Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47

Thread: My LF-prints less crisp compared to my MF

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,901

    Re: My LF-prints less crisp compared to my MF

    3X is about as much as I'll tolerate for 5x7 B&W sheet film. Mostly stopped using B&W roll film for this reason. Only 120 roll film camera around these days the 6x9 Arca Swiss + lenses and etc and that is a not often used camera. The image quality is just not there. Image quality is far beyond "Crisp" or "Sharp" there are a good number of factors far beyond crisp and sharp that sheet film will produce that simply does not happen on roll film.


    Bernice


    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    Something is not right. Seems like an issue worthwhile to explore. In my darkroom, the only way I can tolerate 6x6 anymore is to print them to the same magnification as I print 4x5in. That is make the 6x6cm prints around 2-3x magnification.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Del City, OK
    Posts
    227

    Re: My LF-prints less crisp compared to my MF

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernice Loui View Post
    Many factors can cause a sheet film image to be less "sharp" or "Crisp" than a medium format film image.

    *Taking aperture, at apertures smaller than f32, image quality is likely to suffer.

    *Camera alignment- precision- stability, any can and will affect image quality on film.

    *Tripod stability or camera support stability and transmission of vibrations due to the camera support system.

    *Film flatness, MF cameras often have significant mechanical designs to assure the roll film is as flat as possible.
    Film holders can have significant variations in actual film flatness and alignment- registration to the view camera's ground glass.

    * Problem with the view camera lens, test and verify the lens being used meets it's design specifications.

    As for testing image quality, use a GOOD high quality microscope to examine the image on film. This takes out the potential problems with the optical printing process. Having used film formats from 35mm to 8x10, the sheet film images are constant and consistently better than roll film. This has held true for Hasselblad 6x6 to 6x9 Arca Swiss to 6x9 Fuji Texas Leica to Mamiya 6 & 7.. Sheet film when properly results in better overall image quality.

    When the entire camera to printed image system is all proper, differences between a B&W 2x sheet film (5"x7") print compared to a 5x medium format film (6cm x 7cm) image is quite apparent. It does not require a HUGE enlargement to resolve and visualize this difference.


    Bernice.
    That's mainly what I would suggest. Make sure the tripod is equally capable of holding both cameras steady. LF cameras tend to be a bit heavier (though some MF cameras can give a lightweight LF camera a run for it's money). Also, you're enlarging with a different lens. That Componon enlarging lens may not be as good as your others. Try using the same lens on both formats and see if the difference remains. If you're stopping down a lot in the field, you may have diffraction issues. Sometimes the appearance of grain can make an image appear sharper, versus a nearly grain-less image. Also, it's harder to properly focus a large format negative on an enlarger due to the smaller perceived grain size. And probably the most likely answer is the negative is sagging in the image carrier. That's rarely a problem with 135 film and usually not a major issue with 120. With 4x5 and larger, it's almost always an issue you have to deal with. Really, the problem could be anywhere. But it definitely sounds like you're having a problem.

    Pentax makes some great lenses. So I wouldn't be surprised to hear that if you compared one square inch of your MF film taken with that camera to one square inch of you LF film that you wouldn't see a sharper image. However, if you compare the entire 6x7cm image to the entire 4x5, the 4x5 film, even with a pretty mediocre lens, should produce a significantly sharper image.

  3. #23
    Peter De Smidt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Fond du Lac, WI, USA
    Posts
    8,954

    Re: My LF-prints less crisp compared to my MF

    Ground glass not being in the optimum position can also be a problem.
    “You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
    ― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,566

    Re: My LF-prints less crisp compared to my MF

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt View Post
    Ground glass not being in the optimum position can also be a problem.
    The wista has a fresnel in the inner side of the GG, I think.

    If IIRC with cameras having a fresnel in the inner side, if the GG is broken and replaced by a regular GG not having the same fresnel inside... then the GG to film plane matching won't work until adjusted for the new situation.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Loganville , GA
    Posts
    14,409

    Re: My LF-prints less crisp compared to my MF

    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    The wista has a fresnel in the inner side of the GG, I think.

    If IIRC with cameras having a fresnel in the inner side, if the GG is broken and replaced by a regular GG not having the same fresnel inside... then the GG to film plane matching won't work until adjusted for the new situation.
    If the fresnel remains in place and all you do is change the gg then no adjustment is necessary as the ground side will still be facing the lens.

    If a fresnel under the gg is replaced, and it is thicker or thinner then the original one then adjustment would have to be made.

    If an inside fresnel is moved to the topside of a gg then adjustment is necessary.

  6. #26
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,338

    Re: My LF-prints less crisp compared to my MF

    I have many years of experience with the P67 system, including their very sharpest lenses. Even garden-variety 4x5 should beat it hands-down per print detail and tonality any day of the week. Don't know what to say... Check alignment of your enlarger carriers. I hate fresnels on view cameras, period, so never have an issue with them. Get rid of it and see what happens.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,566

    Re: My LF-prints less crisp compared to my MF

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Salomon View Post
    If the fresnel remains in place and all you do is change the gg then no adjustment is necessary as the ground side will still be facing the lens.

    If a fresnel under the gg is replaced, and it is thicker or thinner then the original one then adjustment would have to be made.

    If an inside fresnel is moved to the topside of a gg then adjustment is necessary.
    Thanks for making it clear

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,901

    Re: My LF-prints less crisp compared to my MF

    Ditch the Fresnel as a GG viewing aid. Each and every one of them tried over decades has been nothing but problems and more problems.

    Fresnel on the GG can cause double images with a wide angle lens, the grooves regardless of how small they are affect the ability to focus, can cause focusing errors and...

    Best is regular ground glass with the finest grit available-possible.


    Check the distance from the film holder to GG (adding a Fresnel add another variable), make absolute sure there is no more than a few thousands of an inch tolerance between seated film holder film plane to GG across the entire film holder film seating area. If the film holder and camera cannot hold this tolerance, there can easily be problems like lack of sharpness-definition and related.


    Bernice

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,566

    Re: My LF-prints less crisp compared to my MF

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernice Loui View Post
    Ditch the Fresnel as a GG viewing aid.
    One should not simply remove a fresnel mounted in the inner side, after that one has to calibrate again the GG to film plane matching, as Bob just explained.

    At Wista manufacturing they were not rookies, they made a perfect installation of the fresnel and that worked pretty fine, of course one may not want the fresnel but, as said, if the back is not adjusted after it... then we have a trouble...

    A fresnel in the outer side can be removed with no necessary additional calibration.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Madisonville, LA
    Posts
    2,412

    Re: My LF-prints less crisp compared to my MF

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernice Loui View Post
    Ditch the Fresnel as a GG viewing aid. Each and every one of them tried over decades has been nothing but problems and more problems........

    Bernice
    Never ceases to amaze me how people go out of their way to muck things up, and then wonder why it doesn't work! L

Similar Threads

  1. Why are my pictures not crisp
    By Raffay in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 25-Apr-2013, 12:10
  2. Best scanner for crisp, high magnification..
    By walkerbl in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 15-Jan-2010, 17:40
  3. DD-X compared to XTOL?
    By Ron Marshall in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 16-Feb-2007, 07:44
  4. FP4 compared to Plus-X?
    By Erik Asgeirsson in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 9-May-2001, 02:25

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •