Sharpness of negatives

[Jack the boatman]

Hello,

I have been using my first 5 x 4 camera for a while now and haven't yet had a satisfactorily sharp image.

Details
Camera Shen Hao
Lenses Super Angulon 65mm f 5.6 and Symmar 135mm f 5.6. Cable release always used.
Most negatives are landscapes shot at f22 or f32 for usually about 1 sec.
Film/ Developer Adox 50 ASA developed in home made acutance developer for around 10 minutes or Rodinal 1:100 for 60 minutes.
All shots taken on a tripod.
The Super Angulon has a dished lens panel and the lens panel mounting legs have to be aligned at about 60 degrees backwards and then the lens panel manually set to parallel with film plane.

What I've tried:

Checked the distance from the edge of the ground glass screen to the surface of the ground glass screen, then compared this to the comparable distance on my film holders. All are equal and identical.

Set up books at varying distances from the camera, indoors on a sturdy tripod to eliminate any possibility of camera shake. I then focussed on the middle book at varying apertures with both lenses. Results showed that the book focussed upon, is actually the sharpest, but still not acceptably sharp.

Checked the negatives with an 8X loupe and fuzziness could be seen easily. This rules out scanning and subsequent processing.

I am reaching the hair tearing stage. Do I have to assume that both of these Schneider lenses are no good. I find this difficult to believe. The Super Angulon was sold from a reputable dealer to me graded as E++. It is apparently in excellent condition visually.
The Symmar also appears in excellent condition but was bought on Ebay.

Am I doing something stupid? Any suggestions?

Thank you

Jack

[E. von Hoegh]

How are you focussing the camera? Is the ground side of the GG toward the lens? Is your loupe focussed on the ground side of the glass?

Oh yes, wear a stocking cap.

[Bill_1856]

Mein friend, you do, indeed have a problem.
Try shooting at f:8.0, and focusing the GG carefully with a loupe AFTER you set the aperture.
If your shutters have self-timer, use them to trip the shutter.
If the hair problem continues, get Rogaine.
Good luck

[Leigh]

I can't image both lenses being bad. Those are top-quality optics.

It sounds as though you've covered most of the bases. Some suggestions, for whatever they're worth.

Use a film that has published performance characteristics, like rms granularity and lpm resolution.
Drop the home-made developer. Stick with Rodinal at 1:50, and normal times, not stand development.

The books are a reasonable target, but you might get more info by stretching a steel tape measure at an angle across the frame. This will give a more accurate measurement of the actual plane of focus, not as a distance from the camera, but by identifying the most accurate plane.
If the real plane is other than at you focus point you have a focus shift.

- Leigh

[Brian C. Miller]

Shave your head bald and then you won't have to worry about tearing it out.

Now then, about your actual problem: Instead of a number of books, cut up some box-type cardboard to make a step wedge, and then glue newsprint to each step. That's the best way to determine if there is a registration problem between the glass and the film plane. When you do this, make sure that the standards are aligned in their normal upright positions. The next thing to try if everything is good with the step wedge is to find out which aperture is the sharpest. Focus on some newsprint at various apertures in sequence, with a note of the aperture you've set the lens. Then after developing the negative, you can compare them and see which is the sharpest.

Development usually isn't the problem for sharpness, but for the time being, use a "standard" dilution and time.

When I got my Graflex Super Graphic, I didn't realize at first that it had a problem with a non-OEM ground glass. After completing the above tests, I determined the problem, replaced the ground glass and shimmed it into place, and now I have absolutely great results with my Wollensak. In your case, you may simply have stopped down too much, and a wider f-stop is sharper for you. But it's something that has to be determined with tests.

[pdmoylan]

You didn't mention which tripod or head and whether it tightens down to zero movement (no play in the mechanisms). try the tap test by tightening the the camera on the tripod, locking it all up and tapping the camera with your finger. Any noticable vibrations means possible unsharpness. If any of your fasteners on the camera do not tighten down so there is no play at all, you risk unsharp images.

