 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / April 2004MF & Technical Pan, looking for optimum sharpness
Hello, The last few weeks I've been shooting landscapes with a Hasselblad 503CW, using a CFE 2.8/80 mm- lens and TMX. Now that I've finally decided on how to build my compositions, I'm considering to start all over again using Technical Pan. For most pictures, the lens is stopped down to f11 or more. As you probably suspect from the combination medium-format / Technical Pan, I'll be trying to get the most out of my camera/film combination in terms of detail, sharpness, ... The technical data-sheet of my lens states that Depth Of Field data are 'calculated for a blur circle of 60 ?m and do nog include the effect of lens aberrations. For very critical photography and great enlargements this blur will be visible.' (http://www.hasselblad.se/Archive/documents/Downloads_files/Productsheets/CF E80.pdf). Further ause of DOF-data for apertures of 2 f-stops larger is suggested. Kodak claims that ther Technical Pan film (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/p255/p255.jhtm l?id=0.1.18.14.21.22.16&lc=en) has an RMS-granularity of 5 (developed in Technidol, of which I have a few bottles craving for film in the darkroom). As far as I can figure out, the RMS-granularity is a standard deviation (been confronted with rms-values more then a few times throughout my education), but I don't know of what. There must be a link to the size of film-grain, but to me it's still a missing link. My question is not so much wether, for my specific case, I should take in account the 2-stop correction for DOF-data Hasselblad recommends. Most of all I would like to understand why (of maybe why not) I should consider this correction. Thx to all (and please accept my excuses for cross-posting), Philippe >, I should take in >account the 2-stop correction for DOF-data Hasselblad recommends. Most of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Philippe Your biggest problem with high resolution and Hasselblad will be film set. You see, the film takes on a "set" in the cassette. This will alway be on the second shot right after the first one. It's hard to see without resolution targets but it is there. If your using a 80mm lens and Tech Pan, your first shot at about f-8 will be about 100 lines per mm. The second shot will have a band of 40 line per mm detail right through the middle of the frame. With wedding photography using 160 film and 8x loupe you will not see this but with Tech Pan and a very good 20x loupe you will. Larry > >, I should take in > >account the 2-stop correction for DOF-data Hasselblad recommends. Most of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Larry And what exactly is this 'film set' ? I suppose my not being a native speaker is the reason why I don't completely understand. Philippe > And what exactly is this 'film set' ? The film is slightly curved from its passage over rollers in the film back. This causes it to be less than perfectly flat against the backplate when the film is exposed. In most cases this is not an issue, but if you really need the highest possible resolution, it becomes a concern.  SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. [SNIP]> > And what exactly is this 'film set' ? I suppose my not being a native > speaker is the reason why I don't completely understand. > > Philippe Philippe, The 'set' Larry is referring to is in a Hasselblad, the path of the film takes several twists and turns. If the film is loaded in the camera back and left to sit for some time before use, the film takes a 'set' and creates a hump that effects film flatness. Larry say this hump usually shows up on the second frame. I don't dispute this possibility. It's also one of the reasons I choose a Rollei over a 'Blad. A way around this will be; load the camera film back at the scene and use the roll rather quickly (in the same day at least) so the film does not sit in one place too long. Hope this helps you. Jim > A way around this will be; load the camera film back at the scene > and use the roll rather quickly (in the same day at least) so the > film does not sit in one place too long. Or use a Mk 70 :) SignaturePaul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd., +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda. West Australia 6076 comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked. EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be. > A way around this will be; load the camera film back at the scene and use >the roll rather quickly (in the same day at least) so the film does not sit >in one place too long. Actually, I did some test on this using Tech-pan. The film will "set" in as little as 5 minutes. It's very visable on the second frame with some on the third. To be visable, you must use resolution targets and a 20x loupe to see it. Also, the set seems