View Full Version : can't get sharp photos with an LF camera
when I compare my photos with what I find here and elsewhere on the net, they never look as sharp. Sometimes I do get a sharp one. But I cannot attribute that to a lens of film. It isn't movement, the blur is general, it doesn't have a direction like you normally have with movement.
And if I compare my results with my medium format cameras then I have the same impression. A photo I take with the Mamiya Press or Fuji 690 is sharper and has more definition then a 4x5 using the same film, development and scanner.
So I have 2 cameras. A Wista 45N that I use with 4x5 and a since recently a Wista 45D with a 6x9 back. And each get me the same results, not as sharp as I would expect. Lenses are the same, Fujinon CM-W and SWD, film is Foma 100, 200, FP4 or Adow CMSII. Development is almost always HC110 B (*) and the scanner is an Epson V700. always using a Gaoesi 8x loupe, a tripod and a release cable. Nothing exceptional but more than good enough to give a sharp image. With the Mamiya Press it would be the same film, development, scanner, tripod.... but the result is far better.
So I'm missing something. But I have no idea what. Only thing I can think of is that focusing on the ground glass is the issue. That is the largest difference I see. The distance might be faulty. But how to check? with a rangefinder of reflex, you put a ground glass in place of the film and check. But with a ground glass it doesn't make much difference to change it by another. I did check orientation of the Ground glass, the ground side is towards the lens. Both those cameras do have a fresnel. It is also towards the lens (so between the lens and the ground glass). I have no idea if those are original.
But I'm out of ideas. So what could I check otherwise?
Is it possible that your scanner is the issue? What does a comparison of the negatives show. You should have no problem getting sharp images with the lenses you mention.
Kevin Crisp
13-Apr-2022, 08:30
Put your negative on a light box and look at it with a powerful magnifying glass. My guess is that you have a scanning issue and the negative will look sharp. If you zoom into one of your 4X5 scans do you see the individual film grains?
There are so many other things that could be an issue. Tripod? Using a loupe to focus? Lens problem? Use of lens problem? I doubt you have a film registration error on two different cameras.
If you think your film and ground glass are at different distances, that is easily checked. Put a yard stick at a 45 degree angle and focus wide open on a particular number. Is that what is sharp on the negative? The few times I have done this I line up objects on the top rail of a fence and shoot down the row, focusing on just one. There are lots of easy ways to check this.
If you think your film and ground glass are at different distances, that is easily checked. Put a yard stick at a 45 degree angle and focus wide open on a particular number. Is that what is sharp on the negative? The few times I have done this I line up objects on the top rail of a fence and shoot down the row, focusing on just one. There are lots of easy ways to check this.
I agree. First check the negative to rule out the scanner. Then run this test to see if your film & screen are "OFF". The other thing is focusing on the ground glass. Are you using your naked eye, glasses or a loupe? Any of these three could be "OFF". Do you have a resolution chart? If not use a newspaper as a test target.
Alan9940
13-Apr-2022, 10:50
Am I understanding correctly that the fresnel is between the gg and the lens? I was taught that a fresnel should be behind the normal gg because the fresnel has a focal length which can introduce focusing errors. Therefore, from the back of the camera the order should be fresnel-->gg-->lens.
rjbuzzclick
13-Apr-2022, 11:32
Am I understanding correctly that the fresnel is between the gg and the lens? I was taught that a fresnel should be behind the normal gg because the fresnel has a focal length which can introduce focusing errors. Therefore, from the back of the camera the order should be fresnel-->gg-->lens.
This jumped out at me too. I know on Pacemaker Graphics the fresnel is supposed to be between the GG and the lens, but I don’t know if this is true for Wistas.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Am I understanding correctly that the fresnel is between the gg and the lens? I was taught that a fresnel should be behind the normal gg because the fresnel has a focal length which can introduce focusing errors. Therefore, from the back of the camera the order should be fresnel-->gg-->lens.
This is a good point, but it depends on the camera. Some cameras are designed for the fresnel between the GG and the lens, others behind the GG. My Toko cameras come with just a GG so the fresnel (in my case Beattie Intenscreen) goes behind the GG. Wista 45 cameras -- according to Beattie -- come with a fresnel between the GG and the lens, so the Intensceen replaces the fresnel in front of the GG.
This, of course, assumes that the camera has not been modified -- and that the BEATTIE info is 100% correct:
https://www.intenscreen.com/pdf/INSTALLATION_GUIDE_FORVIEW_CAMERAS.pdf
So it looks like the fresnel is probably in there correctly -- but the 45N, 45D & 45 II might be different from the 45.
