Fuji ProviaF RDPIII vs. Kodak T-Max 100 in 2014. Same camera, lens and scanner, same exposure value day. Retina Reflex S with Xenon 50mm F:2.
Please open up to original size to properly see the difference. Almost any film/camera combination can look good with a 200x300 PPI view.
The manufacture’s specs for T-Max say it has half the grain and about twice the resolution of Fuji Provia F, RDP III. But, look at the difference in favor of Provia. They were processed and scanned by the same big name lab. Both films were fresh and shipped together (went through the same x-ray if any) and are the same speed. So.. bad batch of T-Max, wrong developer for T-Max or has Kodak lowered its standards this much?
Gentlepersons:
The Pictures in general...
These recently uploaded pictures have no artistic value. They were just uploaded to be representative of color picture recording during about 95+ years that I was able to take pictures, mostly slides at first. Unlike in today’s digital world it took time, money and effort to make a color slide. We took fewer pictures back then, trying to stretch resources, but some sere still frivolous. The first picture I remember taking was in the mid-1920s when my mother's sailor boyfriend brought an overseas camera to San Pedro.
I’m 97 (2016) and all tuckered out. I probably will not post much more. The ratio of today’s digital pictures that are kept for any length of time and/or printed is much less than the film photos taken in days past. History will be lost. Meanwhile you get to be bored by some old Kodachromes, Agfachromes, Anscochromes, Dynachromes, a few Dufaycolors and perhaps an old black & white or so.
This picture in specific…
The Camera: Kodak Retina Reflex S ca. 1959-1960.
This picture was taken with a rebuilt Kodak Retina Reflex S circa 1959-1960. It had the better six-element (3+3 elements in 4 groups) Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Xenon C 50mm f/2 coated lens. This photo was taken in 2014. The lens could out resolve the film used.
I also use a 45mm Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Xenar four-element Tessar design coated lens on this camera. The Reflex Instamatic was a variant designed to use 126 film cartridges instead of traditional 35mm roll film. The image was sized at 28mmx28mm rather than the 35mm’s 24mmx36mm. This framing difference also made the diagonal measurement different. To compensate for this difference they included a 45mm Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Xenar four-element Tessar design lens with that camera. Note: They also marketed a 50mm Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Xenar four-element Tessar for the 35mm models. They were interchangeable and gave like results, just a tad different in the size of a subject within the image. The 50mm Tessars and Xenars were on of the better upper middle priced lenses of the 1950s. This Xenon however, was the better lens.
Plus I have a 135mm, F:4 Retina Tele-Xenar five-element lens for these types of cameras. Its performance was above that of most of its competition.
The film: Fuji Provia 100F RDP III:
This was shot on Provia 100F in 35 size. It is the latest Fuji Provia iteration. It has a reputation for having good resolving power, just short of Velvia 50, and extremely fine grain. Having viewed results from several excellent lenses with a 60x microscope I would agree.
The film: Kodak Tmax 100
Kodak Tmax 100 is a true black and white film. The 100 speed is one of the sharper B&W films made. Part of the sharpness is due to resolution and part is the “edge effect.” The developer seems to make more of a difference in resolution than in other films. As to the tone and/or look of the result it is more a matter of taste, usage and printing skills and materials of the user.
The Scanner, a Noritsu fitted to a QSS-32_33 processor/printer:
This scanner is rated at 4600 PPI and in fact has that many sensors in the array. However, due to software or the lens (I suspect the lens) there is only about 3000 PPI worth of information in the scan. Some of the flatbed scanners have the same problem with lenses and are infamous for not resolving the potential of the sensor count. Most under $2000.00 flatbed scanners only give 40% to 60% of their rating. I would have thought Noritsu would do a better job. I’ve found that in order to scan over 4000 true PPI which the Nikons would approach (except for the out-of-production Minolta 5400 II), one has to get a true drum scan and with a talented operator to boot.
