Diffraction effects on medium format cameras
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 08. 2024
- Whilst I'm generally not bothered too much by the absolute sharpness of my images I do like to know if the lenses I'm using perform well at various apertures.
In this video I shoot at f/22 in my local forest and explain why I'm happy to do so with this camera.
Equipment Used
Bronica SQA-i
Velbon 655 tripod with Manfrotto MG460 head
Ilford XP2 Super
Preview App
Mark II Artists Viewfinder (iOS only on the App Store)
Vlogging Equipment
GoPro Hero 10 and Rode Smart Lav
iPhone 12Pro
Etsy Shop
steveonionspho...
Contact Details
Email: steveonions1@gmail.com Twitter: Steve_ONions / steve_onions Instagram: steveonions1 / steveonions1
That first photograph with the yellow filter, stopped down aperture and square format is absolutely excellent ! Thank you
Thanks Richard 🙂
Just dropping in to say thanks for your channel, Steve. You’re by far my favourite photographer on CZcams, and I always leave with a thumbs up usually thinking, “What a lad!” - I really admire your approach and motivation, not least your style. So, thanks again for sharing your knowledge in the way you do. It’s much appreciated 🙂
Thanks Ben, that’s very kind of you to say 😊
Thank you so much for all your wonderful videos I not only learn a lot with every video but I find them very enjoyable and inspiring.
Thank you George, that’s very kind of you 😊
"Sharp enough for me..." Spot on! And of course much depends on the print size. When I was shooting film forty years ago diffraction was something to be aware of, but not necessarily something to worry about. Out of focus is nearly always more detrimental. I think a lot of the current concern about it comes from the writings of digital photographers interested in the capacity to print very large. My life became easier when I decided to permit myself f16. I haven't noticed any problems at the modest print sizes I can afford, and as a result I'm willing to experiment further...
I barely recall thinking about it before the internet David, it rarely shows up in darkroom prints and I never examined my images with a magnifying glass. The 100% view is a modern day curse.
Great video, I picked up a Bronica SQ-A last weekend with three PS lenses (50, 80 and 150), can't wait to get out in the field with them. Your videos are one of the main reasons why I bought this system.
Glad you enjoy the videos and I hope the Bronica works out well for you.
Quite an interesting ramble. I really enjoy how you are walking us through your thought process. The horizontal tree trunk was my favourite. Seems to me you could revisit the first scene with the Intrepid and use some lens tilt to accomplish full front to back sharpness. My rule of thumb is place the focus at the first third of the distance. Seems to work, mostly.
Thanks Alfred. I find tilts challenging in the forest, always worrying about losing sharpness at the top and bottom of the frame.
tilt works only fine with very flat subjects, typical : watches, lying document, juwels etc...
horizontal tilt works fine for buildings wall (Flat subject)
tilt doesn't work at all with subjects having a high foreground, typical landscape with a foreground that isn't flat
Another super thought provoking video. I always wondered why manufacturers put f/22 markings on lenses if they were totally unacceptable. Seems like they have a use and your concept seems to show how. Many thanks!
I was told by Leica folks all OUR f-stops are useable! It is true, sort of! My 35mm Goggles-Summaron, was informed the Summicron only a stop faster! I know now mine sharper, I had both! Not at same time! When i indexed my 35mm negs, I had about 10,000 negative sheets with contacts. So, my statements are from experience!
F/22 is not at all unacceptable. it is honestly what any landscape photographer should be using unless the lense has a smaller aperture to choose. in reality when talking about landscapes, anything larger than F/16 is unacceptable. you lose way way too much depth of field if you go with a aperture larger than F/16. its becoming way too common these days with people saying "F/22 should never be used..." that sort of mentality is what amatuers have because they do not know how to use their equipment and do not know fundementals of making a image.
I'll use whatever I need at the time Maggie unless I know it will give me bad results. Some lenses work really well at their minimum aperture whilst others a poor.
Also, great idea to use a tripod as often as practical and possible, even at much faster speeds ( my opinion ). Thank you again. Wonderful video.
