Minox EC DoF

[mh2000]

After almost 20 years of not shooting any Minox cameras, I suddenly have the urge. I've been out shooting my IIIs, but haven't developed anything yet. But while enjoying the IIIs, I'm kind of getting the itch to shoot some film in my old EC. Back in the day, I shot my EC pretty much as a "snap shooter" only and kept it loaded with grainy 400 speed film. This go around, I'm looking to take more serious photos with the hope of getting "fine art"quality *small* prints. I know what Minox claims the DoF of the camera is, but I know for critical work, that the camera isn't good for anything near 1meter-infinity. Has anyone done any tests to establish more realistic bounds? The math nerd in me may have done the calcs 20 years ago, but I forget. Also, I have found nothing with google. For what I'm doing, I'm fine working within constraints, and maybe look forward to it! If no one knows anything better, I guess I'll start out shooting between 4.5-15ft. Thanks!

 

[Pál_K]

My photo library has about 5 or 6 Minox-dedicated books and I seem to recall at least one DOF table. I'll take a peek tomorrow when I get a chance.

I know people have made passable 8x10's, and certainly 5x7's, but I have no such resources for prints or scans like that.

That said, I have actually got acceptable photos with my IIIs and B (also have a II and III). But be aware the only way I've seen my results are by lab-processed prints (the print's image area is only a mere 2"x3"). This is from split TMAX 400 or Ektar 100 stock.

I made a series of portraits of co-workers, but spontaneously guessed at distances rather than create a stilted awkward moment by using the chain. Of all the shots, about 2/3 of my shots were more than good enough regarding sharpness (on a 2"x3" print) and two were surprisingly sharp (a co-workers badge-strap around his neck had writing on it about 1/8" tall [actual size] and all the writing on that dinky print was sharp!). He was about 3' away when I made the photo - luck.

However, on another forum years ago, I saw B&W Minox prints (possibly using Adox film) which were astonishing in their sharpness. The camera is certainly capable of producing very good results.

It helps to have the clever tripod, too.

 

[mh2000]

Thanks! I know it's all subjective which is why I was asking for other people's experiences/opinions, but I couldn't help myself going through the maths this morning...

So using the Zeiss Formula for CoC and assuming the camera is preset focused at 2M:

DoF 4-20 ft (using "traditional" Zeiss Formula)
DoF 4.5-12 ft (using "modern" Zeiss Formula)

so I think my estimate of 4.5-15ft was pretty good (I think we're more sensitive to foreground being out of focus).

During a recent move, I had to pack up (and review) more than 3000 traditional Minox prints that I had made in the past. Many of the 4x5" prints were pretty stellar! 5x7"s were around the largest ones I could consistently produce with good film, but were limited more by dust/scratches/film scum etc. I used to use Tech Pan in my classic Minox (IIIs, B and C), but kept the EC loaded with mostly Tri-X and went with the grainy snapshot aesthetic.

In this age of digital large prints, I'm after adding the "dearness" and nostalgia of small hand crafted traditional prints... always driven to create *something*.

 

[Pál_K]

Your experience with the larger prints certainly exceeds mine - I am reliant on mailing film to an out-of-state lab for processing and printing (Blue Moon).

I may try scanning, but I have no printer at all - and I really do like having prints.

The DOF indicators on the focus scale have always seemed optimistic to me. It all depends on the CoC chosen, doesn't it, and perhaps our viewpoint on this has changed over time - hence the new Zeiss formula?

 

[Godfrey]

After almost 20 years of not shooting any Minox cameras, I suddenly have the urge. I've been out shooting my IIIs, but haven't developed anything yet. But while enjoying the IIIs, I'm kind of getting the itch to shoot some film in my old EC. Back in the day, I shot my EC pretty much as a "snap shooter" only and kept it loaded with grainy 400 speed film. This go around, I'm looking to take more serious photos with the hope of getting "fine art"quality *small* prints. I know what Minox claims the DoF of the camera is, but I know for critical work, that the camera isn't good for anything near 1meter-infinity. Has anyone done any tests to establish more realistic bounds? The math nerd in me may have done the calcs 20 years ago, but I forget. Also, I have found nothing with google. For what I'm doing, I'm fine working within constraints, and maybe look forward to it! If no one knows anything better, I guess I'll start out shooting between 4.5-15ft. Thanks!