Fuji ProviaF RDPIII vs. Kodak T-Max 100 in 2014. Same camera, lens and scanner, same exposure value day. Retina Reflex S with Xenon 50mm F:2.
Please open up to original size to properly see the difference. Almost any film/camera combination can look good with a 200x300 PPI view.
The manufacture’s specs for T-Max say it has half the grain and about twice the resolution of Fuji Provia F, RDP III. But, look at the difference in favor of Provia. They were processed and scanned by the same big name lab. Both films were fresh and shipped together (went through the same x-ray if any) and are the same speed. So.. bad batch of T-Max, wrong developer for T-Max or has Kodak lowered its standards this much?
Gentlepersons:
The Pictures in general...
These recently uploaded pictures have no artistic value. They were just uploaded to be representative of color picture recording during about 95+ years that I was able to take pictures, mostly slides at first. Unlike in today’s digital world it took time, money and effort to make a color slide. We took fewer pictures back then, trying to stretch resources, but some sere still frivolous. The first picture I remember taking was in the mid-1920s when my mother's sailor boyfriend brought an overseas camera to San Pedro.
I’m 97 (2016) and all tuckered out. I probably will not post much more. The ratio of today’s digital pictures that are kept for any length of time and/or printed is much less than the film photos taken in days past. History will be lost. Meanwhile you get to be bored by some old Kodachromes, Agfachromes, Anscochromes, Dynachromes, a few Dufaycolors and perhaps an old black & white or so.
This picture in specific…
The Camera: Kodak Retina Reflex S ca. 1959-1960.
This picture was taken with a rebuilt Kodak Retina Reflex S circa 1959-1960. It had the better six-element (3+3 elements in 4 groups) Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Xenon C 50mm f/2 coated lens. This photo was taken in 2014. The lens could out resolve the film used.
I also use a 45mm Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Xenar four-element Tessar design coated lens on this camera. The Reflex Instamatic was a variant designed to use 126 film cartridges instead of traditional 35mm roll film. The image was sized at 28mmx28mm rather than the 35mm’s 24mmx36mm. This framing difference also made the diagonal measurement different. To compensate for this difference they included a 45mm Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Xenar four-element Tessar design lens with that camera. Note: They also marketed a 50mm Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Xenar four-element Tessar for the 35mm models. They were interchangeable and gave like results, just a tad different in the size of a subject within the image. The 50mm Tessars and Xenars were on of the better upper middle priced lenses of the 1950s. This Xenon however, was the better lens.
Plus I have a 135mm, F:4 Retina Tele-Xenar five-element lens for these types of cameras. Its performance was above that of most of its competition.
The film: Fuji Provia 100F RDP III:
This was shot on Provia 100F in 35 size. It is the latest Fuji Provia iteration. It has a reputation for having good resolving power, just short of Velvia 50, and extremely fine grain. Having viewed results from several excellent lenses with a 60x microscope I would agree.
The film: Kodak Tmax 100
Kodak Tmax 100 is a true black and white film. The 100 speed is one of the sharper B&W films made. Part of the sharpness is due to resolution and part is the “edge effect.” The developer seems to make more of a difference in resolution than in other films. As to the tone and/or look of the result it is more a matter of taste, usage and printing skills and materials of the user.
The Scanner, a Noritsu fitted to a QSS-32_33 processor/printer:
This scanner is rated at 4600 PPI and in fact has that many sensors in the array. However, due to software or the lens (I suspect the lens) there is only about 3000 PPI worth of information in the scan. Some of the flatbed scanners have the same problem with lenses and are infamous for not resolving the potential of the sensor count. Most under $2000.00 flatbed scanners only give 40% to 60% of their rating. I would have thought Noritsu would do a better job. I’ve found that in order to scan over 4000 true PPI which the Nikons would approach (except for the out-of-production Minolta 5400 II), one has to get a true drum scan and with a talented operator to boot.