Great shots. F16 and F22 are my default apertures for landscape on 35 mm and medium format, respectively.
Yes, I see f16 as being acceptable on full frame so I’d guess f22 is acceptable on medium format.
Very interesting results and discussion. Empirical testing in the 3-d world always beats charts. Each lens is indeed different, and I appreciate the emphasis on using them enough to know what they are capable of, and what are their limitations. I need to spend a lot more time leaning my equipment. Cheers!
Cheers Robert 👍
Thanks Steve. I love your practical approach and your eye for an interesting composition. The production quality of your YT videos is always a treat - as is your dry sense of humour.
Thanks Larry, I always want to keep the videos entertaining 🙂
reminds me of something my photographer friend told me when I started pointing out grain in a photograph I'd taken. He said "I believe anyone who insists on studying the grain of an image instead of appreciating its content is missing the point of a photograph" In short, if your image is strong, no one will care if it's got a little grain or not pin sharp. The photograph is what matters
I do hope we’ve gone past the pixel peeping stage now. With just about all digital cameras delivering near identical results it’s good to have a bit of character coming through in the film 🙂
I think front to back sharpness is not required in majority of shots. Having areas out of focus adds to the depth in the image and helps lead eye to the main subject. Also, our own eyes don't have front to back sharpness when looking at a scene when we are out in the landscape, so I'm unsure as to why some photographers obsess over it and use focus stack etc. 🤷♀
Wrong! We think we see everything sharp! I use mostly small digital cameras, Pentax Optio !) and the phone where it also seems everything is sharp. I love it! Snapping a group, Everybody, is sharp!
when it comes to landscape images, EVERYTHING needs to be in focus. having areas in soft focus or even totally out of focus works for other styles of photography like portraits, nature, and wildlife, but not at all in landscape.
Totally false. Look at all the beautiful landscapes done by the pictorialist photographers at the turn of the century. Most of my landscapes I do with 100+ year old soft focus lenses, and I get nothing but compliments.
I'm happy to mix front to back sharpness and out of focus areas depending on the result I want, there's no right or wrong way to shoot.
@@SteveONions Exactly! I've discovered some great results by shooting with an 85mm at f1.8 on my Sony full frame. Depends on what you're trying to capture.
When I was younger I just didn't care about technicality, I just shot and enjoyed myself. As I've gotten older, and picked up film once again, I find myself obsessing over optic perfection nonsense. It's almost disheartening. Digital ruined me in this regard - I want everything to be perfect. I've been trying to train that out of me, and it's been very helpful as I've picked up wet printing. Who knows how much paper I'd go through trying to be perfect. "Good enough" is truly the right philosophy.
I never knew much about diffraction (or other technical constraints) when I started photography and I don’t think this hurt at all. The obsession with measuring everything these days has taken the focus away from perfecting composition and lighting 😊
I'm so pleased to see this video! I mentioned diffraction and voila, here it is! It's OK to have some, in pursuit of more sharpness (apparent). Same as the idea of wide angles having more depth of field. It seems so! One shooting in an artist's studio, had perfect accuracy to focus accurately. I did a wide,35mm, normal 50mm, then the 90mm. When I looked at prints, using magnifier, the real depth of field was same on all. The wide saw more, the 50mm was good and the 90mm seemed less depth of field. The magnifier showed same on all. 6x6 is big these days! Easier to work with!
It’s an issue that’s grown out of pixel peeping Jason, in the real world it’s of minor importance 🙂
Well said Steve. You don’t usually hear this much sense on CZcams.
The only time I worried about diffraction was on my Royal Australian Airforce photographic course. There was no way I was going to use f22 and risk a retest 😂
hi, im curious - what role does a photographer have in the RAAF? what did the course entail?
Back in the day there were over one hundred and forty photographers in the RAAF. Airforce photographers were responsible for all types of photography including industrial, public relations, group and portraiture, intelligence and pretty much anything you could think of.
Sadly in this day and age the Photographic mustering (job) does not exist anymore in the RAAF.
