Lack of sharpness with 11x14

[scott palmer]

Hey friends,

I'm in need of help! I recently inherited an 11x14 camera. It's a "one off" built by Canham many years ago. The friend who gave it to me, whom Keith built it to spec for, used it for still life work. The camera doesn't have any movements and I'm using it for portraits. But, she used to send me prints and I was always surprised by their apparent lack of sharpness -- contact prints.

Anyway, I've run a box of HP5 through the camera and I've yet to get a really sharp image. I've used different film holders, different lenses (3) and done everything I know to do technique-wise to get a sharp exposure, but no luck. They're not terribly soft, just not razor sharp like you'd expect.

I've been using the same lenses with my Wisner 8x10 and making images with hallucinatory sharpness for years. I'm using the same exposure (1/2 sec.), same tripod (the big Gitzo), same developer (Pyro), same everything -- except for the camera and film.

I even set up and shot a sharp target with a lot of fine print, and while the negative was sharp with a small s, it wasn't SHARP!

8x10, 5x7, 4x5 I'm using Tri-X. I've never used Ilford film before. I'm a minimalist. I've used Tri-X and, years ago, Super XX for decades, so my experience with other materials is intentionally limited.

So, everything is exactly the same, down to the location and subject matter, but I'm unimpressed with the results I've gotten. Tracy Storer even took the thing home a checked all the holders and seating dimensions, but everything was/is okay.

I have two thoughts: 1.) is HP5 as sharp as Tri-X? Maybe it's the film (unlikely, I figure). 2.) as I said, this is something of an odd ball camera. Does anyone have any thoughts about things that would affect focus other than the holder/camera back adjustment? I mean, this thing has been beaten up a bit. The camera front was obviously broken off and reattached at some point, and I doubt there's a true right angle anywhere on the thing, but still, if it's sharp on the ground glass, it should be sharp on the film, correct? And, again, I saw early images made with this camera and always thought they weren't as sharp as they should've been either.

So that's it. I'm quickly loosing interest in shooting 11x14 simply because of this problem, and I've already eliminated all the easy stuff. So, if any of you have any ideas I'd love to hear them.

Thanks,

Scott

[Ken Lee]

Why not ask Keith Canham ?

Have you inspected the negatives under a loupe ?

Are you using a vacuum frame for contact printing ?

[wfwhitaker]

The obvious suggestions...



1.) Ground glass is mis-aligned
2.) Camera is mis-aligned
3.) Film is not flat



sound like they've all been addressed. I'm sure if Tracy checked it out, he would have found any problems.



Is the center of the image still less sharp than on 8x10, given the same lens? And the loss of sharpness is on the negative and not just on the ground glass?



Perhaps the camera is haunted.... But seriously, have you asked Keith?

[wfwhitaker]

Ken's suggestion is sound. Make sure that your printing frame is truly holding the film tight against the paper. You may not require a vacuum frame, but it is true that as the format size increases, so do the difficulties in maintaining adequate film/paper contact.

[Gary J. McCutcheon]

You could call Kieth Canham and consult with him. He is very good to work with and will go to great lengths to satisfy his customers. He may even look at it and align it albeit at a fee. The call to find out is the easiest.

That said, you may want to recheck the GG position and make sure there is no vibration or movement during exposure. The canhams that I've played with (I've never owned one) seem to have some flex after being locked down. Open to vibration. If your camera has no movements, that may eliminate some of that, but I think aluminum tends to flex. If the GG looks sharp with a loup and the film is not SHARP there could also be a problem with film holder positioning. Make sure it clicks all the way in. Others will probably chime in with more ideas. If non of this works, call Keith, he may have the answer.

Gary

[Michael Kadillak]

I do not want to cover bases from those ahead of me so I will try another angle particularly since Tracy has checked the holders and the GG.

Have you considered the nature of your apparent lack of sharpness to unintentional overexposure and the overdevelopment that is the natural compensation? I was shocked at how easy it is to get into bellows compensation with ULF cameras that are actually requiring serious exposure compensation to get things dialed in. When you use smaller large formats it does not even enter your mind. Easiest way to get around it is the Calumet compensation system with the wafer that you put in the scene and measure on the ground glass and add what it says for exposure. The other way is to get out your tape measure and use the standard formula.

Poorly executed negatives just look like crap and I feel that this is an area to look carefully into.

You said that you are using the same exposure and I bet when you check this out, it could add some snap into what you are doing in the perceived sharpness department.

Cheers!

[Michael Kadillak]

My apologies (it is late here). My post above should say "unintentional UNDEREXPOSURE and overdevelopment that is the natural compensation".

Cheers!

[Michael S. Briggs]

The camera front was obviously broken off and reattached at some point, and I doubt there's a true right angle anywhere on the thing, but still, if it's sharp on the ground glass, it should be sharp on the film, correct?





Because of the difference in the grain of ground glass and of film, an image can look sharp on the ground glass, but on the film a photographer will notice that the image isn't as sharp as it should be. You may have noticed this in judging depth-of-field, where the depth-of-field will look adequate on the ground glass, but show as inadequate on the film. So having a sharp image on the ground glass is not a guarantee that you will get sharpness that you expect on the film.