to go away if the second frame is not used in about 5 minutes. Usually at a wedding with 160 type film this is only a minor problem as your taking pictures all the time. Also, the film is only half the resolution of Tech Pan so it's not as sensitive to film bulges. This business of saying this is sharper then that without using resolution targets is like saying this car is faster then that without knowing anything about a speedometer. Larry > > A way around this will be; load the camera film back at the scene and use > >the roll rather quickly (in the same day at least) so the film does not sit [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it. Also, the set seems to go away if the second frame is not used in about 5 > minutes. [Snip] 5 minutes and it takes a set. Wow, I know Tech Pan has a thinner and therefore an assumed more fragile base, but I would have also thought it to be more flexible. Stranger things. Jim >5 minutes and it takes a set. Wow, I know Tech Pan has a thinner and >therefore an assumed more fragile base, but I would have also thought it to >be more flexible. On the other side it takes about 5 minutes to flaten out. Larry > 5 minutes and it takes a set. Wow, I know Tech Pan has a thinner and > therefore an assumed more fragile base, but I would have also thought it to > be more flexible. Stranger things. Note that film that can take a set in five minutes can also lose a set in five minutes. So wind the film and then wait five minutes or so. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > Actually, I did some test on this using Tech-pan. The film will "set" in as > little as 5 minutes. It's very visable on the second frame with some on the > third. To be visable, you must use resolution targets and a 20x loupe to see > it. I have this image of Hemi on the top of a mountain overlooking Yellowstone - photographing a rez chart. Hi Well maybe not Yellowstone but at least 50 such targets are located all over Edwards AFB. Each being about the size of a house. Larry > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > aberrations. For very critical photography and great enlargements this blur > will be visible.' (http://www.hasselblad.se/Archive/documents/Downloads_files/Productsheets/CF > E80.pdf). Further ause of DOF-data for apertures of 2 f-stops larger is > suggested. > > Kodak claims that ther Technical Pan film (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/p255/p255.jhtm > l?id=0.1.18.14.21.22.16&lc=en) has an RMS-granularity of 5 (developed in > Technidol, of which I have a few bottles craving for film in the darkroom). [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Philippe Some more thoughts ... my intuition tells me that, as long as this blur circle is smaller than the average silver-particle in the film used, the piece of the image can be considered as 'sharp'. Is there a relationship between the RMS-granularity and the size of silver-particles in the emulsion (I suppose so, but don't have a clue on what this law could be) ? Is there a rule of thumb that gives an estimation for the grain-size based on RMS-granularity ? Are there any other elements that I should consider ? > Hasselblad 503CW ... CFE 2.8/80 ... Technical Pan ... get the most Shoot at optimum aperture, about f5.6. Use a 25A filter. Use a tripod (goes without saying). SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ > Use a tripod (goes without saying). a what ? ;-) (grin) > > Use a tripod (goes without saying). > > a what ? ;-) (grin) One of these: http://www.pbase.com/image/26582234/large (Oops) David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > > > Use a tripod (goes without saying). > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan Do you really own two of those ? > > > Use a tripod (goes without saying). > > > > a what ? ;-) (grin) > > One of these: http://www.pbase.com/image/26582234/large (Oops) So was this one from the same site: http://www.pbase.com/image/20931312 > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'll be trying to get the most out of my camera/film combination in terms of > detail, sharpness, ... I'm not convinced it's all that much better than Provia or Velvia 100F. Maybe slightly. It scans really ugly (gritty) and dust is really obnoxious. YMMV if you are projection printing. But it's very much worth the time experimenting. > The technical data-sheet of my lens states that Depth Of Field data are > 'calculated for a blur circle of 60 ?m and do nog include the effect of lens > aberrations. For very critical photography and great enlargements this blur > will be visible.' (http://www.hasselblad.se/Archive/documents/Downloads_files/Productsheets/CF > E80.pdf). Further ause of DOF-data for apertures of 2 f-stops larger is > suggested. My experience is that hyperfocal focusing is usually a bad idea: any loss of sharpness at infinity hurts. For