Great stuff as always. I love stopping down for long exposures in the dim woods. The only thing I ever run into is the sharpness is often negated by wind+foliage movement. Also, love that you're using m43; that's how I started (and still use) photography and also use it for digitizing film!
Question about your SQ: Is that a Bronica brand square lens hood with a built in square filter holder? None of my Bronica hoods (ETRSI/SQA) have that filter functionality!
It is indeed a genuine hood, this one fits the 65 and 80mm SQ lenses and also takes 85mm square filters (although they have a tendency to fall off!).
Every lens at every aperture setting -- even wide open -- has diffraction. As you said, the question is whether the diffraction is worse than the alternative. I generally avoid going smaller than f/11 with 50 mm lenses on 35 mm film, but with a 90 mm on my RB67 (6x7 cm) f/16 and even f/22 don't cause me stress. First, the lens is almost twice the focal length, so f/22 is barely smaller actual aperture diameter than the f/11 on that 50 mm, but second, the 6x7 frame is more than twice the height and about twice the width of the 35 mm frame -- meaning I only have to magnify it half as much for a given print size, so any slight "fuzziness" from diffraction is only half as damaging to the final print as it would be on 35 mm. In other words, f/22 in medium format is still better than f/11 on 35 mm. And go on up to that 8x10 I've seen you haul around and f/45 is no big deal; if you've got a lens that offers it, you might even use f/64 if needed to get the depth of field and let you blur that moving water a little...
I do find a big difference across formats and lenses. Many of my 35mm lenses look good stopped right down where’s my 90mm Fujinon f/8 look noticeably worse at f/32 compared to f/22.
Thanks for sharing this enjoyable and informative vlog Steve. I like your humour.
Thanks Henk.
Excellent video as always!!! Thanks Steve!!!
*Good video and nice pictures:* According to Fourier optics theory, the diameter of a diffraction spot from a point light source with a wavelength of about 0.5 µm, is about 27-29 µm at the focal plane of the camera when using f/22. Thus, the scan pitch needs to be about 14-15 µm, or about 1800 dpi. On a 6x6 cm frame, this corresponds to nearly 17 megapixels of real image data. Note also, that every point of the image is sampled in this analysis, unlike with a digital camera with a Bayer filter, which employs interpolation (demosaicing) algorithms to generate the image data.
You are far better informed on this subject than me, I just go by the end result.
@@SteveONions Absolutely: it is the end result that matters! Understanding how we got there is only the icing on the cake, but I do admit to liking a bit of icing on my cake. 🙂
nice to see in that last shot, you did use the mirror lock up feature, as, even such a small format as 6 x 4.5 does have a big mirror.
Always mirror lockup 👍
Beautiful shots . With my Fuji x system and the 35mmF2 and 50 mm F2 lenses I rarely go beyond F8. That is the advantage of apsc format. :))
I know what you mean Ruud, with M4/3 I find f/7.1 as small as I ever need.
Lovely video !
Thanks Stefan.
Must admit to not being worried about diffraction Steve. I used it once to get the effect I wanted and have never thought twice since. I wanted a shot of Kylemore Abbey in Co Galway with a good lot of mist coming off the Lough. Unfortunately the mist was a bit thin but clearly visible. So closed down to f 64, which gave a lovely softness and the feeling of the mist being thicker. Another photographer came over and asking about the LF camera. When he saw I was using f 64 my shot was 'not worth a cr@p because of diffraction' Great debating Vlog Steve.
Cheers
Diz
Thanks Diz. I’m also partial to moving the sliders to the left to introduce a bit of softness in post processing. I’m also finding that slightly soft negatives, out of focus or camera shake, often have the edge over the perfect ones 🙂
Great video, as always. Thanks a lot.
Steve, excellent as always. But, take it from a Canadian, never underestimate a gang of savage squirrels.
😀 wildlife will always win Harry.
Thank you an interesting video making a lot of sense. Like you I get to know my lenses and know whay thye will do.
Thanks Richard, nothing beats your own findings.
