Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/04/12

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: 120 film vs. 36mm film
From: Gary J Toop <gtoop@uoguelph.ca>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 15:15:58 -0400 (EDT)


	Pardon me:  I should have written "non-reflective" backing!
	Gary				   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


On Fri, 12 Apr 1996, Gary J Toop wrote:

> 	I believe that film-base density has two effects on sharpness 
> and fog.  Since base is not completely transparent, it does very slightly 
> limit the amount of light which passes through it and, the thicker the 
> base, the more it does this.  This may have the effect of somewhat 
> mitgating the other effect of film base thickness:  the distance between 
> the emulsion and the reflective backing permits some diffraction of light 
                       ^^^^^^^^^^
> particles as they bounce off the backing and back through the emulsion.  
> The greater the distance, the greater the amount of diffraction.  Thus, a 
> thinner film base will have two effects:  it will decrease the amount of 
> diffraction, improving sharpness at least a little, and it will permit 
> the direct passage of a little more light.  This latter effect may be 
> more significant if you are using a condenser rather than a diffusion 
> enlarger, although I am not sure.  The backing used with 120 film permits 
> the use of a thinner film base, I believe.
> 
> 	So, unless someone else out there has some reason to believe that 
> that account is not correct, there is probably at least a slight 
> difference between the sharpness of 35mm and 120 films which is due to 
> the difference in thickness of their respective film bases.
> 
> 
> Hope this clear up some things.
> Gary Toop
> 
> 

In reply to: Message from Gary J Toop <gtoop@uoguelph.ca> (Re: 120 film vs. 36mm film)