landscapes, leave your lens at infinity focus except in rare cases. Remember that DOF tables were all created in the days when medium format was the format used by the masses for snapshots and small prints. Things are different in this day of 4000 dpi scans and 13x19s from 645. Even two stops may not be enough. With my 35/3.5 lens on my Mamiya 645, I get lots of DOF. The DOF on all my other lenses (55, 110, 150) is esssentially zero for practical purposes. > Kodak claims that ther Technical Pan film (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/p255/p255.jhtm > l?id=0.1.18.14.21.22.16&lc=en) has an RMS-granularity of 5 (developed in > Technidol, of which I have a few bottles craving for film in the darkroom). > As far as I can figure out, the RMS-granularity is a standard deviation > (been confronted with rms-values more then a few times throughout my > education), but I don't know of what. There must be a link to the size of > film-grain, but to me it's still a missing link. Stop thinking and go shoot some frames. > My question is not so much wether, for my specific case, I should take in > account the 2-stop correction for DOF-data Hasselblad recommends. Most of > all I would like to understand why (of maybe why not) I should consider this > correction. See above. It's your art and your eye: decide for yourself. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > My question is not so much wether, for my specific case, I should take in > account the 2-stop correction for DOF-data Hasselblad recommends. Most of > all I would like to understand why (of maybe why not) I should consider this > correction. Hasselblad's article seems to make it clear: when closely scrutinizing the outcome or making large prints, the hyperfocal table does not work because it presumes a modest enlargement - a generous COC. Big prints or more strident standards requires a smaller COC. Benchracers. Sheesh. In rec.photo.darkroom Philippe Lauwers <NOSPAMphlauwers@tiscali.be> wrote: > Hello, > The last few weeks I've been shooting landscapes with a Hasselblad 503CW, > using a CFE 2.8/80 mm- lens and TMX. Now that I've finally decided on how to > build my compositions, I'm considering to start all over again using > Technical Pan. For most pictures, the lens is stopped down to f11 or more. My experience with Techpan is that it's very fine grain, but not optimum sharpness. There is a thing like "visible sharpness", and this isn't reflected in RMS values. I ususally shoot Delta 100 in medium format (mostly SL66 and Mamiya 7) and occasionally use Efke 25 in Beutler developer. These two films give very good visible sharpness, my test films with Techpan and Neofin Doku had finer grain, but less sharpness. Both cameras were used with a large Linhof tripod and MLU at the SL66. Both Delta 100 and Efke 25 are good enough for enlargements to >1mx1m, and even then smallest details of <1mm are easily visible. Good enough for me, if I want more, I use 13x18. Martin > My experience with Techpan is that it's very fine grain, but not optimum sharpness. > > There is a thing like "visible sharpness", and this isn't reflected in RMS > [...] I have the very same notion. Apparent ("visible") sharpness is made via edge effects, and a very fine, smooth grain isn't likely to have ot. "Creamy" is how I describe many fine-grain films. It's good, or not, depending on your likes. Oof the reasons I just friggin hate Kodak's T-Grain films is because it is the worst combination of 'kinda' fine grain without a chance of edge sharpness. >Oof the reasons I just friggin hate Kodak's T-Grain films is because >it is the worst combination of 'kinda' fine grain without a chance of edge >sharpness. Try TMX and Rodinal 1:100 for 19min at 70F Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email > Try TMX and Rodinal 1:100 for 19min at 70F Thanks, John. I will consider it when I finish off the Agfa APX. > > Try TMX and Rodinal 1:100 for 19min at 70F > > Thanks, John. I will consider it when I finish off the Agfa APX. Acutol and FP4 will obliterate TMX and Rodinal. > > > Try TMX and Rodinal 1:100 for 19min at 70F > > > > Thanks, John. I will consider it when I finish off the Agfa APX. > > Acutol and FP4 will obliterate TMX and Rodinal. The subject was how to get apparent (perceived) sharpness via edge effects from TM films. Acutol vs. Rodinal is a religious argument that I won't even entertain. > > john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs) wrote in message > news:<john-2104040110030001@m-0-135.docsis.hbci.com>... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > from TM films. Acutol vs. Rodinal is a religious argument that I won't even > entertain. TMX film, like other T-Max films, has poor edge sharpness. > > > john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs) wrote in message > > news:<john-2104040110030001@m-0-135.docsis.hbci.com>... