashion, partly a genuine fondness for things that are technically defects, but can give pleasing effects. Records sound 'warm', lenses with certain uncorrected aberrations can be nice for portraits, hence the revived Thambar and Petzval designs. The Nikon DC lenses, obviously designed with portraits in mind, let you control the degree of spherical aberration, which has a subtle effect on the transition between focus and background 'bokeh'. When I first used an old Leitz Elmar, a simple 4 -element design, the pictures had a certain 'look' I rather liked, distinct from modern primes. A recent lens like the Leica 35/2 ASPH, an excellent low aberration design with great sharpness and contrast, is superior in every measurable way. But it would probably be hard to tell its results apart from those of other well-corrected modern lenses, like the Nikon f/1.8 primes. Sometimes it's nice to have the option of something a bit different.
- Messages
- 16,757
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Yup! I've had as much fun shooting with £20 MF lenses as I've had with £1000+ modern ones, but it's not all about the gear, it's about being out there. The fun is in the exploration, the freedom, the creativity. This is all down to you, not the lens you're using.
From where it started this has become an interesting thread. Consider the comments about 35mm film and digital I remember reading this below a while ago about medium format and digital images - has a couple of 35mm film ones too.
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/
- Messages
- 3,139
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- No
I recently went to a talk by a highly respected photographer who shoots exclusively on a mamiya 6 using film and processes in the darkroom. The prints were nice but looked distinctly soft and lacking in detail compared to what I’m used to from a 36mp DSLR. Now I realise that darkroom prints from film have a different look to the somewhat clinical look of digital so there is a definite shift in expectations but I think the improvement in lenses has played a big part as well.
I imagine if they were high res scans from slide film, printed on an inkjet then there would have been less of a difference.
I imagine if they were high res scans from slide film, printed on an inkjet then there would have been less of a difference.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,737
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Yup.
I've had a lot of fun finding the differences between very similar spec old lenses from different manufacturers and isn't a hobby supposed to be fun
StephenM
I know a Blithering Idiot
- Messages
- 4,982
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As a matter of interest, how large were the prints?
D
Deleted member 49428
Guest
Something must be wrong there then. Processing, choice of materials or in the picture taking.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Messages
- 3,139
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- No
Can’t remember exactly, 15x10 and upwards. A couple were easily twice that.
I doubt any of those would have been at fault given the guys credentials. Like I say, it’s more likely due to an expectation shift with modern technologies.
StephenM
I know a Blithering Idiot
- Messages
- 4,982
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well, I'm surprised to say the least. I assume that the prints were black and white? If so, he's printing at what I would regard as the limit for the small negative at 15x10; and if in colour, which isn't as sharp anyway, beyond it. It might be worth bearing in mind that in his book "Post Exposure" Ctein reveals the results of tests on a large number of enlarging lenses, where the majority were decentred (and this the big names that you'd expect to be OK) so the problem may lie here.
I have produced a 10x8 from 35mm (PanF, at a guess - it was early 1960s) trying out the then new Acutol developer which left nothing to be desired in apparent sharpness and detail in a rough stone church wall.
All academic, since we can't look and verify though.
In passing - I use a Sony a7rii as my digital camera, so I know what can be achieved with both modern and older lenses on a 42 megapixel camera. I still prefer 5x4 film.
I have produced a 10x8 from 35mm (PanF, at a guess - it was early 1960s) trying out the then new Acutol developer which left nothing to be desired in apparent sharpness and detail in a rough stone church wall.
All academic, since we can't look and verify though.
In passing - I use a Sony a7rii as my digital camera, so I know what can be achieved with both modern and older lenses on a 42 megapixel camera. I still prefer 5x4 film.
D
Deleted member 49428
Guest
Well I shoot Mamiya 645 and 67 and Im puzled if medium format prints should look soft and lack details since it's not my experience. Thats why Om thinking something is not quite optimal in the workflow. Could be the RF needs adjustment, perhaps.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheBigYin
Moderator
- Messages
- 16,677
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
every time you've been given warnings resulting in a short suspension there's been an explanation in the thread.
like now.
from the rules...
Moderating decisions are not up for public discussion or debate.
Contact the Moderation Team privately using the Contact Us link below.
- Status