>>3886989Yeah it does, Velvia 100, forgot to link.
Here goes, I'd expect such autism from a german, turns out I'm not far off, he's dutch:
>http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_ektar100.htmIt's well written and with clear examples.
Though it's a shame, the guy didn't have a finer target so pretty much all film he tested resolved the finest lines available on the target.
But you can tell from the contrast and definition of the edges, that Portra 160 (VC) is at least as high resolving as Ektar, marginally more possibly, despite having larger grain.
Of course all this pixel peeping is pointless, especially with film where going up a format is not such a huge expense at all, compared to digital.
The pointed I wanted to make is, graininess and resolution don't always go hand in hand. Many people make the assumption that they do, which is not the case. And same goes for developers too, usually the finest grained ones sacrifice some resolution.
And resolution is not always the goal. If you shoot something with smooth gradients, you want smoothness in uniform areas, so small grain is more important - in this use case - than higher resolution.
>>3886841Anon that person giving a second hand account of Mowrey's words seems confused, if you see his other posts. He seems to be implying layers of silver while those don't exist in slides or negatives, after processing.
And I still don't know what "MQ silver" is or how it affects granularity or resolution.
The only film related MQ thing I know is MQ developers (Metol-hydroQuinone). But again I don't see how this has to do with anything, cause a) as far as I know a PQ (Phenidone-hydroQuinone) developer is used as first developer in slides, and b) it's the colour developer that develops the silver that will form dyes and affects their shape/size.
So *IF* slides and negatives have different grain size or resolution, it could be due to their colour developer causing that. But I don't think CD-3 and CD-4 are that different.
