[godwinaustin]

great post.

Interesting and distinct rendering of glass is more much more important to me than sharpness on its own.

[Digitalis]

The name f/64 refers to the smallest lens opening on the camera through which light passes: images photographed at this setting yield sharp focus and fine detail of subject matter.

As an 8X10 photographer myself I rarely use f/64 - I prefer to use camera movements to extend DOF because at f/64 you can kiss resolution goodbye because of diffraction. Most large format lenses perform best at f/16~f/22*, so I tend to stick around that aperture and use tilt,rise, fall and swing to manipulate the DOF to cover my subject and still obtain superb image quality.

*and these days most Schneider and Rodenstock lenses perform just as well as most high performance 35mm primes do - it is possible to obtain resolution of exceeding 100lp/mm, that kind of detail spread over a large 8X10 negative is something to behold.

[VoiceOfReason]

I like my stuff sharp and contrasty. Sharpness of a lens is my main focus because I love to take scenery. Of course I like sharpness while taking pics of cosplayers too!

[halfspin]

As an 8X10 photographer myself I rarely use f/64

Yeah I could never figure out why they went so small. Surely they knew about diffraction back then? I thought it had something to do with the physics of a larger format. Either way it seemed to work for them at the time.

[Digitalis]

Yeah I could never figure out why they went so small. Surely they knew about diffraction back then? I thought it had something to do with the physics of a larger format. Either way it seemed to work for them at the time.

Well when you are printing from 8X10 negatives you would have to be producing some massive prints (over 2meters) for diffraction to be obvious. Back then they knew about diffraction but they just didn't care about it - they were trying to pull photography out of the pictorialism that Edward Steichen and Minor White were involved in and make photography a more disciplined form of artistic expression - one that would be taken seriously by curators and collectors. There was a time when photographs were seen as a mere novelty - but paintings were seen as art....how things have changed.I remember when they called digital inkjet prints "Giclee" (ohh How I loathed that term, I cringe every time I hear it) because nobody took digital prints seriously!

[arnold]

Well when you are printing from 8X10 negatives you would have to be producing some massive prints (over 2meters) for diffraction to be obvious. Back then they knew about diffraction but they just didn't care about it - they were trying to pull photography out of the pictorialism that Edward Steichen and Minor White were involved in and make photography a more disciplined form of artistic expression - one that would be taken seriously by curators and collectors. There was a time when photographs were seen as a mere novelty - but paintings were seen as art....how things have changed.I remember when they called digital inkjet prints "Giclee" (ohh How I loathed that term, I cringe every time I hear it) because nobody took digital prints seriously!

They still use the term 'Giclee'. I know because I just bought one. It looks like an oil painting on canvas. Anyway, back to 'sharpness'.