GD I disagree completely. No camera lens can make any difference
GD whatever in the appearance of the grain from a film negative.
I disagree with you, to an extent.
The lens _might_ have some effect on the grain of the
negative, in theory. But if that effect is worth it and visible in
even
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Developing chemistry with a high content of anhydrous sodium
sulfite will erode the edges of the silver grains,
Is this a typo?
You can't have an anhydrous salt in a solution.
mike
-
Email sent from
Hi All,
Using films of an ISO 400 to 80, I'm trying to figure out if there would
be more grain visible when using a lower quality lens or a zoom versus a
decent prime. For eg. would I see more grain while shooting the same
shot with a 28-105 at 50 v/s a 50mm 1.7 both at 5.6? Are the two related
--- Feroze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using films of an ISO 400 to 80, I'm trying to figure out if there would
be more grain visible when using a lower quality lens or a zoom versus a
decent prime. For eg. would I see more grain while shooting the same
shot with a 28-105 at 50 v/s a 50mm 1.7
Grain is unrelated to the sharpness of the lens. It's a characteristic
of the film and processing procedure.
Feroze wrote:
Hi All,
Using films of an ISO 400 to 80, I'm trying to figure out if there
would be more grain visible when using a lower quality lens or a zoom
versus a decent prime.
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).
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Peter J.
--- 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).
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
Shel,
--- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
there should be no relation.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: Feroze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 8:52 AM
Subject: How is grain related to the sharpness of the lens used.
Using films of an ISO 400 to 80, I'm trying to figure out if
10 matches
Mail list logo
