Hacker News Reader

Comment by galago | Hacker News Reader

I shoot large (4x5) and medium format film. I think that the 'resolution' is complicated by the entire workflow. He's using a very old lens with a very imprecise camera and imprecise film. The images should probably described as 'smooth' rather than necessarily high resolution. The old lens provides extraordinary sharpness in the center, but is soft on the edges.

That said, even with 6cmx6cm film negatives I feel like I often cannot really use the detail available. That is, unless I'm printing very large photos in a film-only workflow I don't really see all the detail. My scanner seems to be limited by the ability to keep the film flat rather than the actual scanning sensor. I don't usually bother scanning higher than 50MP.

View on HN

This is absolutely the right answer. Too often, internet arguments about the merits of various formats devolve to more film/sensor == more resolution, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Case in point: I once mounted a 150mm large format lens into a cardboard box and taped some Provia 100 inside the box opposite the lens. The resulting image takes up a huge amount of film (roughly 6cm x 17cm), but despite having a decent lens, the resulting image isn't all that great... of course, a cardboard box can't keep the lens square to the box, sucks at keeping the film flat, and even if you managed to get a perfect exposure it's very hard to keep a large negative (positive in this case) flat enough to get a decent dry scan.

(Here's the image, BTW: https://www.flickr.com/photos/shivatron/2384597928 .)

I think you need to do wet scanning to really get the detail beyond ~40 MP.

Wet mounting will only help if the scanner focus can be optimized. I've got a Epson V750, and _if_ everything is just right, you can get a very good scan, but still noticeably short of what a drum scan will give you.

When I print my MF or 4x5 images, I don't really worry about 'all the detail', since as you say, you'd need a pretty big print to really see them. I'm just happy if they look nice and sharp on the wall.

I have to give mad props to the guys still doing collodion--that is way above my pay grade, as they say. And I don't want to carry glass plates on my bike. I try to limit the toxicness of the chemistry I have in the house as much as can, but I still like doing the lab work--it is satisfying to me in a way that no digital process is ever going to be.

I particularly like the photo of the chemicals (including one in a bottle marked by hand with "XXX"), which includes a bottle of whiskey...

You might be amazed; printing above the industry-standard 300ppi can give you a picture you can never get close enough too, but even at more reasonable viewing distances you can tell the difference in acutance. 480 ppi is a good value for the current crop of Epsons (you'd need a RIP and a lot of farting around to do better, but you can get up to 720). It's sort of like the difference between a contact print and an optical print at the same size; there's no more detail as such at a typical viewing distance, but the edges of the details you can see are sharper.

As for the scanner, if you don't really need a car, you can always get a Flextight. (They really are that good, but they really are too expensive nonetheless.)

I'm aware of the affect of dpi on the print. Sure, I suppose I could also get a second-hand drum scanner, too; sometimes you can get them for cheap. A Flextight is nice but it still a CCD scanner, it is not going to match a PMT.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com