How big can one print MF?

[wiltw]

People who get so obsessed with lpmm lens resolution that they feel the need to go out and spend thousands of dollars for the some new lens in order to allegedly get ideal detail would be far better served just by moving up to a larger film format.

I don't disagree...I was merely making the point that detail resolution and sharpness of an image is the ENTIRE OPTICAL CHAIN, from image presentation to focal plane all the way to image presentation to paper. The lens is the most forgotten component, especially for digital photographers fixated on pixel count and density.

But simply going to larger film also means that the lens has to deliver proportional resolution to film...4x5 film might be enlarged by 0.25X compared to 135 format, but if a 135 format lens can deliver 100 ll/mm, the large format lens has to deliver in excess of 25 ll/mm in order for it to exceed the delivered lens resolution, or the film size advantage is for naught. Indeed actual performance measurements done in the past have demonstrated that at large f-stops (f3.5 to f5.6) in large format (LF) lenses are only capable of 20-40-lp/mm at the edges, and the issue of captured resolution is complicated by the large format issues of film flatness. It is true that modern LF lenses have a smaller handicap (compared to 135 lenses) than older LF lenses, so exceeding 40 ll/mm is not difficult, nevertheless older FL lenses scarelu achieving 20 ll/mm must be avoided in order to achieve the benefit of LF on delivered detail resolution exceeding 135 format images.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yep, and there are those who will pay a ridiculous price for a marginally better taking less, yet scrimp on an enlarging lens or sidestep bothering to properly align their enlarger. One is only as good as their weakest link. In the digital realm, the consequences of so-so scans are like a locust plague.

 

[GregY]

I don't disagree...I was merely making the point that detail resolution and sharpness of an image is the ENTIRE OPTICAL CHAIN, from image presentation to focal plane all the way to image presentation to paper. The lens is the most forgotten component, especially for digital photographers fixated on pixel count and density.

But simply going to larger film also means that the lens has to deliver proportional resolution to film...4x5 film might be enlarged by 0.25X compared to 135 format, but if a 135 format lens can deliver 100 ll/mm, the large format lens has to deliver in excess of 25 ll/mm in order for it to exceed the delivered lens resolution, or the film size advantage is for naught. Indeed actual performance measurements done in the past have demonstrated that at large f-stops (f3.5 to f5.6) in large format (LF) lenses are only capable of 20-40-lp/mm at the edges, and the issue of captured resolution is complicated by the large format issues of film flatness. It is true that modern LF lenses have a smaller handicap (compared to 135 lenses) than older LF lenses, so exceeding 40 ll/mm is not difficult, nevertheless older FL lenses scarelu achieving 20 ll/mm must be avoided in order to achieve the benefit of LF on delivered detail resolution exceeding 135 format images.

Lines/mm resolution will never tell the entire story. In terms of both tonality and overall quality (whatever you interpret that to mean) 'll take a 16x20" from a 4x5" negative over one from a 35mm negative every day.

 

[wiltw]

Lines/mm resolution will never tell the entire story. In terms of both tonality and overall quality (whatever you interpret that to mean) 'll take a 16x20" from a 4x5" negative over one from a 35mm negative every day.

Absolutely no debate from me, about the benefit of larger image area on larger format film, and the benefits of better gradiation in tonality. OTOH, given the basis of OP, shot on MF film and scanned digitally for large print (and interpolating pixels in upres of the original image) we are still fundamentally limited to 256 gradations of tonality and 8-bit color (maybe 16-bit color).