400 lp/mm on film!

[bmattock]

It's just good to know good companies are making lenses better and better. Bill, I think the Spur film they used is new stuff; if that's the case then no, it isn't Agfa. Regardless, the point is they needed it to test the resolution of the lens, which they couldn't do with digital. That's all the news release was about, really.

As for me, I'm just glad lenses like the new Zeiss lenses are available, giving me another choice, whether I stick it on a film M body or an R-D1.

Oh, I agree. If the film is new, I welcome it. I'd like to know more about it, like where it is made and by whom (meaning in what factory) - another welcome resource. I'm not sure what role this film fills commercially, but obviously it is great if lenses get better and this proves it.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[peterc]

I think it's just good to see a couple of companies (Zeiss/Cosina and Leitz) are still pushing for lens perfection, considering a lot of the stuff being passed off as good lenses these days.

Peter

 

[peterc]

If the film is new, I welcome it.

It's slow (ISO16 to 20), but the spec sheet says it's capable of 800 lp/mm and

With the new SPUR Nanospeed UR Developer, which makes possible a completely flawless development of this film, it can also be used in pictorial photography.

Which is available from J&C .

Peter

 

[desmo]

hey, i'm an old fart too, a grandad no less.
my sig quote was just a laugh, i don't take myself too seriously as you might tell from the picture.

Good points, Desmo. But then look at my signature to see my bias!

(I'm not so sure I agree with your signature line, though.)

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I do what I do because I want to. I guess I would be more interested in winning the film/digital debate if I knew what the prize was. So far nobody can tell me.

I agree, wholeheartedly. It's as useful as getting into a debate of wearing briefs vs boxers. Some do neither.

I, personally, like chocolate.

 

[desmo]

gigabit film is kinda irrelevant unless you have a lens and flat film plane plus extreme enlarger lens to match the resolution through the process.

I too use digital for my pro work but only for convenience not for quality. Its 'good enough' for what I do and my customers need nothing more.

However, I love prints and still make 20x24" prints on good paper (and even bigger 24x36)).

Digital might one day catch up to my Cambo Wide 5x4 loaded with Delta 100 but not at a cost I'm prepared to pay. Amateurs are never really likely to need such a digital so there would not be the economy of scale to bring prices down (ie, think about the RD1).

As I said to yossarian on the side, in the end its not about the film, the camera or the lens, its about the minds eye and photgraphers vision.

Robert Capa, Ansel Adams, Weegee, and any other famous photographer you can name are not famous because they used digital or film, they are famous because they took outstanding photographs with what they had to work with.

 

[bmattock]

It's slow (ISO16 to 20), but the spec sheet says it's capable of 800 lp/mm and

Which is available from J&C .

Peter

Peter,

Consider me a stickler for details. J&C doesn't 'make' any film as far as I know. I'd like to know where it is manufactured and by whom. Perhaps only important to me. I had a long discussion offline with a gentleman who insisted that the local supermarket 'makes' their own brand of film in a factory they must own somewhere. Um, ok. If it is Agfa Copex, then I suspect it is no longer made? If it is not, then ???

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[desmo]

I really think there IS a prize but its not one you and I will 'win'.

Film cameras had become so good that camera sales were dropping and manufacturers were worried (why buy the new Nikon F27 when the old F4 took equally good photos and never broke down?).
Digital is a godsend for manufacturers as it locks the devotee into just the same nonsense as computer CPU speeds with annual redundancies and keeping up with the Jones's.

Those digital manufacturers who got in quick are making a killing and really, that's what is driving the market, not quality.

I do what I do because I want to. I guess I would be more interested in winning the film/digital debate if I knew what the prize was. So far nobody can tell me.

 

[bmattock]

gigabit film is kinda irrelevant unless you have a lens and flat film plane plus extreme enlarger lens to match the resolution through the process.

Granted, and I know you didn't bring up Gigabit, but it was brought up in the thread, and I presumed the point was that it was the same stuff.

