Why are my pictures not crisp

[md99]

How can I check that? I would not find anyone who could do this here in Pakistan.

Cheers
Raffay

You need a depth gauge that can give a precise measurement of the distance between the lens side of the film holder and the film plane (darkslide out and scrap piece of film (or developed negative) in the holder).

Then take off the ground glass back and make the same measurement on it, from the place where the lens side of the holder sits, to the surface of the ground glass (without the holder in there of course).

Mike

[Raffay]

I suspect that the film doesn't occupy exactly the same spot that the ground glass did. I had a repairman fix this. Brought him the gg back and a loaded film holder.
Cheers!

Checked, film and the gg have the same distance.

[Raffay]

To me it looks flat rather than soft so what you need to do is set the black and white cutoffs in your software, then the image looks fine. Then you can add some sharpening.

Bruce

Agreed, have to do that in PS, but don't you think without that at least the eyelashes should be sharp?

cheers

[Raffay]

Judging by the image of the light source and the eye's iris, it was probably shot with steady light (not flash), which hints that the shutter speed was great enough to be susceptible to motion. Add to that a bit of focus error. That's just my two-bits worth.

Regarding overall 'clarity', I suspect you mean tonality. It is underexposed one stop.

Just an aside: a 10X loupe is not for everyone, and every ground glass. For me and others I know it has too much power. An 8X and even a 4X works better. But that is highly individual.

You are right, the only light source was the window, shutter speed was 1 sec at f4.7.

[Raffay]

Raffay, you need to establish whether or not the negatives themselves are sharp. Then you can proceed to the scanning... Examine the negative with your 10 power loupe, or better yet a low (20x to 40x) power microscope. A soft negative can be caused by several things not related to development, such as poor focus, improperly positioned groundglass, a loupe which isn't properly focussed, and so on.

I just checked with my 10x loupe, the eyelashes seem similar to the ones in image but a little more clear, i mean i could see them individually a little more clear. The problem is my expertise also, this is the first time in my life i am doing something like this, and it would be better if an expert looks at it

cheers

[Raffay]

There are a number of concepts that might be referenced by "crisp." One concept may be that of focus, and another may be that of contrast and relative hues of gray.

For fine detail, there's a couple of things that can reduce the actual or perceived detail. Actual detail can be reduced by something being out of focus, lens diffraction, film plane being too far from the ground glass plane, etc. For a quick check of actual detail, look at the negative on a light box. Does it look sharp on the light box? I.e., do you see the eyelashes and eyebrow hairs, etc? If so, fine. If not, what aperture and shutter speed did you use? If you didn't stop down all the way, then you're probably OK for the lens. Otherwise, you need to do a focus test. Take a ruler, or a step wedge with newspaper print on each step. Focus on the middle, then expose your film and develop it. Is the middle part in focus? No? Then your ground glass needs to be adjusted. Any competent machinist can add a little bit of shim material between the glass and the camera frame.

If you mean that the overall picture lacks "crispness" and doesn't "pop" or have "pizazz," then that's a development and printing issue. Play with the image a bit in your image program. Play with the various controls, starting with brightness and contrast. See if there's something that generally gives you a better image.

Checked, the eyelashes and the eyebrow hair don't look tack sharp. But are a little better then in the scan. I did not stop down, normally I use f8 but this time due to low light i used f4.7 (wide open) with a 1 sec exposure. Maybe that is the reason, I think I should get the wink light that comes with the Polaroid Pathfinder Land Camera, maybe the flash will improve things a bit.

I did the focus test with a newspaper, will develop it tonight and lets see how that comes out, and maybe then we can take the conversation forward.

Cheers
Raffay

[Ed Bray]

You are right, the only light source was the window, shutter speed was 1 sec at f4.7.

And there lies your answer as regards sharpness (subject movement), coupled with a bit of underexposure (did you allow for the bellows draw?).

Try a still life in similar light and allow for bellows draw and your image will be sharp and have the required contrast.

[Woodturner-fran]

It will be very hard to get a tack sharp shot at f4.7 and 1sec - especially with a live model. Shoot a few test shots at shorter shutter speeds and increasing f stops to see the performance of the lens. Do a test print of each one to check for sharpness of details. Then go back and scan the negs and see do the scans hold up against the prints

[Jac@stafford.net]

You are right, the only light source was the window, shutter speed was 1 sec at f4.7.

There is your answer. Motion, plus wide-open LF lens both contribute.

[polyglot]

a) the lighting is too flat. If you want crispness, you MUST light it accordingly.
b) the scan is soft, not necessarily the film. At 4800 dpi, grain should be clear even on the finest (Acros, TMX) films and since it is not, we know the scan is not presenting all the sharpness the film has to offer.
c) you must stop down at least a stop or two to get the most out of your lens
d) you need a shutter speed no longer than 1/30 to semi-reliably get sharp people, preferably 1/125

A consumer flatbed is good for at most 2000dpi, more usually 1200. 4800 is just empty pixels and tells us nothing.