View Full Version : Why are my pictures not crisp
Hello
I am not sure if "crisp" is the right word to use here or not, but I want to know why my pictures are not as clear, crisp etc as they should be. Below is a crop of a recent picture I took, scanned at 4800 dpi, I zoomed in and cropped so that it does not pixelate. I focused with a 10x loupe and even if we assume that the subject moved a little and that is the reason the eye is not as crisp as it should be, but the overall image is not very clean, somehow it feels that it is not properly "washed" or it needs some sort of cleaning, if you know what I mean. What do you experts suspect:
1. improper development
2. fixing issues, or
3. is it because of the tap water i use during pre-soak and development. Because water in the taps have a lot of dust particles, and maybe they get stuck to the film during pre-soak and later affect the development???
It is straight out of the scanning software, and has not be treated in photoshop. From a clarity of the image point of view it does not have that "wow" factor to it. When I look at portraits on this forum, apart from composition and lighting, all the images even some of the first off images from people have a certain clarity to them, that I believe gives you that satisfaction of doing LF, unfortunately, I don't get that. I am not willing to give up but would like your feedback so that I can improve.
93565
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!
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!
How can I check that? I would not find anyone who could do this here in Pakistan.
Cheers
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
Jac@stafford.net
18-Apr-2013, 10:59
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.
E. von Hoegh
18-Apr-2013, 11:16
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.
Brian C. Miller
18-Apr-2013, 11:28
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.
Far too many variables to even begin to render an answer... As I understand it,,,,
You use a camera... given... How good is the film, how good is the lens, how good is whatever focus mechanism.
You process your own film... so many variables, where does one start without dismantling all those variables.
You scan your own film... WHOOOOAH! I can't even go there. I leave that to others. I tried on three different NEW Epson flat bed scanners and I read and I did and I read and I did. I will never attempt scanning myself again, and it appears I wasn't having many more problems than any others.
Isolate all these functions....
Shoot fresh film with the camera and lens you are using. Have a pro lab process the film.... Yes, I said a pro lab with hopefully a great reputation. Sure, it's expensive. ONE TIME to confirm the problem is not YOU, The camera, or the film.
Then tackle the second part of the process.... Well actually you did in that first step. If the pro lab got good negs/transparencies, then work on you DIY processing until you are getting the same results as the lab. My bet is you won't unless you practice and change,,, many times.
But, to weigh how good those negs are, DO NOT DIY scan them. Have them scanned on a Pro drum scanner... Yes, It's expensive, but you may not get an answer until you pay a bit to check out this one step.
If a drum scan meets your satisfaction, then your processing is acceptable... to you.
Once you have determined that good scans can be made with your own processed negs/transparencies then you are charged with solving portion three of your dilemma. Getting a good scan yourself with the equipment you own, (or the prospect of buying a drum scanner)....
This is where I gave up. I am not paying for the complete three portions of the equation. I am more than willing to have professionals do my scanning....(although and option is to go back to enlargement and a wet lab, which by the way is a superior method to check the quality of your own processing of film)
My determination was that I could do it all and them screw it up with the scanner. I am firmly convince that in the presence of my level of patience and frustration, my level of skill, and the equipment I could afford for scanning, that part of the process actually took me backwards in my photography, and I willing pay for professional scans.
In any event, and I haven't read past your post, so if I say something wrong here, pardon me.....
But the Old, Tired question, how does one eat an elephant... (one bite at a time) fits the problem you posted.
You brought us an elephant, threw it on our table, and are asking us to eat the whole elephant.
You may get many answers, but I don't know how they can be applicable until you resolve for parts of the problem which is the acceptable way to learn many things.
My dad was a mechanic, all his life, so I became a car buff. I learned how to rebuild and restore old cars. I started by tearing engines apart. Many of them never saw the road. I ended up many years later building race engines that actually lasted for a few races. By itself it seemed an insurmountable task, but it really is a set of chores, in which you have to learn:
Design, measurement specifications, tolerances, proper and complete assembly, Fuel induction (carburetor theory and Fuel Injection), Ignition theory and systems, lube practices, test before run, test run, Install in properly coordinated drive train, ......Frankly I usually needed help with Ignition and electrical.
I say you need to go back to basics and test each part of the system.
I can't even comprehend eating your elephant????