Hmm. I thought I'd responded on this thread..?

The Minox DOF listings assume a different target print size as reference than most 35mm and other cameras. Walter Zapp's notion for the Minox was to make prints that were about 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 inches in size, about 50% less magnification than the usually accepted 8x10 inch reference print, so the Minox EC rated for 1m to infinity is about right, if that's the size print you want to make.

However, on a computer display that's a pretty small image these days and will likely prove unsatisfactory. What I find when shooting with the Minox EC is that the zone from about 5' to 12' nets best sharpness for good 6x8 inch printed area, presuming a good negative with minimal camera movement and a good, high resolution scan printed to 240ppi or higher.

Running it through my 'scan sizing' spreadsheet, to make a 6x8 inch print area from a Minox negative means a magnification of 19 diameters. To obtain that level of detail from a scan for printing at 300ppi, you need an effective scan resolution of 4.3 Megapixels. If you have four times that Megapixel value, you can get even sharper appearing results by downsize-interpolation ... effectively multi-sampling the negative data.

The Minox scanning*setup I show in Minox 8x11 Film Scan Setup 2020 nets about 19Mpixel resolution and allows good quality 6x8" prints from Minox C or EC negatives. This one that I made Fall 2019 during a Photo Walk event in San Francisco makes a fine 6x8 inch print (I print 6x8 inch onto 8.5x11" paper with wide borders) from the Minox EC:

Minox EC, Minopan 100 (Agfa APX100)​

There are a couple of other Minox EC captures in the Photo Walk SF 2019 set that also print very nicely to that size, all captured this same way. The ones that look best almost always have the primary subject matter in the 5-12 foot zone, at least to my eye. 🙂

G

 

[mh2000]

Very nice image, Godfrey! I got most the stuff together to make a "scanning" setup similar to yours years ago, but then HP discontinued their beautiful b&w inkset I was using in my large format printer so I more or less abandoned digital b&w printing and threw myself into digital color images/prints.

There is still a quality to my traditional chemical prints that still attracts me though... emotionally the prints still read more as a nostalgic "artifacts" than a quality digital print... so more or less a tangential excursion and I have to think if I even want to go the scan to print route or just make chem minox prints and scan prints.

My current plan is to stick to little 3.75x5" prints (1/4" border) to give a final aspect ratio very close to 8:11. But I used the Zeiss Formula as a start because after all the assumptions, people generally get closer to look at the fine details in small prints. It agrees very well with your findings!

Pál_K, it was years ago, but in my one test with Bluemoon, I wasn't all that excited with their results. If memory serves, they said they used a standard processor setup for 35mm film, got the best scan they could and then threw a warmtone curve on their b&w images because they couldn't make neutral prints. I tried them for some C-41 b&w film.

 

[Pál_K]

...
Pál_K, it was years ago, but in my one test with Bluemoon, I wasn't all that excited with their results. If memory serves, they said they used a standard processor setup for 35mm film, got the best scan they could and then threw a warmtone curve on their b&w images because they couldn't make neutral prints. I tried them for some C-41 b&w film.

Although they don't have a dedicated Minox enlarger, the resolution of the Minox prints I've got from them in the last few years has been decent - at one point I used a microscope at work to compare what I saw on the negative to what I saw on the print and was pleasantly surprised to see how well fine detail came through in the print (I tend to look at lettering on distant buildings or street signs).

I dislike the warm tone they use on B&W, but you can also ask for cold tone prints. It has a bit of bluish tinge to it - you don't get the lovely deep blacks - but it's much more appealing than warm tone.

 

[mh2000]

Although they don't have a dedicated Minox enlarger, the resolution of the Minox prints I've got from them in the last few years has been decent - at one point I used a microscope at work to compare what I saw on the negative to what I saw on the print and was pleasantly surprised to see how well fine detail came through in the print (I tend to look at lettering on distant buildings or street signs).

I dislike the warm tone they use on B&W, but you can also ask for cold tone prints. It has a bit of bluish tinge to it - you don't get the lovely deep blacks - but it's much more appealing than warm tone.

Good to hear! Also, it's great that they offer the services! Even though I plan on doing the printing myself, most people don't want to do this, so it is their dedication that keeps the tradition going when otherwise it could die!