I think the stigma around f/22 is from smaller formats like full frame and aps-c.
The larger the film plane, the higher the diffraction threshold.
I shoot f/22 on 645 without worrying about diffraction.
Very true Andy, 120 is far less of a challenge than 135.
The forest always delievers. Great compositions, Steve. As for diffraction, I am not usually too worried about it if I were using ' normal ' B&W film. With something like the CMS20II, Rollei 80s, Adox/Efke 25 or even PanF, I will be a bit more careful. F6.3 for MFT, F9 for APSC, F11 for FX/35mm, F16 for my Hasselblad or 6X7, and F32 on the 4X5 is my usual working apertures for standard lenses. But, if the composition warants it, I am more than happy to tolerate a bit of the ' Airy Disc ' for extra D.O.F. TBH, with most normal emulsions the resolving power is the limiting factor.
I'm pretty similar in my choice of format/aperture but will vary it depending on the lens. I was happy with f/22 on the Zeiss Distagon 50mm fle but equally don't go beyond that aperture with the 90mm Fujinon on my 4x5.
This photography game is more dangerous than I thought. Sinking bogs. Squirrel attacks. I might just watch the telly. 😉
😊 I once got stuck up to my waist and took ages to free myself. Now that would have made a good video.
@@SteveONions You are not helping. Hahahahaha. That would have been a fantastic video. You could always do it again😉
@@SteveONions I tapped into my inner Steve a couple of days ago and composed and edited a shot inspired by your photography. I’m really proud of it. I simulated a grainy film look on my D700.
The aperture of the 150 mm lens at f/22 is three times the aperture of the 50mm lens at f/22. That's why it has more diffraction. Smaller aperture, more diffraction.
That’s true John. It is surprising though how some wideangles perform far better at f/22 than others. The 50mm Zenzanon is poor unlike their 40mm model which I’m totally happy to shoot with at f/22. When it comes to longer lenses though I never give any consideration to diffraction as I choose the aperture.
Hi@@SteveONions, thanks for the comment. Actually, I now realise I was wrong. Well, half-wrong. Yes, the aperture of the 150 is 3 times that of the 50 at f/22, but I neglected that the effect the increased diffraction of the 50 only occurs over 1/3 of the distance. So, it cancels out, and the effect of diffraction on the image is identical for both lenses (indeed it must be for all lenses at f/22). As such, your point is a good one. Diffraction sets an upper limit on resolution for a particular f-stop, but the many aberations in lenses are usualy a much bigger killer of image quality, which of course, as you rightly point, out varies from lens to lens.
I had a Bronica EC with a 50mm Nikkor f4. Ideal for front to back sharpness.
I am not a tripod person so i set my cameras (35mm and 120) at most to f8 or f11 and shoot handheld.
So in that sense I don't have to think too much about diffraction.
PHOTO QUOTE OF THE DAY
"Images can describe, abstract, interpret, but they are not absolute."
- - Carolyn Drake
one other observation, diffraction is not the only issue with f 22 , things like the increased shutter timing (1,2,3,4,8 seconds +), and the necessary tripod steadyness to get no motion blur, infering film choice (asa), as resiprocity failure would come into this with such long exposures, esp. for some stocks of film, also mirror slap, with such long exposures, so m_up use is also essential here to. lens choice also is affected by this apature, as less light gets in, the longer a lens gets, due to size, and amount of glass to refract through; so shorter lenses facillitate more light, so you can do shots in darker areas, as there is less 'systemic' light loss.
I’ve always found longer lenses far less susceptible to diffraction, wideangles with their physically smaller apertures are noticeably bad beyond a certain point.
I never suffer with vibration on my leaf shutter lenses and I always use mirror lockup on SLR’s.
I sometimes print 8 x 8" or even 5 x 5" from ancient, simple lens medium format cameras and the results look fine. Likewise printing from tiny 2/3 sensor digital format cameras. In film days exhibition prints from 35mm negatives rarely exceeded 16" and were often less. 1/250, f8 prints from a 28mm lens were sharp enough to do the job, whereas now near and far subjects would probably be out of focus and may exhibit camera shake when enlarged from a full frame digital sensor.
