Quote Originally Posted by Art View Post
It's because of very good lenses and the large formats used. The smallest formats back then could give you a 4x4" or 5x7" contact print (slap the negative right on the paper print it nd you have a useable picture) and the lenses were capable of much finer resolution than you'd think. We're talking about a time when some optics that were much finer optics than you'd expect were being produced. Heck, sophisticated optical rangefinders capable of being used to direct gunfire at very long ranges in naval engagements had been in use for over a quarter century at the time. The cameras of the period weren't small but they were capable of producing great images. As time went on and the formats got smaller, down to 35mm finer grain films were needed to produce a similar result because of the amount of enlargement needed to produce a usable photograph. That's why the larger format 120 and 220 film formats held on so long for things like portrait and wedding photograph. In film photography generally the larger the format the better the result. Nothing good happens in emulsion photography when you start enlarging. The more you have to enlarge...the worse the result.

Today the best digital cameras can exceed the quality of the old large format film jobs, even the later ones like the Hasselblads but that's super high tech and super high price (like ah Hasselblad wasn't real pricey.) The average DSLR kit camera Joe Dokes uses really usually doesn't produce a better image than you could with an old 35mm Nikon or Canon with the right film. It just does it much more easily with a lot less mess and waste.
Thanks for the informative reply. My collection of Civil War era CDVs is a great example of how quickly the science of photography progressed.

Merc