Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Seth Rossman" 
<seth@m...> wrote:
> Sorry, folks, I just HAVE to agree with Austin on this.

Keep in mind that as you go up in format lens quality tends to go 
down, just 'cause it's really hard to make a good lens to cover that 
much film real estate.   There are plenty of 35mm camera lenses that 
can resolve 90 lp/mm, for instance, whereas a 2-1/4 camera lens that 
resolves 70 lp/mm is considered quite good.   60 lp/mm is considered 
quite good for a 4X5 lens, and I've seen some 4x5 lenses that were 
lots worse.

On the other hand, notice that lens quality goes down slower than 
format goes up, so the larger format should still have more 
resolving power.   Thus I suspect the original poster really IS out 
to lunch, but we can't rule out that he's using a Really Bad 4x5 
lens, not to mention Really Bad experimental design.


 
> (My Coolpix can do that too--so??)
> 
> It's just an incomplete argument. In a Sinar view camera with a 
Schneider
> lens --or what? 
> 
> I am NOT arguing film vs. digital, or anything close. Just 
incomplete data
> as a basis for theories of fact.
> 
> Seth
> 
> =From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@i...] 
> =Claude,
> =
> => I just printed a 13x19 Piezo print from a Sigma XD-9 sensor in 
a 
> => $1,500 Sigma camera from a $250 macro lens that IN THE PRINT 
shows 
> => more micro detail than
> => I could ever get from a 4x5 TriX optical print.
> =
> =Good grief, you make me laugh.  This is simply a foolish 
> =statement, and I can't imagine how you expect anyone to take 
> =you seriously.  I don't mean to be mean here, but you just say 
> =things that have no basis in reality.  What did you do to the 
> =poor Tri-X 4x5 to make it come out so horribly?  I absolutely 
> =know my 35mm Tri-X gives FAR more detail than the Signal SD-9, 
> =which is what I assume you meant.
> =