I too use digital for my pro work but only for convenience not for quality. Its 'good enough' for what I do and my customers need nothing more.

Precisely. "Good enough" is a much-maligned concept, but the fact is that it is used in every field. I can't crop anywhere near as deeply into an image from my DSLR as I can a scanned frame of 35mm film and still be able to print at 8x10, but most of my clients would never want an enlargement bigger than my DSLR is capable of easily delivering. And I have no need to remove dust specks, scratches, etc, so my workflow is very rapid.

However, I love prints and still make 20x24" prints on good paper (and even bigger 24x36)).

I never have, but I long for the day when one of my photos is worthy of being printed that large.

Digital might one day catch up to my Cambo Wide 5x4 loaded with Delta 100 but not at a cost I'm prepared to pay. Amateurs are never really likely to need such a digital so there would not be the economy of scale to bring prices down (ie, think about the RD1).

I entirely agree. Unless there is a breakthrough that makes extreme resolution as cheap to manufacture as lower resolutions, in which case we might see it as a lower-cost option to consumer cams.

As I said to yossarian on the side, in the end its not about the film, the camera or the lens, its about the minds eye and photgraphers vision.

And I buy that too. I take it a step further and say that it is the final product that matters, since ultimately it is not the artist but the viewer who decides if the image is worthy or not.

Robert Capa, Ansel Adams, Weegee, and any other famous photographer you can name are not famous because they used digital or film, they are famous because they took outstanding photographs with what they had to work with.

Again, I agree. Perhaps I misunderstood the entire thread - if so, I apologize. I thought I was reading a film vs digital thread with an anti-digital bias - SPUR being carried forward like a banner to victory.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[desmo]

The Definitive Answer!

The Definitive Answer!

Look at these two images from my gallery (digital and 35mm neg):

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=29003&what=allfields&name=desmo
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=25675&what=allfields&name=desmo

which one is 'best'?

answer on next post......................................

 

[bmattock]

I really think there IS a prize but its not one you and I will 'win'.

Film cameras had become so good that camera sales were dropping and manufacturers were worried (why buy the new Nikon F27 when the old F4 took equally good photos and never broke down?).
Digital is a godsend for manufacturers as it locks the devotee into just the same nonsense as computer CPU speeds with annual redundancies and keeping up with the Jones's.

Those digital manufacturers who got in quick are making a killing and really, that's what is driving the market, not quality.

Yes, but not entirely, IMHO. The zoom lens wars have a hand in this - digital is an extension and offshoot of this, not that it was planned that way, but it dovetails in nicely. From the 1970's, when the first less expensive zooms appeared, it was one new feature after another, keeping people buying new lenses.

The new paradigm, is, as you have said, that one must essentially throw away their investment in pro DSLR kit every couple of years and reinvest - build quality goes out the window.

But I can also see that there is little to be gained by manufacturers to create a high-quality DSLR right now while the megapixel wars are in full swing. They pause to create a DSLR worthy of keeping around, and get passed by on the way to 24 MP image sensors. They have to hit and git to stay in the battle.

Things may change a bit once we reach an acceptable level of image quality - then we might see some catch-up in the form of higher physical quality manufacture. We'll see, though.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[desmo]

re the definitive answer

re the definitive answer

the answer is of course neither, one is only better if the viewer likes it more and the camera used to capture them is not relevant at all to the viewer.

 

[matti]

In this post I posted a 100% crop from my minolta 5400 scanner of a bw Tri-x negative. This is not a 100 asa film, of course. But I think the resolving of the grain is quite good. It looks like this scanner would be able to resolve 100 l/mm to my eye. But that is far from 400 l/mm, of course...
/matti

 

[matti]

Yes. With Tri-x I think the best thing is to try to get nice looking sharp grain and not the fuzz my old flat bed scanner gave. That anoyed me more than not resolving details due to the overall unsharp images.
Impressive to print 20''! I do want to try that sometime.
/matti