>>4315182
I will be using my 1090mm 4x5 lens for birding in the near future. Game on, bitch.

>>4315184

please do

>>4315186
Okay! It is only going to be black and white, and I may have trouble because my shutter only goes to 1/60, lol. I will figure it out.

1090mm is only 287mm equivalent, but you can obviously crop the hell out of a 4x5 negative and retain good IQ.

>>4315187
You can’t though

>>4315187
LF is softer cropped because the lens is optimized for LF field of view. I would not be surprised if $30 potato masher from 50s on 135 frame would be sharper than cropped LF on best same focal length LF lens ever made.

File: Image 137 (3).jpg (424 KB, 1359x1924)

424 KB JPG

>>4315266
>>4315214
Yeah, but no, 4x5lets. My lens is extra very very sharp, and my setup will be rigid AF. Just you wait. APO ronar process lens.

Here is a >35mm crop off some tmax100 with my nikkor 720mm. This lens is not as sharp as the one I will be birding with.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	Perfection V800
Equipment Make	EPSON
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.2.0 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	10106
Image Height	12633
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:03:07 11:24:50
Color Space Information	sRGB
Light Source	Unknown

>>4315326
By all means, bird with LF and post teh results. Nevermind if sharp or with "character" I'd like to see how it turns out.

>>4315326
This looks like super hazy shit.

These old lenses literally have no room to correct aberrations. All the sharpness measurements assume you use the whole photo. It is not like digital where 24mp ff and even 62mp ff cant be compared to 24mp micro four thirds because of the different pixel pitch and noise per pixel and demosaic bla bla bla

Film is film however big it gets and a lens that is sharp for LF is measured so assuming you use the WHOLE frame. You shoot LF for grain free enlargements, not resolution/“reach” like you would with DX mode on FF digital. cANON has poisoned your mind.

Also
Practically 35mm is 10-12mp
4x5 is 40-48mp
>inb4 BUT T U RESOOLVIMG LE GRAIEN?
That is for making a 1:1 digital copy of a negative and reprinting it later, not worthwhile, recognizable detail. Visible grain = image ripped apart. You cant do that to digital because the grains are always joined in a grid but imagine if you did and called it higher resolution.

>>4315334
>>4315332
Wrong and clearly not in the know. It's a crop of jpeg of a shitty scan. You WILL be proven wrong, and I WILL be lauging at you. Actually, I already am laughing.

>>4315332
Im not laughing at you actually, sorry.

Never engage with the 4x5 tard he is delusional

>>4315355
The dog molests him

>>4315352
The dog hair on your scan is sharper than the large details. 4x5 lenses are sharp for 4x5. Don’t crop film unless you like the “magnum look” (really low quality snapshits)

Ignore the nophoto anklebiter. She can't help herself. She's obsessed. I apologize for her and her incredibly embarrassing behavior.

>>4315358
Nigga u bought a camera just to argue on 4chan. Sorry your boyfriend only says bark. Maybe someday you will train him to tell you he loves you.

>>4315359
Proof positive of your extreme stupidity. Thanks for confirming that, yet again.

>>4315357
Maybe cropping the hell out of a 4x5 was a bit of an exaggeration, but turning a 4x5 into something like 2x3 is still a large reduction in area, and it would still look totally fine.

Also you are a liar. There are no dog hairs on that crop.

>>4315362
>totally fine
Looks like you smeared vaseline on it

4x5 is not high resolution 35mm, it’s high tonality 35mm. Don’t crop it.

>>4315363
No no. Please listen. That cropped bird image is smaller than a 35mm negative. A 2x3 negative is over 4x larger than my example.

I actually agree that 4x5 should not be cropped, and always tell people that the larger format is for tonality, and not necessarily sharpness, or resolution. My final form goal is 8x10 contact prints, and 8x10 wetplate colloidions

CAN I HAVE SOME FUN WITHOUT BEING YELLED AT AND TOLD WHAT TO DO, PLEASE?

File: 20240504_184239.jpg (1.08 MB, 2041x1683)

1.08 MB JPG

>>4315186
>>4315182
>>4315332

I actually did do some bird photography with my 4x5 already, hah. Just remembered.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	SM-G998U1
Camera Software	G998U1UESAFXD1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Compression Scheme	JPEG Compression (Thumbnail)
Image Height	1800
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:05:04 18:42:39
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	4000
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Color Space Information	sRGB
Unique Image ID	XA8XLNF00SM
Image Height	1800
Brightness	7.8 EV
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Mode	Auto
Exposure Time	13/5000 sec
Flash	No Flash
F-Number	f/1.8
ISO Speed Rating	16
Image Width	4000
Focal Length	6.70 mm
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Light Source	Unknown