But if it were me, I would know how to narrow down where the problem lies. I suspect with me the problem was at scanning.... I should have tried going back to enlargement and wet printing because I made it to a high level of satisfaction before I hit scanning. Does that make me feel bad. NO!!! I am happy I can do as much as I can, and forego the rest. Am I respectfull when confronted with someone who can do it all, and do it well. NO... Very few can do everything well, and they are usually arrogant people I cannot stand to be around. Am I Arrogant and hard to cope with.... Three ex wives would strike a resounding YES to that. Do I care... Nope!
what fstop and shutter speed did you use?
some lenses are not the easiest to focus
and even the manufacturers suggested to
stop down a little bit when focusing.
was the image on the ground glass sharp ?
how did you scan the image .. was it a scan from a print
or from the film .. maybe the film was the wrong height
from the glass when you scanned it ?
Peter York
18-Apr-2013, 12:12
What was the scanner?
How can I check that? I would not find anyone who could do this here in Pakistan.
Cheers
Raffay
You need a depth gauge (http://www.transcat.com/Catalog/productdetail.aspx?itemnum=PT99342&utm_source=google&utm_medium=base&gclid=CMzp-a7F1bYCFSNqMgodIRoA9A) 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
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.
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
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, 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
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
18-Apr-2013, 22:54
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
19-Apr-2013, 03:43
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
19-Apr-2013, 06:11
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
19-Apr-2013, 18:00
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.
C_Remington
19-Apr-2013, 18:16
There is your answer. Motion, plus wide-open LF lens both contribute.
Forget everything you've read in this thread except this.
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.
When you say the scan is soft, does that mean that there is something wrong with the scanner or with my scanning. Secondly, I don't have any lighting setup, so higher shutter speeds are like a dream of the dslr world, with max aperture of 4.7 I am not getting anything above 1 sec indoors during day also. Is there anyway I can use home made lights, right now I can't spend to much on setup.
Cheers
Raffay
C_Remington
19-Apr-2013, 18:46
When you say the scan is soft, does that mean that there is something wrong with the scanner or with my scanning. Secondly, I don't have any lighting setup, so higher shutter speeds are like a dream of the dslr world, with max aperture of 4.7 I am not getting anything above 1 sec indoors during day also. Is there anyway I can use home made lights, right now I can't spend to much on setup.
Cheers
Raffay
Higher iso
Higher iso
That's true, but you won't believe the situation I am in in terms of LF, we don't get film here in Pakistan and I get all my film from abroad. Airport scanning is a big issue as well and I have been told the higher the ISO the more chances of fogging during airport scanning. Currently I only have 125, 100 and 25 ISO films.
Any DIY on lights.
Cheers
Raffay
C_Remington
19-Apr-2013, 19:17
That's true, but you won't believe the situation I am in in terms of LF, we don't get film here in Pakistan and I get all my film from abroad. Airport scanning is a big issue as well and I have been told the higher the ISO the more chances of fogging during airport scanning. Currently I only have 125, 100 and 25 ISO films.
Any DIY on lights.
Cheers
Raffay
Shoot outside?
Would like to see your pix.
Another attempt and I have to say this is worse then the last one, totally my fault. I setup the newspaper well, the focus was sharp and then my son waked in and I made him sit next to the table, accidentally his checked moved the paper and all was lost. Posting just for you guys to see and if you can pin point anything. The negative looks better in contrast and tonality but the scan is not as great, what do you people think?
Image s2 is scanned with epson 4990 at 1200 dpi (to save time) again the settings were f4.7 and 1 sec. will improve that once i manage to get a light. It is a screen shot of the actual image due to size limitation. Image s3 is the negative.
s3: 93649 s2: 93650
A few more pics for ref:
93652 93651
Cheers
Raffay
Tim Meisburger
19-Apr-2013, 23:52
One second exposure and f4.7 is the cause of unsharpness. Just shoot a still life and then you will know for sure.
A second cause of unusual unsharpness is encountered with some old lenses, which have a focus shift when stopped down. In your case you shot wide open, so this would not be an issue.
Siamese
20-Apr-2013, 14:01
The image is definitely not sharp. An image like that will not become sharp with greater contrast. It'll just be an unsharp image with more contrast.
As a former professional portrait photographer, I can tell you that expecting a model to sit still for 1 second is not practical. Anything longer than 1/30th is likely to cause problems, but 1/30th is certainly no guarantee, as people differ.
I don't think your large aperture is an issue either, provided you focused on the eye. The eye should be in focus, even if the ear isn't. Even with shallow depth of field, SOMETHING should be in focus, and hopefully, that which you actually focused on.
I would take exception with the newspaper test you did. It would make a great deal more sense to mount the paper on a wall, and position the camera with tripod directly in front of it, so the entire paper would be in focus at the same time. By shooting obliquely at the paper, it's likely that some portion of the paper will be in focus and other parts of it will be out of focus, depending on your depth of field. As done, it's not a definitive test.
Further, I would perform the focus test with a wide open aperture, in order to achieve shallow depth of field and provide a true test of focus.