If the camera is visibly distorted so that you can visually see that it doesn't have right angles, then it is not sufficiently accurate -- the distantance from lens plane to film plane is going to vary across the film. My suggestion is to check the photo you made of fine print and see if the sharpness varies acrros the film. If the film doesn't have fine print in all regions, make another film that does. If some areas are sharper than others (other than the center if you are using a lens at too wide of an aperture), this would confirm the idea that the camera isn't sufficiently aligned and needs repair.





While you have had someone check the holders and dimensions, it would still be worthwhile to do a photographic test that the focus is correct. It only takes one sheet of film, or perhaps several if you want to try several f-stops. Focus on something at a slant, like a fence or a ruler. Be sure to note the location that you focused on. Then examine the film and check whether the position of the best focus is where you intended it to be. If not, the position of the ground glass if off with respect to your holders.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi there,

Not to overstate the obvious but the larger the film, the larger the bow to the film. 11X14 in vertical would be as bad as it gets. I think Sinar used to make 8X10 holders that had a tacky strip down the center to hold the film flat, you could try double-sided gift wrapping tape. Checking focus with fine print would be fine to check the lens coverage but a staggered series of objects at your normal focus distance would be better to check for film bowing. I prefer playing cards, they have a sharp pattern and a clean edge to focus on. A few set-ups to cover the whole field and 1 film would find this out.

Happy holidays.

[John Cook]

I second Paul Fitzgerald's suggestion about bowing film and a tack strip placed in the center.

Also, a simple ground glass/film holder position check we were taught in art school was to photograph a double page newspaper on the floor (or table-top) with the camera positioned at a 45-degree angle with movements zeroed. The diaphragm was set wide open for minimum depth of field. Ironing the page to make it perfectly flat isn't a bad idea. Find a page with no pictures, like the stock market listings.

The object of the test was to see if the line of type on which the ground glass was focused was the sharpest line of type on the negative. If not, the plane of the film in the holder does not match the position of the ground glass. Not as uncommon as you might think. Linhof 4x5 holders developed a reputation for this in the 60's.

[Henry Ambrose]

Do what John Cook said. Some part of the resulting negative will be in focus even if the cause of your unsharpness is a focus error or film bowing problem. If that negative is soft all over then look to see that your lens/lensboard/standards/tripod connections are solid. If you question the stability of your outfit shoot John's test again but this time light it with flash to freeze the motion of the camera or any of the camera's parts.

[Norm Johnson]

Owned a furniture photography studio years ago and did almost all contact prints using 810 and 11 by 14. Had flatbed BJ 11 by 14 and the studio was on basement loading dock area with concrete floor. Often had to take two or three esposures the same as we could get that unsharp look. Some of the problems, moved our photo of 11 by 14 to night when nothing was mmoving around. One tripod just did not hold the camera solid (vibration) long lens and long exposures. Tossed out a couple of holders of the older wood type. We had vacum printers so those never caused problem. When HC 110 came out tried that in place of DK60 (a) those always looked soft. We never used the center post on I beleive the Davis Sanford and the Majestic seemed to not cause trouble. This as best I can remember and I would agree with all those above as possiblities.

I do think starting with Kieth C. might be the best answer.

We did have a mono rail BJ ll 14 also but never used it expect or one client photos taken vertical in a tent.

[CXC]

It might be useful to shoot at least one landscape, that is focussed on infinity. See what if anything is in sharp focus, and eliminate extended bellows issues.

[David Vickery]

Hello,
Don't give up on 11x14 yet.

Exactly which brand of film holders are you using, and exactly which film holders did Keith Canham make the camera for??? I ask this because the Empire State cameras(at least some of them) and their film holders were made to a different standard than the graflex/burkand james/eastmen Kodak/ etc. and just about anything else that you are likely to see were made for. That is, the ground glass is set for a different distance than the more common folmer/graflex film holders. I experienced this problem first hand. When I figured out what was going on I was finally able to make some 11x14 prints that where sharp. I have a 11x14 photo of an old building with some wasps on it and you can count the legs on them with a loop on the print. When I was standing there taking the photo if I had noticed the wasps I certainly wouldn't have been able to see their legs.

I would further suggest that it isn't developing and film bowing in the holders--11x14 film doesn't bow in the holders--(unless you are using some Real thin film or something is wrong with the holders) or several of the other things that have been mentioned as you would have figured them out yourself. But, as previously mentioned, it could also very easely be that you need to use a vacuum frame. Unless you like soft images, anything larger than 8x10 should be printed with some sort of a vacuum frame. This could very likely be your problem---it was mine for a while as well.

I think that with the things that you mentioned doing to try to figure this out, these two issues need to be investigated next.

[Michael S. Briggs]

Re the suggestions that the problem might be not using a vacuum frame to make contact prints. The obvious step to diagnose the problem is to examine the negatives with a loupe -- Scott can compare to 8x10 negs made with the same lens.

Again, what strikes me in Scott's description is that the camera was broken and doesn't have any right angles. It may not have sufficiently accurate alignment of the lens to the film.