Highest resolution 50 & 100 iso BW film

David Hughes said:
Ship photos?

Oh dear. I hope you are not thinking of (say) HMS Belfast at each aperture from some office building nearby...

Regards, David
Click to expand...

Ah, my days of looking out of my 15th floor window in Fenchurch Street down to the Belfast are long past. I suddenly realised the other day as I watched a Youtube short of the Battle of the River Plate film that I had never been on board the only surviving cruiser of the period. One day.

My targets have been much improved of late here in Plymouth by HMS Queen Elizabeth parking herself outside the breakwater. Problem is (and the story of my life) I need a bigger lens...

qe-1-of-1.jpg
 
Beemermark said:
That is very good and no doubt in the center. Edwin Putts had a discussion on testing (Leica) lenses using slow film. Bottom line it is really a challenge to obtain the maximum resolution. And then resolution is not the end all. It's resolution and contrast. early Leica lenses (pre 1980 or so) tended to be high resolution and lower contrast. Japanese SLR lenses like Nikon were higher contrast and lower resolution. Usually the Nikon lens looked "sharper". Yin and Yang
Click to expand...

This paradox occurs only where spherical aberration is limiting. Improved glass, design and the combination of aspherical and floating elements have overcome this, so we have high resolution and high contrast modern lenses.

Marty
 
CharlesDAMorgan said:
I suddenly realized the other day as I watched a Youtube short of the Battle of the River Plate film that I had never been on board the only surviving cruiser of the period. One day.

My targets have been much improved of late here in Plymouth by HMS Queen Elizabeth parking herself outside the breakwater. Problem is (and the story of my life) I need a bigger lens...
qe-1-of-1.jpg
Click to expand...

You don't really need a longer lens, that's a great shot. As an ex-Merchant Seamen and a degreed Mechanical Engineer I've had a long fascination with Battleships and have visited many in the US. I once read a book on Battleships that said they were the equivalent of the '60's space race. They cost unbelievable amounts of money, represented the latest technology, and every nation was trying to out do each other. The fact they were sunk in very short engagements with almost all lost seemed irrelevant to the country.
 
Personally if i really want exceptionally high resolution I'll use large format. But for this exercise I want to see what is possible with 35mm, which as a format offers an immense flexibility of lenses from fisheye to extreme telephoto.
 
Beemermark said:
You don't really need a longer lens, that's a great shot. As an ex-Merchant Seamen and a degreed Mechanical Engineer I've had a long fascination with Battleships and have visited many in the US. I once read a book on Battleships that said they were the equivalent of the '60's space race. They cost unbelievable amounts of money, represented the latest technology, and every nation was trying to out do each other. The fact they were sunk in very short engagements with almost all lost seemed irrelevant to the country.
Click to expand...

Thanks - compared to my normal quarry of frigates, yachts and patrol boats that ship is immense. That was shot on a 300mm, so I want to go a bit longer.

The battleship era was over in a blink of an eye in historical terms. My great grandfather ran away to sea when he was 12 in 1882. By dint of training in gunnery he became a master gunner, a rank that subsequently became a commissioned officer grade, and ended his career as a full Commander. Having retired, he returned to the Royal Navy in WW2. His career saw him take part in the suppression of the Boxer Rebellion, numerous colonial expeditions, WWI when he was torpedoed, and he served in every area of the world the Navy was present. By the time of his final retirement, the battleship era which had started no real time after his signing up, was over.

They were immense ships, I am jealous that the US has preserved some, we have none (there was a campaign to save HMS Warspite, but she eluded the scrappers for a long time in her own, pugnacious way. I've always had a sense I was born in the wrong era!
 
What's weird about lens resting is that every one goes on about centre and edge performance and then prints 10 x 8 which is really full frame 12 x 8 with the outer edges cut off...

Best not to worry about it and stick to f/5.6 or f/8 but it's nice to know what the lens will do once in a while.


Regards, David


PS And another vote for Ilford Delta.
 
Bill Clark said:
Well, the way I get higher resolution is using medium format film.
Click to expand...

Amazing that it took almost 2 weeks to state the obvious. Trying to squeeze every last line pair per mm from 35mm film is a pointless exercise unless you are a spy needing to sneak a tiny camera somewhere or need an enormous focal length lens to bring something very far away into view - which gives rise to a whole host of other issues wrt resolution.

An average MF setup shot at optimum aperture on a tripod will beat a $10k Leica in resolution every day.
 
This all rather reminds me of tuning discussions. There ain't no replacement for displacement vs making the best of what you've got, fitting a turbo or supercharger etc, when what you've asked is should I run my car on 97 Ron or 98 Ron.

In my case, my Linhof 4x5 is what I choose if I'm after getting a much bigger negative, and I'm sure someone will be along to say 8x10 etc. I'm not certain if we'll end up at the Hubble space telescope but give it time.

It wasn't the question I asked, as I am playing around with 35mm lenses, which is what I wish to test. With tons of time on my hands, and no access to print, I'm having a play, that is all.
 
Developed my first roll of HR50 (Leica Summilux R 80mm f1.4) using the HR50 and boy, this is sharp stuff. As expected my scanner is the limiting factor (plus the usual compression online), but even so the detail is incredible.

whealcoates3-1-of-1.jpg
 
Is that first image (post #33) full frame, or a full-rez crop? And then second one at 200%?

I'm not trying to be judgmental, but if that's the full image and then a crop, I'm rather confused. Are you scanning on an office scanner not meant for film?
 
ultra8 said:
I love your own test laboratory! Where did I read that again? :cool:
Click to expand...

You can't have read anything in that regard. Because I don't own a 'test laboratory'. And therefore I have never written that.

But there are lots of photographers doing their own tests including resolution tests. We are doing quite regularly meetings with rff members, and over the years five rff members have presented their test results with also resolution, sharpness, grain tests included at the meetings. And comparisons to digital cameras.

At my local photo club there are also several photographers active in that area. It isn't rare at all. In photo magazines lots of articles about it including user guidances and tipps have been published as well.

Cheers, Jan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom