detail expectation

[Tin Can]

thanks
do you have any suggestions?

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/

[tgtaylor]

Go to the last image posted on this thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.in...e-Thread/page3
This is a Uranotype (circa 1850's) the emulsion of which was handcoated with a hake brush on a matte surface 100% cotton rag paper that was sized but untreated with any other chemistry. The finished print was scanned at low resolution on an Epson 3200 scanner going on 15 years of age now. The tripod-mounted 8x10 camera was fitted with 300mm Nikkor-W and it is positioned about 10 or so feet in front of the first row of grave stoned (i.e., Adam Neder). Individual blades of grass are visible through the 3d row and the engraving on the tombstones are clearly legible on the 2d row.

Thomas

[Corran]

any suggestions?

I went through some scans from the last year and found what I think is a pretty sharp example for you. Right click and save >this< jpg and you can look at it. That's from a bargain $100 90mm f/6.8 Angulon (so the corners suck) and stopped down to f/32 so fairly handicapped really. It's scanned @ 3000 DPI though on a high-end scanner, so perhaps it evens out.

Perhaps you can post a scan or crop from said scan? Might help.

[Ken Lee]

Here is an example of an 8x10 negative scanned on a modest Epson 4990 scanner and sized to 8x10 feet.

Detail alone may not be an adequate criterion: depth of field with a 450mm lens at f/18 (sharpest aperture) is fairly shallow. In large prints we can really notice it, unless we are shooting at infinity. In such cases, detail is diminished.

Here is an example of a 5x7 portrait scanned on an Epson V800 and sized similarly: life-size or larger. Depth of field from a 300mm lens at sharpest aperture is also fairly shallow: better than a 450mm lens, but nothing to boast about.

Therefore there's a sweet spot we all must find for ourselves, where portabilty, affordability and image quality converge to our liking.

[Kevin Crisp]

The advice about using a loupe is really sound. Even when my eyes were better up close I could not nail focus on a wide angle lens like that. Use a 4 or 6 power loupe.

[Bruce Watson]

I am beginning with LF and trying to work out whether I am expecting too much from my LF camera/films, or if there is a failure in my process, with regards to focus and detail.
I am thinking when shooting test shots that I am not getting the level of detail and sharpness with my negs and scans.

It's all the things that Leigh said, and more. Primarily though it's your inexperience. We've all been there and gone through it. LF isn't point-'n-shoot, it takes skills, and learning those skills takes time. Few of us have been able to just "step off the bus" and shoot winners. Doesn't work like that. For the record, it took me more than a year and many hundreds of sheets of film to get to the place that I could routinely make exposures that I could print at 10x enlargement if I wanted.

Learning the craft side of LF takes practice. A lot of practice. Shoot and process a lot of film. Put that film on the light table and examine it with a 10+x loupe. Learn from it and try again. Make some prints (real physical prints), put them up on your proofing wall, light them well, and live with them for a while. Learn what works for you and what doesn't. If what you're doing isn't working, change.

In a scenario like shooting in an average sized back yard, with trees & grass with a 90mm rodenstock lens. Let say the the trees are between 15 and 20 feet away.

Oh, ouch. That 90mm lens is half your problem. It's really difficult to learn to use a view camera with a really short lens. Why? A short lens doesn't give you enough image magnification for you to be able to see detail well on the ground glass. Even with your focusing loupe (and you are using a focusing loupe of some kind, yes? If not, start). This leads to focus problems, and in particular difficulty in judging camera movements.

If you're a newbie, you should be learning with a "normal" lens. That is, something close to a 150mm lens in 5x4. Yeah, yeah, I know you never used a normal lens with 35mm/digital. But once again, this isn't 35mm or digital. Learning with a normal lens will shorten your learning curve. Been there, done that, am the (hated) voice of experience.

In a correctly exposed image on 4x5 Ilford delta 100 b&w negative, how much details in trees & grass should I be seeing in the neg? When I scan in at 2400, and I look at 100% crop - what is that likely to be equivalent to when printed out (i.e. is that my nose up against a 10 foot high print?)

First thing -- you can't tell jack from a computer monitor. You can't accurately judge graininess, acutance, tonality, much of anything from a computer monitor. Why? A computer monitor is a light source, where a print is a reflective source. A computer monitor has the wrong dot pitch, usually a lot wrong, and this effects everything from acutance to color, saturation, tonality, etc.

The only way to judge what a print is going to look like is to make one. You don't have to make the entire print (but in the end you'll have to make a full size proof print to judge overall tonality with), you can learn a lot from printing a small section of the full print. But you need the reflection of light instead of the light source, and you need the correct dot pitch.

To answer your question about how much detail you should be seeing, much depends on the quality of your scan. You can get a lot more from a decent drum scan than you can from a consumer level flat bed scan. The consumer flat bed scan is really only good for prints less than 4x enlargement in my book. A professional flat bed will get you to 8x, and a good drum scan can take you to the limits of what the film has to offer.

But if your scene has good visual contrast, with a first class capture (spot on focus, spot on movements, steady tripod, cable release, spot on exposure, spot on film processing, etc.) you should be able to see every blade of grass, every pine needle, the texture of the bark on the trees (if your really short lens leaves you enough image area on the film -- IOW, enough film grain clumps to allow the film to capture that texture).

I am wondering if I have too high expectations from my equipment or if I need to revise my methods

Both. Film (regardless of format) is typically good for 10-12x enlargement. As you exceed this, graininess becomes unavoidably intrusive, acutance decreases, details get mushy, etc. So making a 10' high print from a 4" high negative is... unlikely going to satisfy you.

Also, if you're a newbie, you most likely don't have sufficient control of your craft yet to be able to maximize what your equipment can do. All of us end up revising our methods as we learn workflows that give us the results we are looking for. You will too.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

All that said, don't get discouraged. It's certainly possible to make razor sharp prints, big prints, from 5x4 film. I've got a few hanging from my walls. If I can do it, anyone can. Learning to use a view camera just isn't that hard, but it does require effort, practice, and a willingness to learn.

[LotusEsp]

Thank you for that Bruce, I appreciate such a comprehensive reply.

[Leigh]

All that said, don't get discouraged.

Very good post, Bruce.

Thank you.

- Leigh

[Jim Noel]

A scan will not show the fine detail that a contact print of the negative will show.

[Bruce Watson]

Thank you for that Bruce, I appreciate such a comprehensive reply.

I got into LF for some of the same reasons as you, including my desire to make a good big print. If I think I can help someone, I try, even though I'm worthless as a rhetorician. If I was good with language, I wouldn't need photography so much!

As you go don't be afraid to ask questions here. There's a number of very generous souls here; a lot of knowledge freely shared on LFP.info.