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > TMX film, like other T-Max films, has poor edge sharpness. TM is crap. Pure and simple CRAP! But that's easy to see. Funny how many people's perception follow's Kodak's corporate literature rather than seeing with their own eyes. Who says the blind can't take pictures? > > "jjs" <nospam@please.xxx> wrote in message > news:<108d5uq9d2e3i20@news.supernews.com>... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > people's perception follow's Kodak's corporate literature rather than > seeing with their own eyes. Who says the blind can't take pictures? But I'm not the only one who's saying this! Anchell and Troop say it too! > TM is crap. Pure and simple CRAP! But that's easy to see. Funny how many > people's perception follow's Kodak's corporate literature rather than > seeing with their own eyes. Who says the blind can't take pictures? Even funnier perhaps how some people are unable, no matter how hard they try, to get very good results using a simple film like TMax, and then complain about others who do. > > TM is crap. Pure and simple CRAP! But that's easy to see. Funny how many > > people's perception follow's Kodak's corporate literature rather than [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > try, to get very good results using a simple film like TMax, and then > complain about others who do. I've yet to see a TMax image that has the certain characteristics I particularly like. That does not mean I've never seen a good image made with TMax. > > > TM is crap. Pure and simple CRAP! But that's easy to see. Funny how many > > > people's perception follow's Kodak's corporate literature rather than [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > particularly like. That does not mean I've never seen a good image made > with TMax. You mean, it's "CRAP!" because it's not the other film? Or was there something more substantial there? > You mean, it's "CRAP!" because it's not the other film? Or was there > something more substantial there? IMHO it is crap compared to, for example, the old Agfa APX 100 in Rodinal from 1:25 to 1:150, depending on contrast range. Grain has certain virtues. And I repeat, IMHO. But you knew this. Why do you ask? > > You mean, it's "CRAP!" because it's not the other film? Or was there > > something more substantial there? > > IMHO it is crap compared to, for example, the old Agfa APX 100 in Rodinal > from 1:25 to 1:150, depending on contrast range. Grain has certain > virtues. And I repeat, IMHO. Yes, in your honest opinion. In my opinion, Agfa films will not be missed when they're gone soon. But saying that is not quite the same as saying they are crap. And even less saying that people who do like Agfa films are blind, and idiots because they blindly believe whatever that company tells them to believe about their products. In my honest opinion, people who say things like that are ... Anyway, i don't see how adding "IMHO" helps. > > john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs) wrote in message > news:<john-2104040110030001@m-0-135.docsis.hbci.com>... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > from TM films. Acutol vs. Rodinal is a religious argument that I won't even > entertain. He was actually contemplating Tech Pan, not TMX. TMX was someone else's suggestion. Actually, Pan-F in Acutol 1+24 for 9 minutes should please anyone. > 'calculated for a blur circle of 60 µm and do nog include the > effect of lens aberrations. For very critical photography and great > enlargements this blur will be visible. You might look at it this way. Tech Pan is for two dimensional subjects. That was the reason for it's creation. No three dimensional subject will do Tech Pan justice. Minox and 35mm users love the stuff because big grainless enlargements can be made. With a very carefull selection of subject and superb optics they can produce large sharp prints. Dan RE: "Philippe Lauwers" <NOSPAMphlauwers@tiscali.be> You may wish to trade off shallow DOF for increased diffusion. I have'nt taken much notice of that but think out of focus conditions will much more blur an image than the effects of diffusion. BTW, Tech Pan has a normal spectral sensitivity but much extended at the red end. You probably knew that. Dan > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'll be trying to get the most out of my camera/film combination in terms of > detail, sharpness, ... F/11 won't get it, and Tech Pan won't get it. Use a medium-speed film like FP4 or TMX. Tech Pan won't give you good tonality, and the smallest apertures suffer from diffraction. > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Philippe I have 18 rolls of Tech Pan for sale. This is medium format 120 film. All expired 3/2004. I bought direct from a kodak dealer. it was kept in their refridgerator. Make offer. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.