[Leica] 12X enlargements etc.

[Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>]

Erwin P.: >>>Conclusion: with suitable material and technique Leica
lenses can be made to deliver their image potential on paper.  But a
negative needs to be enlarged to at least 12 times to show the decisive
advantage. Or you need a very critical eye<<<


For the record, Erwin knows much more about optical science, lens
design, and technical evaluation of lenses than I do. This is undisputed
by me. I do sometimes disagree with his conclusions from a practical
standpoint, and when I do, I say so. But this is not done in a context
of disrespect, however it might appear in the heat of argument.

Assuming that "suitable material and technique" means a more-or-less
100-speed film and a tripod, and presuming that one intends to end up
with 16x20 enlargements (12X is 18 inches in the long dimension, or
full-frame on 16x20 paper with a 1-inch border), my question would be:
why not prefer a Hasselblad or a 4x5?

We did a series of experiments regarding format and enlargability for
the old American _Camera & Darkroom_ magazine. What we found was that
the largest print size at which 35mm could "almost" compete with medium
format was somewhere in-between 8x10 and 11x14. At this size, medium
format won our panel comparisons--just not overwhelmingly.

At 16x20, the results were decisive. Agreement among our evaluation
panel (which included photographers and students, art directors, graphic
designers, and non-photographers) was nearly unanimous: medium format
yields better print quality. This is even true when the 35mm materials
and technique were carefully optimized (we used a tripoded M6 and Kodak
Ektar 25 high-resolution film) and the medium format materials and
technique were not.

My opinion is that, using the same film, with both cameras on a tripod,
and both negatives enlarged with careful technique to more-or-less
16x20, that most people would pick the medium-format print as being of
"higher optical quality" or "higher print quality" however they may
choose to define it.

I don't disagree with Erwin's conclusions as he stated them, or his
methods, or his rigor. But I think that if you _need_ to go to 16x20 to
see the superiority of Leica lenses, then there are obvious ways to see
even great improvements in quality.

However--and now it appears I will contradict myself--I think you can
still see the "character" of lenses at smaller enlargements and with
coarser-grained films. Often, a good Leica lens will show a visible
advantage over a nondescript or average lens. This involves
subjectivity, of course, above and beyond a strict evaluation of lp/mm,
so it does not contradict Erwin's statements.

- --Mike