I find 16"x12" from 35mm is pretty good, after that it can start to break up (unless I use a fast film where the grain hides the defects).
I think diffraction will be a little bit more noticeable in the 35mm but as you've alluded too much is relative. Happily my latest squirrel related damage has mostly healed just in time for my day off.
Definitely more apparent in 35mm (although lens quality does have a big effect) 👍
I'm out this PM with my medium format camera and B&W film. Thanks, Steve. I would never have seen those images. They almost look infrared.
Thanks Jeffery, XP2 with a yellow filter (and overexposure) does have somewhat of an infrared look.
Yes I do worry about diffraction. I mostly stick to f16 on medium format. 645/6x7. I do however move into f22 confidently on my 6x9 rangefinder. It's true though that I do focus stack my film images, though not as rigorously as my digital ones. I am envious of your three compositions per roll :V
Thanks James. I also find f/22 better on my older lens designs, the typical Tessar formula is poor at wide apertures.
Thanks for the reminder that it is okay to step down! I fear diffraction so rarely go below f/11 haha though tbh the main reason is because I am always too lazy to use a tripod....
I have heard that diffraction kicks in much sooner for smaller formats (and also for closer distances) so I guess that's worth keeping in mind. Folk seem to use their large format cameras at like f/1 kajillion without a care in the world.
It does hurt more with the smaller formats but it as much as people will tell you. The quality of the lens makes a big difference and some of the best can be used at almost any aperture with complete confidence.
@@SteveONions Yes, Steve, but would you say that the quality of the lens has anything to do with diffraction? I have heard that diffraction is a phyisics phenomenon that can not be escaped with any lens design or lens quality. Is that correct?
I would say that maybe back in the early days of digital, yeah you tended to avoid f/22, but with in-camera corrections now, I wouldn't have a problem shooting at f/22 if I had to. Now the key being "if I had to". Lenses and technology has come a long way since the first days of digital cameras and lenses. Yes there might still be some diffraction in even some of the best lenses of modern day, but usually this is only seen when pixel peeping too, and most people likely won't notice at viewing distance. I'm a sucker for sharpness though with my landscapes, and when I need front-to-back sharpness I'll do the focus stacking first to ensure the best image quality but am not opposed to f/16 or f/22 if I'm on the go.
I also think that we are often times show diffraction and shooting at f/22 on a test chart in a controlled environment, and while this will tell the "true" story about diffraction and small apertures, I think it somewhat can over-exaggerate diffraction, as in you may see it on a test chart in a controlled environment, but may not notice it in practice in the field. Test charts are good for checking to make sure lenses don't have any obvious issues (like focus or decentering issues or otherwise checking for overall sharpness at various scenarios -- FLs and apertures, or comparing two lenses) but they aren't always fair comparisons to what you can expect in the field. I think in the field, some of the diffraction is sort of lost in the various textures and color, among other things, unless you're pixel peeping, so you won't notice it as much as you would on a test chart.
There are times that I’ve seen noticeable diffraction effects but only with certain lenses and even then it will depend on the subject. Most standard to long primes are fine stopped right down but if I can use something like f/11 or f/16 then I will go for that in preference.
Brilliant video, as always Steve. What hood do you use with your Bronica lenses? I notice it has a filter holder built into the design. Thanks.
That particular hood is the Bronica 65/80 version Paul, it is very well made and takes an 85mm square filter. I also use Cokin P hoods from time to time.
f/22 on medium format has the same diffraction on the final print as f/11 on a full-frame 35mm camera, since it needs to be enlarged only half as much to reach the same print size. Nobody complains that their 35mm f/11 image was wrecked by diffraction, so you shouldn't worry about f/22 on medium format either.
That’s true Stephen but I do find f/22 on some 120 cameras and lenses is a bit weak. Similarly I’ll not take my 4x5 Fujinon 90mm f/8 below f/22 as it is noticeably worse.