In cases where I wondered if my camera was focusing just in front of, or just behind that which I wished to focus on, I would set up another test. One example would be to set up a line of objects (like a row of 8 forks) on a table, and set up the camera so you shooting down the line, with near, middle, and distant objects. Focus on the middle object. Then check the image to see if that's the object in focus, or whether the object in front of it or behind it is in focus.
My latest, not the best composition, and also to get some light I took this in the sun, which is again not a good idea. Efke 25 @ f5.6 and 1/30. I think I am getting bad at this every passing day :) I focused my daughters eyes and hoped that everyone would be in focus, not sure how the dof works. Apart from focus, I still feel that there is something wrong, maybe it is the scanner as someone pointed out. Well I think I need to give photography a break :) Thank you everyone for your support.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8539/8670025033_66807feba3.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/february71/8670025033/)
family (http://www.flickr.com/photos/february71/8670025033/) by february71 (http://www.flickr.com/people/february71/), on Flickr
Cheers
Raffay
Tim Meisburger
22-Apr-2013, 02:02
It looks in focus. Are you focusing with a ground glass, or using the rangefinder on your Polaroid? The light is a bit hot. Try shooting in open shade to eliminate the blown highlights. Depth of field is controlled by the aperture setting; the higher the f stop (i.e. the smaller the aperture) the greater the depth of field. When shooting in bright light you should be able to use a small aperture to get more depth of field.
In your other post you asked about lights. A 4x5 requires the same amount of light as any other camera. Like a 35, faster film requires less light for a good exposure, but 100 ASA in 4x5 and in 35mm will both require the same light. Consequently, any flash will work with your camera. If you have an old flash from a 35mm, but your camera doesn't have a hot shoe, you can buy an adapter that will allow you to connect it to your shutter. If you go on ebay you can by a radio trigger from China for fifteen or twenty dollars (free shipping) that will allow you to use the flash off camera, which will produce more interesting light.
If you have a flash meter, just place that at the subject and pop the flash and the meter will tell you what aperture you need to use. If you don't have a flash meter you can google "guide number" to learn how to determine camera settings with the guide number of the particular flash you are using. You can also use constant lights (sometimes called hot lights). These can be homemade (try www.diyphotography.net).
I am using the gg my rangefinder is not working properly
cuypers1807
23-Apr-2013, 08:15
Do you have a loupe?
okcomputer
23-Apr-2013, 09:26
hmmm... I looked at your last photo full size on flickr. Your daughter's face is actually in pretty good focus, and stopping down a stop or two would help things for the rest of the family. (maybe rate your film one stop faster, close the aperture one stop and keep the same shutter speed). The lighting is strong and a bit harsh, but I think it works well, the shadows on the faces are not overly strong.. Next step: Getting your family to look like they're enjoying the experience (which may be the hardest part) :)
By the way, bravo for attempting LF in Pakistan. On my last visit last year, I saw that the wedding photography and portrait scene was completely digital.
hmmm... I looked at your last photo full size on flickr. Your daughter's face is actually in pretty good focus, and stopping down a stop or two would help things for the rest of the family. (maybe rate your film one stop faster, close the aperture one stop and keep the same shutter speed). The lighting is strong and a bit harsh, but I think it works well, the shadows on the faces are not overly strong.. Next step: Getting your family to look like they're enjoying the experience (which may be the hardest part) :)
By the way, bravo for attempting LF in Pakistan. On my last visit last year, I saw that the wedding photography and portrait scene was completely digital.
Thank you for the supporting comments, I really need them :) Yes it is all digital here and people think I am crazy shooting film, but I am liking it. How does the rating of film work, aren't films rated like fixed made ISO 25 or whatever, now if I rate it higher how does that work, wouldn't the pictures be one stop under exposed how does one compensate for that?
Btw, where are you based, and what brought you here.
Cheers
Somebody please move this to the proper forum. It is not DR.
No issues, let me know where to, nobody needs to move it. Sorry if my messages are causing you trouble.
Jim Andrada
25-Apr-2013, 09:44
Hi Raffay
I think ROL is just asking a moderator to move the thread to a different (more general) forum because it is not specifically film and darkroom related. However, until a moderator moves it just carry on as you are.
