Hmmm .... rereading my post I can see that I should have chosen my words more carefully. Perhaps "mask" was not the best choice. Mitigate, reduce, soften, temper, obscure, veil, might have been better choices. In any case, I'd ~think~ that the sharpness of the grain as appearing on a final print would be reduced. A poor quality lens has poor micro contrast, lower acutance, sometimes softer focus in corners or at edges, and so on. All of these things could easily effect what the eye perceives.If a poor quality enlarging lens can soften photographic print, why not the same with a poor quality taking lens.
Shel > [Original Message] > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi > > --- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You are correct, Peter, although I'd guess that a low quality > lens with low > > resolving power, contrast, and sharpness might mask the > effects of grain, > > compared to, for example, some of the better quality Pentax > glass (77 Ltd, > > A* lenses, and so on). > > How? I used to use a grain focuser when I printed with an > enlarger. Regardless of whether the image was sharp or blurry, > the grain was imaged as it appeared on the film.