I worry about it often and generally take the lazy man’s way out and bracket. Since I do a lot of macro work, diffraction is always on my mind.
I prefer 35mm for macro as it’s really hard working with larger formats as the working distance gets absurdly low, 1:1 lenses are hard to find, and the longer focal lengths make extension cumbersome with medium format. Diffraction definitely becomes much more of an issue at f/22 with 35mm lenses. I’ll shoot f/22 medium format but really try to avoid it with 35mm - I even try to avoid f/16 when possible and prefer f/11 for landscapes with 35mm.
On my Pentax 6x7, f/22 doesn’t usually cause enough diffraction for me to be concerned about it and images are usually sharp.
As with anything, context is always the key. As you demonstrate, f/22 works quite well in some situations with your 6x6.
I’ve also struggled to do close up work with 120 cameras and much prefer 35mm. I don’t really like extension tubes either as the range of focus is very restrictive and I hate constantly swapping them out.
@@SteveONions Agreed on all points. 35mm is just better for macro. Medium format is (often) better for landscape. Like you, I shoot lots of formats (no large format yet for me) depending on the situation.
People get way too fixated on diffraction. It's a real effect but not nearly as severe as you would think from the hype. When I started in photography you hardly heard of it, it was only when digital cameras with super high resolutions started to make it more obvious that we heard about it in every review. I used to use f32 occasionally on my old Mamiya C33 and it was usable for prints up to 16x20 with no issues (certainly I've never had any comments or feedback on their sharpness!). But more realistically, if you stick to "1 stop above the widest and one below the smallest" it'll usually be fine. Even on my digital Olympus MFT system I occasionally use f22 when the conditions prevent focus stacking. Better a very slightly soft shot than an out-of-focus one!
It never bothered me either pre-internet Alan, darkroom prints rarely show it up and it’s only the advent of pixel peeping that’s made people fret unnecessarily 🙂
My guide for myself is that I think twice at using an aperture that is less than 4mm in diameter. Only a problem I have is with APS-C and M43. It will be interesting to here how you get on with 35mm. P.S. I also use my SQ when out for fun.
Lovely shots. For the fallen tree scenario, what are your thoughts on using something like a tilt-shift lens to keep the receding tree sharp?
I don't think any tilt could have helped with that combination James, the vegetation at the top of the scene would have rapidly dropped out of focus. A little swing could perhaps assist but stopping down is a safer bet.
My Bronica lenses aren't Zeiss sharp so a bit of diffraction isn't a concern of mine. I'll shoot at f/3.5 or f/32 if the shot warrants it.
Hi Steve, another great video. Do you use a macro lens, when you create digital files? Have done a video on your digital file process, I have a Panasonic GX8 would that be suitable?Keep up the good work!
Hi Robert. I use the 30mm Panasonic macro lens to digitise my negatives. It should work absolutely fine on your camera too 🙂
On FF, f/22 can be a lot. On MF, it's going to be a lot less pronounced. Go to something like MFT, and you might start knowing it as low as f/8.
The 35mm follow up is interesting, individual lenses make a difference but no doubt it's more of a problem with smaller formats.
It may be misplaced to throw the focus on the gear you are using, but based on these examples it seems you might have better flexibility using an SL66, with both Scheimpflug compensation and a more useful depth of field scale, all the while keeping the same size and weight of your overall package.
I disagree about the SL66 Greg, a friend of mine had one and found it somewhat fragile. He ended up with a Hasselblad and used smaller apertures instead - he was also a scientist and incredibly fussy when it came to optimising sharpness.
@@SteveONions I do agree the SL66 is fragile, contrasted with the Hasselblad, and I do think this is one of the reasons why the Hasselblad won out, but that is not necessarily a reason not to use the Rollei, if your use case justifies it. I have been using one for 20 years now, and I would never let anyone else touch it, but it does what it does better than the Hasselblad, because it has built-in capabilities the other does not. I would think someone incredibly fussy about optimising sharpness would want to use all the tools available, even if it means you cannot drive your truck over it on the way out of your shooting spot and expect optimum performance at the next location.
I never worry about diffraction if it means getting the shot or not. I'd much rather have a slightly soft image vs no image at all.
one question Steve, can you do the same, with a multi_exposure image, and focus stack, adding both forground and background shots together ( each at shallower dof's, and adding to a single image). Or another alternative, is take the foreground and background as two separate shots, combining both negs onto the same paper print in the darkroom?
It certainly won’t work with traditional focus stacking on one negative Andy, the out of focus areas will still show up behind the sharp parts.
4:30 The swirling shape of the surrounding foliage almost gives that image a “Petzval” feel. F128 and be there 😂. Sharpness is overrated, soft focus in the forest is what does it for me.
Absolutely, sliders can go left as well as right 😊
Steve, I love your work and your movies. What's your take on digital camera scanning?
Thanks Patrick. I do use, and enjoy digital cameras for scanning but I’m still not convinced they suit me as well as a dedicated scanner. I’d need to spend a lot more time developing a proper workflow to be honest.
Thanks for your reply!
Great video as always. Just ditched my Pentax 645 for the Bronica ETR Si and a new in the box never used SQ-A with 80mm lens. Wanted the ablity to switch films while shooting. What lovely cameras. A question. That looks like a Bronica OEM lens hood on your camera. What is holding the filters on the hood? Is that a Bronica product?
I hope you enjoy the new (old) cameras, they are wonderful pieces of equipment.
The lens hood fits the 65 and 80 SQa lenses and also holds an 85mm filter in the front. It’s very well made and offers perfect shading.
@@SteveONions thanks Steve. I do enjoy using the old cameras. A couple dating back to the late 30’s. Some of my most enjoyable days are with a perfectly functioning Kodak Retina IIIc walking around the various old town centers in the Northern Virginia/D.C. area. I spend more time talking about the camera to people than I do shooting it.
As you say, sharp enough is often good enough, depending on the subject
Much like a brief yeti sighting, I could swear I had a Gary Gough sighting in this video at the brief beach scene, then I realized not all photographers on the beach are Gary Gough, even if they use a 10-stop filter, like not all yeti sightings are yetis. But some sightings are space aliens, or not.
I actually think there’s a Gary Gough on every beach at all times, he’s perfected time travel and can appear in multiple places all at once (with a 10 stop filter) 😀
If I have to close down I will I don't care. I do it sometimes with ring photos at weddings.
Hello Steve
Could a polarization filter reduce the diffraction phenomenon?
Interesting, I’ve never tried that. My first thoughts would be that it wouldn’t make a difference but given it removes/reduces light scatter it could have a desirable impact (I’d have to test it).
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Looks pretty delicious to me.
Thanks Dann.
Have scanned your negatives?
Yes.
Do you develop your XP2 as C41 or with a B&W developer? Also, I take it that you like to use XP2 in this type of situation?
I always develop as C-41 Erich, never tried a conventional developer with XP2.
All the great medium format photographers end up with one foot in the dirt. We`re aaaall the same -_*. Love forest swamp. F22 on bronica is like f16 on 35mm, so i think real ugly diffraction starts somewhere one or two stops beyond. People, who make lens know it, thats why you`ll find such f-stops on very "special" lens.
The 35mm video that’s coming soon bears this out. Lenses make a big difference and I’ve a few that look fantastic stopped right down.
IMO if you are shooting consumer film, don't worry about it...
XP2 is capable of very high resolution and will show up any weaknesses.
'clouds aren't sharp' ... that gets a like 😂
“f/ 64 and be there” ;-)
yes, at 5:54, Funny, we all know you, an old guy spilt his chocolate milk!!!! , or was it chocolate brownie?
Do I worry about diffraction? No. Use f22 when I need to, some times you get great surprises.
The 35mm results were interesting if unsurprising Neville.
Nope!
No I couldn't care less. I'm more interesting in striving to make interesting photographs.
Putting the issue to rest concerning full frame will be nice. Thanks for the political bog slog!
Hope you enjoy the 35mm follow up!