My suggestion would be to go back indoors, use the fastest film you have and set up a still life (maybe a box of something with text on all sides) near a window and go after the sharpness issue with a higher number f-stop and longer exposure. You need something that absolutely won't move. This way you can isolate the problem. Once you have a sharp negative, you will know that focus etc is working correctly. Next step would be to think about your processing steps - for example, take three identical shots then develop one for the rated time in your developer, and one for 20% less time and one for 20% more time - you should see differences in the contrast range of each negative. Then I would scan each one and see which one is better ie more like the tonalities you expect. Sharpness may still be an issue after the scans but this would give you an idea of how development time works with your exposure and metering technique. If the negative looks sharp and the scan doesn't, don't worry yet - this part is all about isolating the processing variable. By the way, your agitation technique can also have a major impact on the way your negatives look - more aggressive agitation can lead to higher contrast, for example. Unless you use a machine to develop, everybody's technique varies so there is no absolute right rating for film - it's really an art more than a science so you have to find what works for YOU and be consistent.
After you're comfortable that you have a good negative that yields the tonalities you're thinking should be in the photo at the scanner's default settings and which look "good" to you, you can go after the scanning technique.
You'd be surprised how much control you have in Photoshop and what a nice print you can make from a somewhat flat negative. But I would start as above to see if you can get close in camera and processing before worrying too much about the scanning. Scanning is an art unto itself so I personally think it's best to get to where you can consistently get "good" negatives before tackling the scanning side of things.
So much of all this is personal preference - I tend to like somewhat contrasty "hard edged" photos and therefore I tend to develop more aggressively - I wish I could get some of the beautiful smooth tonality that I see in a lot of the work of folks like Ken Lee on this forum, but it just doesn't seem to be my way of seeing the world.:(
I'll be shooting a few things around here in the next few days and if you'd like I could send you a couple of 4 x 5 negatives for you to use in looking at your scanning workflow, but as I said, these would be negatives that look good to me - they might not look so good to others:<)):cool: At least we'd be able to compare notes on what the result looks like after scanning and Photoshopping.
Hi Jim,
Thank you for your kind note, I have so much to learn that if I could afford I would visit the US and take an introductory class so that I am not such a pain on this forum. I am so eager to learn but it is so difficult because I have no teacher or mentor here who could look at my negs and prints and guide me. Only yesterday a fellow member explained beautifully how he took a particular picture and in the explanation he said that he thought that his negs were a little thin, I did not knew what thin means, so I asked him. He explained that they are not as dense as he would like...tell you what I have no idea what dense mean :) but I feel so bad asking him that...it would be great if you could share a few negs of yours as you suggested (if I understood correctly) and if you don't mind I could share some of mine and maybe I can learn this art...as I said I am so eager to learn, but I need a mentor to tell me if and when I achieve a step so that I don't keep going round in circles.
I will do this focus testing exercise over the coming weekend and will then share the results. I have a 1.5 litre FR tank, which cannot be inverted so I just put the film in then soak for three mins, pour chemicals in, shake left and right by twisting gently for the first 30 secs, then 5 to 10 sec every 1 min for required amount of time depending on the film. I use D23 stock and plain hypo for fixing. Scan with epson 4990, which I am afraid is not in the best of shapes. As you suggested I would now take one step at a time and would learn and move forward but I would like yours and others support doing it.
Sometimes I think that I should wait until I have the budget to buy a proper camera and some lenses so that I can shoot with appropriate focal lengths, currently I am using a converted Polaroid camera with a fixed 127mm f4.7 Rodenstock lens. Maybe I am wasting film, chemical and time.
Cheers
Raffay
Cheers
Raffay
Jim Andrada
25-Apr-2013, 12:10
Hi Raffay
There is no such thing as wasting your time! I still use a 1937 folding camera that my father used to own. It was a good camera for its time, but it is a little bit obsolete by modern standards. And now I am using a camera made in about 1903 and a lens from the mid to late 1800's and just starting to learn how to use it to best effect.
Of course there are new superlative optics available, but if you look at historic photographs from the 1800's, they were excellent.
If your lens is not the sharpest, then see the beauty in soft(er) focus and learn to use the camera to make photographs that make you happy - it is not about the technology, it's about the art. Before they had bright modern pigments, the old painters could create masterworks that are still admired, they just used a different palette than modern painters. The art shapes the demand for media with which to express it and the media shapes the vision of the artists and their demands on the media.
OK - I'll make a couple of photos with my Graphic using a simple 127mm lens from the same era as the Polaroid and send them to you. I think it should be relatively close to what your camera can do.
By the way, this was taken with the Graphic on a light weight folding tripod. I believe I was using a slightly better lens than the standard one and I don't consider this in any way a superb photograph, but I think it is pretty close to what you should be able to get with your equipment, unless the scanner is seriously out of adjustment.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8340/8181341909_bc3ef4f623.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/89514126@N05/8181341909/)
Fountains copy (http://www.flickr.com/photos/89514126@N05/8181341909/) by Kirigakuresaizoh (http://www.flickr.com/people/89514126@N05/), on Flickr
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.