how much resolution ...

[ferider]

Hi Paul; I’ll assume your question to be as nebulous as it reads.

I’ll address this to Roland, as I think he knows more about the technical side of photography than I do.

Roland, please help me out here: How many pixels, or photo sites (4 pixels 1B, 1R, 2G you choose - and translate to digital) - does a fine grain film like Fuji Acros (35mm) have? How many silver grains are in a frame of Acros?

If you don't mind, I'll just refer you to a couple of links, PKR:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/better-light.shtml

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/ProfessionalFilmDataGuide.pdf

Etc.

Roland, I would be particularly interested in your opinion of the following: Much of the techno tweaking we see in posts here have little to do with making good photographs, given fairly modern equipment, film or digital. I think (and this is risky here on RFF) that most who are truly interested in photography, would better spend their time learning photo technique than worrying if the image quality of their new $1K lens might be inferior to another model. If it’s photographs you’re after, go out and use the stuff you have and make photographs. With the high ISOs possible with new digital gear + AF, worrying about a one stop difference in lens speed is rarely necessary (in 95% of cases). All of our current gear is good enough.

Not sure if and why my post above came across as "Techno Pixel BS" or "techno tweaking", PKR. It was a mathematical/physics answer to Paul's question.

I actually fully agree with you, in the sense that most gear is good enough for good photos. But I also believe that a passion for math & physics, photographic gear, gear history, and love for photography can coexist, similar to, say, knowledge of chemistry, owning a good knife set, and liking to cook for friends.

I own plenty of gear. However, I have no modern, high-performance lenses, shoot film and develop myself. My favorite film/developer combo is APX100 in Rodinal due to the grain that it produces. Please check out the link in my signature. As an amateur, my results are modest, but hopefully my love for photography comes through in some of the photos. And of course, I'm interested in your feedback.

Best,

Roland.

 

[icebear]

... does it take to make a point?

Just one : --> . 😉

 

[Matus]

Well - I like to have 'true' (non extrapolated) 360 ppi if possible. In particular for smaller (A4 or less) sized prints or gets quickly obvious if one extrapolates (in particular digital capture).

For large prints that are viewed from larger distance a good looking print may require much less than 360 ppi. But that of course also depends on the subject.

 

[konicaman]

I am totally confused here. Could someone please point me in the right direction...

 

[Teuthida]

I am totally confused here....

You're not confused, you're irresolute.

 

[paulfish4570]

"All of our current gear is good enough."

indeed!

 

[Teuthida]

"All of our current gear is good enough."

indeed!

So why do we keep chasing newer technology?

 

[konicaman]

You're not confused, you're irresolute.

You might have a point there, or maybe not - I can't really make up my mind...

 

[robklurfield]

I resolve to make no more points.

 

[venchka]

"All of our current gear is good enough."

indeed!

AYE! And has been for a century PLUS! 😀

Wayne

 

[charjohncarter]

So why do we keep chasing newer technology?

Some of us don't. I chase older technology (but rarely), and I'm perfectly happy doing it.

 

[mwooten]

you need enough

 

[Richard G]

I just bought a TLR, not just for greater resolution. I always find the original CT scanner images very moving, such an amazing transformation of medicine. The original EMI scan pictures were no more than 80 x 80 pixels. You see the individual pixels, zig-zagging the skull surface. We now have better, but back then it was enough, a miracle.

http://bjr.birjournals.org/content/79/937/5/F5.expansion.html

 

[Roger Hicks]

AYE! And has been for a century PLUS! 😀

Wayne

Dear Wayne,

Hmmm.... Not sure about that. There are very few cameras from 1910 or earlier that I'd care to use for the great majority of the sort of photography I do.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . I think the problem with lots of photo folks with a lot of camera gear is they have nothing to say. So, rather than take pictures, they exchange Tech BS about their gear. If you’re serious about photography, a visit to a gallery or museum to look Art might be of more value than a visit to the camera store.

Or indeed to Arles, which is why I go there every year. For that matter, there were some pretty amazing exhibitions at photokina this year.

Cheers,

R.

 

[lynnb]

My earlier comment about circles of confusion was light hearted, but also serious. To resolve a point you need circles of confusion (CoC) that are smaller then the eye's ability to resolve. The size of the CoC depends on lens acuity, focus, media, and degree of enlargement.

 

[venchka]

Dear Wayne,

Hmmm.... Not sure about that. There are very few cameras from 1910 or earlier that I'd care to use for the great majority of the sort of photography I do.

Cheers,

R.

Cameras? Perhaps not. Lenses? Absolutely! I treasure my circa 1906-1907 Voigtländer & Sohn, Braunschweig Collinear II 8" lens.
I also treasure and use cameras & lenses from the late 40s & early 50s. Others do as well, given the prices of the 1950s Nikkor lenses, etc.

Wayne

 

[Roger Hicks]

Cameras? Perhaps not. Lenses? Absolutely! I treasure my circa 1906-1907 Voigtländer & Sohn, Braunschweig Collinear II 8" lens.
I also treasure and use cameras & lenses from the late 40s & early 50s. Others do as well, given the prices of the 1950s Nikkor lenses, etc.

Wayne

Dear Wayne,

Sure. But the 40s and 50s (or even 30s -- I love my Thambar) are well under 100 years ago.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Peter_wrote:]

... does it take to make a point?

exactly 1 dpi of course.

 

[Roger Hicks]

exactly 1 dpi of course.

Nope. As soon as it has dimensions, it ain't a point.

Cheers,

R.