>>4384986>>4384926Here is the test. Diffraction is not a big deal if you're contact printing, and you guys are over exaggerating the softening effect on large format. The diffraction softening is not visible to the naked eye even at f32. Shooting high magnification macro increases the amount of diffraction significantly as well. Keep in mind this test was shot directly onto printing paper, so it will not be as high resolution as film.
I'll post a crop of a picture I took at f96 after this, and you can look at it scaled to an 8x10 print. The lens isn't really that sharp, but the result is still very pleasing. Diffraction is noticeable.
8x10 and larger is really for making contact prints. 8x10 capable enlargers are rare, expensive, and difficult to use.
You have plenty of DoF with 4x5 and MF. 8x10 DoF gets challenging, but that's why we use cameras with movements.
Critical focus can be achieved very accurately using a ground glass and loupe, but you need to use clear glass instead of ground glass. I found out that some GG designed for aerial photography has clearly glass in the middle for critical focusing. When using a loupe on clear glass the optical circuit between lens and eye actually outresolves the film you're using significantly. Try it. It's cool.
Focusing only on resolution is a boring game when the tonality of even soft 8x10 prints is a true joy to behold.
Lastly if you're just scanning film you aren't doing it right. Make prints in a darkroom. You won't care about this and just use the format that gets you the image and look you want to make a print with.