[timparkin]

Hello,

I have been using my first 5 x 4 camera for a while now and haven't yet had a satisfactorily sharp image.

Details
Camera Shen Hao
Lenses Super Angulon 65mm f 5.6 and Symmar 135mm f 5.6. Cable release always used.
Most negatives are landscapes shot at f22 or f32 for usually about 1 sec.
Film/ Developer Adox 50 ASA developed in home made acutance developer for around 10 minutes or Rodinal 1:100 for 60 minutes.
All shots taken on a tripod.
The Super Angulon has a dished lens panel and the lens panel mounting legs have to be aligned at about 60 degrees backwards and then the lens panel manually set to parallel with film plane.

What I've tried:

Checked the distance from the edge of the ground glass screen to the surface of the ground glass screen, then compared this to the comparable distance on my film holders. All are equal and identical.

Set up books at varying distances from the camera, indoors on a sturdy tripod to eliminate any possibility of camera shake. I then focussed on the middle book at varying apertures with both lenses. Results showed that the book focussed upon, is actually the sharpest, but still not acceptably sharp.

Checked the negatives with an 8X loupe and fuzziness could be seen easily. This rules out scanning and subsequent processing.

I am reaching the hair tearing stage. Do I have to assume that both of these Schneider lenses are no good. I find this difficult to believe. The Super Angulon was sold from a reputable dealer to me graded as E++. It is apparently in excellent condition visually.
The Symmar also appears in excellent condition but was bought on Ebay.

Am I doing something stupid? Any suggestions?

Thank you

Jack

How do you know it's "too soft"? Are you looking under a loupe, scanning? How much detail do you expect? etc.. :-)

[timparkin]

How do you know it's "too soft"? Are you looking under a loupe, scanning? How much detail do you expect? etc.. :-)

Sorry I should have checked what you said about an 8x loupe. I would expect to see some fuzziness though, especially at f/32

I don't suppose you have an f/32 shot from a 35mm or 120 to compare with?

Tim

[Jack the boatman]

Hello,

Thanks to everyone who has commented. You have given me food for thought and I will try out your suggestions.

In answer to some of the comments:

The ground glass is pointing towards the lens. The camera was new when I bought it.

I like the steel tape idea.

Assessing sharpness. I haven't printed any of my negatives because when seen on a 17 inch monitor the results are poorer than I want. I don't think anyone who sees the results I am talking about would disagree.

I am comparing with a Nikon d60 digital camera with 18-135mm zoom lens. I have taken results from this camera at f32 and the result is MUCH sharper than my 5 x 4. This is even after the digital image has been blown up to a greater magnification.

Aerial image. I didn't realise this could be done. I will try it.

Diffraction. I considered this, but again from the comparison with my digital images, I would have expected the digital image at f32 to suffer more than the 5 x 4 at f32. Am I right in assuming this. My understanding (very rusty) of the physics involved is that light will be bent whenever it passes a barrier. Because f32 on APCS is a much smaller absolute diameter than f32 on my 5 x 4, would diffraction not be more likely on the digital image?

Thanks again for your comments

Jack

[Bruce Watson]

Assessing sharpness. I haven't printed any of my negatives because when seen on a 17 inch monitor the results are poorer than I want. I don't think anyone who sees the results I am talking about would disagree.

You might well be surprised.

You can't judge the sharpness of a final print by looking at a computer monitor. If you want to know what the final print will look like, you have to make a print. If you are looking at actual pixels in Photoshop with a 72ppi monitor, and you're talking about making a print at 360ppi, the monitor is showing you a 360/72=5x magnification!

I'm just sayin' that a soft image in a computer monitor is normal.

That said, LF ain't easy. This ain't no point-'n-shoot. LF rewards accuracy and precision. Most LFers go through a fair amount of film and prints to become fluent in the medium. Patience and practice, lots of practice, are your friends.