Film + sharpness?

[bhop73]

Can one film brand/speed be sharper or less sharp than another brand/speed? Or is sharpness all in the lens?

I shot a couple rolls of Fuji Superia 800 (supermarket film) and the roll just doesn't seem as sharp as the Kodak Portra 400 that I shot last week. Same camera, same lens. I wonder if more grain in the 800 film is making it "seem" less sharp. Or consumer film vs pro film.

 

[amateriat]

From my POV, it's an apples-to-oranges thing comparing these two film types. I've used both, and loved both, and both are pretty sharp to my eye.

You didn't mention the conditions under which you made this observation. Shooting conditions, involving differing shutter speeds, type of lighting, DOF and such, can have a noticeable effect on results here. Shooting 400 "when you wish you had 800" is a big deal, too. And, are we comparing the old Portra 400 to Superia 800, or the newer, finer-grain Portra 400?

It's all alchemy...


- Barrett

 

[Chris101]

Are you looking at prints or at scans made under controlled conditions? Prints can vary widely in sharpness, as can scans. Usually a film with more grain will appear sharper than one with less. Development (at least with B&W) also affects sharpness (or as they call it in the film world, acuity.)

Consumer vs pro is not about the sharpness or other inherent quality, but about consistency and predictability in sensitivity and color casting. In order to maintain that consistent predictability, pro film must be stored under the recommended conditions and used before expiration. Consumer film isn't controlled to that tight of a specification to begin with, and so it often lasts well beyond expiration, even when stored haphazardly.

 

[bhop73]

It's all new film, bought within the past couple weeks. Developing and scanning was done at Target one hour lab. So i'm looking at the scans. Yes I know it's no pro lab, but it's been consistent so far and i've been very happy with the results (i've dropped off about 7 or 8 rolls) as far as scans, but something just seems 'off' with this last roll, which is Superia 800. It just doesn't seem as sharp on average as the past rolls i've dropped off, which were probably a combination of different films.

I've done a few scans with my own scanner (Epson 4490) on this Superia roll for comparison, and it still just doesn't feel as sharp to me as the past few. My shots are all just walking around the streets, mostly during daylight hours.

I did notice there was a new kid working in the photo lab.. wonder if that has anything to do with it?

Oh well, the roll wasn't horribly soft, the pics are still more than useable, but I was just curious if film brand can make a difference.

 

[amateriat]

Yes, there can be differences, but processing and scanning variables can have a sizable influence, and this can't be ignored.

And, as mentioned before, an ISO 800 film will allow you to do things an ISO 400 film won't, so comparisons can be very tricky.

Jeslyn, Greenpoint, Brooklyn, c. 2003

(Technical: Hexar RF, 28mm f/2.8 M-Hexanon, Fuji Pro 800)


- Barrett

 

[bhop73]

an ISO 800 film will allow you to do things an ISO 400 film won't

Yeah, that's why I like shooting 800 speed, because my shooting time varies from daylight to night, depending on if it's a work day or not. I can throw on my polarizer or ND filter to stop it down a little for daylight shots, and take it off when it's not so much light.

 

[35mmdelux]

The slower the film the sharper the perception.

 

[dovevadar]

yes. theres a diff of course. tech-pan has very fine grain hence the lenses are able to resolve more details on it. Superia is a high speed film and I do not think it can resolve a sharp as for example a velvia 50 or a ektar 100. Portra has ultra fine grains as well and thats why its a professional film.

Some things to note that affects sharpness:
1. optic (lpm, coating etc...)
2. aperture shot
3. film type (slide should be sharper than negative I supposed?)
4. scanner (my V700 is near, but an Imacom drum scanner will bring out all the details)
5. post-process (lightroom, photoshop, capture one etc...)

 

[amateriat]

The slower the film the sharper the perception.

And this isn't a slow-speed-versus-high-speed-versus-higher-speed argument, just an acknowledgement that it's good to have capable films of a lot of speeds. That I could have a film that let me take a picture like that without wincing at the quality, or struggling over color rendition (or needing the fastest lens in creation), is still amazing to me.


- Barrett

 

[Roger Hicks]

Sharpness and resolution aren't the same thing -- and neither is directly related to fine grain.

Sharpness is the clarity of the boundary between a light area and a dark area. Obviously it can be fuzzy or sharp.

Resolution is the number of alternating light and dark areas that can be resolved in a given length (usually lp/mm = line pairs, one black, one white, per millimetre).

Yes, there can be large differences between different films, even at the same speed, and in black and white, developers have very significant effects on all three.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[flip]

For some reason, the book, Edge of Darkness is whispering to me....
That book, in the context of B&W, explores just that notion of which Roger speaks. A bit dry for those of us without space for a darkroom, but it certainly puts to rest the idea that 25 will be sharper (in perception) than 400.