![]() If you go to web sites with names like "I still love film" you will find "conclusive" proof that film is more detailed. I have always presumed that film grain particles are much, much smaller than digital sensor pixels, and as such the resolution of film is much higher than that of pixels? Generally, the lower resolution of film concealed the diffraction at normal working distances. See the book by H Lou Gibson for details. That would reveal diffraction, if you were looking for it.ĭiffraction was certainly a known problem in macro work. For example the Cambo Actus bellows.Īnother obvious issue is that modern digital photographers frequently examine their images at 100%, and so may be much more sensitive to diffraction than was common in the day when only a loupe was used on film negatives, and when prints were evaluated at a reasonable distance.Ī grain magnifier was used when printing, to get critical focus. You can still apply movements with the right equipment. Or maybe they are trying to maximize depth of field - often far more than needed - without an understanding of the limitation due to diffraction. I see a considerable number of beginners on these forums using f/22 on an APS-C or Micro Four Thirds cameras when shooting landscapes, perhaps because that is an f/stop used by the old references. Especially if they learn photography from old books where medium- or large-format photography is assumed, they may very well use aperture settings far tighter than their sensor sizes and subject matter require. Many advanced beginner photographers may learn about the use of aperture in depth of field and the hyperfocal distance technique, but they may apply them poorly. Just recently became aware of the concept of diffraction, and so will appreciate your patience and replies.!!ĭiffraction will have the same absolute width at any given f/stop, no matter the size of the sensor or film, but this will be proportionally smaller the larger the film. Old cameras had tricks to maximize depth of field which are no longer available to us today with digital photography: the large bellows cameras allowed the lens to be adjusted independently of the film, with tilts, which allowed skewing the plane of focus which allows for a lesser aperture setting than otherwise would have been needed.įilm grain also gives a greater impression of sharpness even if there is diffraction softening, although artificial sharpening in digital photography is easy to do but is often underutilized, especially by beginners.Īnother obvious issue is that modern digital photographers frequently examine their images at 100%, and so may be much more sensitive to diffraction than was common in the day when only a loupe was used on film negatives, and when prints were evaluated at a reasonable distance. Or maybe they are trying to maximize depth of field - often far more than needed - without an understanding of the limitation due to diffraction. ![]() I see a considerable number of beginners on these forums using f/22 on an APS-C or Micro Four Thirds cameras when shooting landscapes, perhaps because that is an f/stop used by the old references. Many advanced beginner photographers may learn about the use of aperture in depth of field and the hyperfocal distance technique, but they may apply them poorly. He was a founding member of Group f/64, which as the name suggests, promoted the use of great depth of field in images, but f/64 on an 8x10 inch negative is only equivalent to f/8 or f/9 on 35 mm, which is less than many routinely shoot when doing landscapes, and that usually doesn't generate too much diffraction. At any given f/stop, the effects of diffraction are going to smaller as a percentage of film width with a larger format.įor example, Ansel Adam's most famous image of Half Dome was taken at f/22, but the film size was so large that it had about the same amount of diffraction as would a 35 mm sensor at about f/4. I'm not sure that diffraction was as much of an issue with film photography as it is today, and a few reasons pop into mind:įilm cameras historically used larger formats than modern digital sensors, with smaller film formats only becoming fashionable towards the end of the film era. I'm wondering how strong a sharpness-degrading factor lens diffraction would be in a film camera?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |