Topic: On portraits, sharpness, and resolution

[hookstrapped]

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2016/07/just-right-resolution.html#comments

So the choice seems to be either shoot modern digital and try to "correct" in post to soften clinical sharpness while trying to avoid an overly smooth plastic look OR shoot film with an old lens at its less than sharpest aperture.

Technical limitations can be wonderful, beautiful things.

[Sandeha Lynch]

Yup, what the heck is the point of spending a thousand bucks/euros/pounds on a killer lens when you also have to buy some craptastic software to make it even bearable to look at.  I love Jane Bown's work, she was a true master of the period and had a certain style that put you right there beside her sitters.

I'll stick with my lens work:

[Late Developer]

At the risk of being controversial, here's my take on this.  I have a set of Leica lenses - 28mm Elmarit-M + 35mm, 50mm and 90mm Summicrons.  I also have an M7 and M(Typ 240).  The lenses fit both bodies.  The digital camera produces superb image quality - as does the M7 but it also offers flexibility to vary ISO at the flick of a switch.  There are times, however, when I've used the M(Typ 240) when I wish I'd used film.  I have PS and LR (CC) - which I use with both film and digital - and also the now "free" version of Nik software.  This certainly helps provide me with options to adapt digital shots (as clinical as they can be) into something that I feel suits the shot better.  It will never be "film" but it gets bloody close.

The same is now true of the Hasselblad V system as there is a digital back option which provides extra longevity for the film kit dating back to the earliest days of Hasselblad.  Is this a bad thing?  Not in my opinion. 

I don't see any of this as a choice.  There is nothing to say we must choose one medium over the other.  I love using film for most of what I shoot but I won't deny that there are times when digital wins my vote.  Therefore, so long as I can afford those options, I'll have a foot in both camps.

[Sandeha Lynch]

I don't see this primarily as a film/digital issue.  There is the matter of grain versus noise, but all other things being equal I would record a broadly similar image whether the substrate is a full-frame sensor or a small rectangle of emulsion.  However, could I get the same result from a Nikon AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED  as my Meyer Orestor 100/2.8 from the late 1960s?  Nope, the glow that I value has pretty much been written out of the formula of modern lens designs.

[Late Developer]

I don't see this primarily as a film/digital issue.  There is the matter of grain versus noise, but all other things being equal I would record a broadly similar image whether the substrate is a full-frame sensor or a small rectangle of emulsion.  However, could I get the same result from a Nikon AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED  as my Meyer Orestor 100/2.8 from the late 1960s?  Nope, the glow that I value has pretty much been written out of the formula of modern lens designs.

Agreed - but as I don't think I've ever used a lens much older (or more exotic) than the one in my Rolleiflex 3.5T, I'm definitely not qualified to comment on the relative "looks" provided by the Meyer Orestor versus modern-day Nikkors.

[hookstrapped]

Standard digital cameras have exceeded 35mm film in resolution. But when you compare 120 film, which still exceeds most digital (in MP equivalent for an image), the same characteristic clinical sharpness of digital generally stands out, so I think that argues it's more of a modern lens issue. Perhaps the design of modern lenses are overly driven by a quest for sharpness and maximum resolution.

The digital camera and lens markets are so strongly driven by technical specs -- an area of seeming advancement that justifies for consumers the purchase of a new "better" camera that keeps the whole market humming. Can you imagine that a really nice old 12 MP sensor, say a Tri-X equivalent, would still be produced and sold in the modern camera market? That makes me wonder if there are older less high-resolution digital cameras that are appreciated and have a niche resale market. 

I think an exception to this trend is Fuji with its in-camera film emulation jpegs. I think they are pretty successful in creating a film look (notably with much smaller than RAW files).

[Sandeha Lynch]

That's an interesting thought, but I suspect, if the shot below is anything to go by, that it is the pixel structure and perhaps a high degree of interpolation that gives it a certain look when off focus.  This was a Fuji Finepix 40i with all of 2.4 Megapixels that I bought in 2001.  The lens was probably similar in design to a mobile phone lens.



Another camera, the Ricoh Caplio GX that I picked up in 2004, (5.1MB) had a conventional camera zoom lens and may have been less dependent on the software to create a sharp and interesting image.



But still, I'd see the camera as attempting to draw out the maximum resolution and contrast possible from the glass - pretty much the standard it would have been judged by.

I think you could ask a similar question if you could compare the oldest Summicron 50/2 with the latest.  The max capabilities of a 1953 model would likely provide a rendition and contrast glow that the newest version could not achieve, simply because of what one might describe as 'excessive' modern coatings.

[Terry]

Analog video had a lot of "detail enhancement" and "edge enhamcement" written into it, and I doubt very much that they discarded that sort of thinking when digital imaging came along.  I believe there's still a lot of manipulation going on in-camera after the light has left the lens.

And to keep us on-topic (ie, film) I still find the process of shooting film much more satisfactory than the process of d*g*tal.  Almost ready to do some real printing in my bathroom-darkroom....(a small electrical issue to sort out)..and life will be good again.