Am I understanding correctly that the fresnel is between the gg and the lens? I was taught that a fresnel should be behind the normal gg because the fresnel has a focal length which can introduce focusing errors. Therefore, from the back of the camera the order should be fresnel-->gg-->lens.
Well, I only took apart the GG of the Wista 45D as it was in need of a clean. And what I found was:
- lens
- fresnel with the ridges to the side of the lens
- metal spacer
- GG with the ground side towards the lens.
But I have no idea at all if this was the original way it was, if any of then was at the right place or if one of them was correctly oriented. I take it the GG was correctly oriented with the ground side towards the lens.
But is the fresnel original? Is it oriented the right way? Is the spacer in the correct place (between fresnel and GG)? Is the fresnel and GG in the correct order?
If I see my results and compare to other photos then something is wrong. But what? There is no first hand information at all how these cameras left the factory. Heck, I have no idea if the GG or fresnel is even the one that the factory put in, they are "unsigned".
Bernice Loui
13-Apr-2022, 11:54
Fresnel lenses applied on the ground glass with the belief and idea to "brighten" the GG image easing focus is often a mixed of problems or might be improved. Stopped using any fresnel as a GG viewing aid decades ago, too many problems and overall unworthy gain in focusing improvement.
Check for what is the ground glass_fresnal combo OEM spec for this Wista 45D. Ascertain the GG and fresnel IS designed and specific for this Wista 45D. If they are not verifiable correct for this Wista 45D, obtain the proper items. Alternative, measure the mounted ground glass distance to film holder seating area -vs- spec'ed film holder distances then adjust this distance to make them equal. Ditch the fresnel lens as previously mentioned, they can cause more problems than solve the focusing challenge.
Do this before burning any more film in this camera, given the current situation the results will be more out of focus film images. If the view camera system is good and proper with good view camera optics, the film images will equal or exceed the image quality of a medium format film image.
Bernice
Tin Can
13-Apr-2022, 12:11
I have a 45 Wista RF that was gently rehabilitated by Kumar's expert in Japan
It is perfect
From rear, GG, fresnel, lens Fresnet is embossed AT2IW which IS WISTA from GG side!
Almost looks like one piece...
Quick iPhone pics
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52002553136_4299d31b7f_z.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/gp/tincancollege/m868d1)IMG-1123 (https://www.flickr.com/gp/tincancollege/m868d1) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52002613303_a6077b378a_z.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/gp/tincancollege/04d2Vz)IMG-1122 (https://www.flickr.com/gp/tincancollege/04d2Vz) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr
Tin Can
13-Apr-2022, 12:23
Next you must convince yourself, that you can fix this
I have several calibers that are used every week
Tin Can
13-Apr-2022, 12:34
Wista 4x5 Groundglass/Fresnel Combination
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/216040-REG/Wista_211229_4x5_Groundglass_Fresnel_Combination.html
Tin Can
13-Apr-2022, 12:37
advice nobody wants
make your own GG
Discover where it must be
Save $330 with tax
Well, I only took apart the GG of the Wista 45D as it was in need of a clean. And what I found was:
- lens
- fresnel with the ridges to the side of the lens
- metal spacer
- GG with the ground side towards the lens..
That's exactly how BEATTIE says it should be set up for Wistas -- which seems to be confirmed from what others are saying for Wistas.
But that doesn't mean that there could not be something else "wrong". And it also doesn't mean that you should not run the easy "ruler" test mentioned before. Mark the ruler where you think the image is in focus, develop it and see if a different point is in focus instead. Then you need some adjustment. An if nothing is sharp, then the problem is the lens.
Agreed. Just to summarize:
Use the ruler test to see if anything is in focus.
If not, then lens, or camera mounting (vibration) likely culprits.
If so, then plane of focus off.
If negative sharp, then scanner.
Ok, thanks for your input guys. So I need to do some tests the coming days. I won't be able to develop the results for a week or so but I'll come back with what I found.
RichardRitter
14-Apr-2022, 05:10
When you made the negatives did you close down the lens?
If you did there should be a sharp area on the negative. Even if the focusing screen is out of adjustments you will get a shape image on the negative some where.
Was the image sharp on the ground glass when focusing?
If yes the lenses are ok.
Since you used two different cameras and are getting the same results
It may be a problem in what happens after you expose the film.
Dark room light leakage, chemical fog, scammer not working right.
Post an image of the problem negatives.
When you made the negatives did you close down the lens?
Yes, I always try to be between f/16 and f/27. Maybe a bit arbitrary but on the other hand I'm mostly at a fair distance of the subject.
If you did there should be a sharp area on the negative. Even if the focusing screen is out of adjustments you will get a shape image on the negative some where.
To me it all seems just as "not quite sharp".
Was the image sharp on the ground glass when focusing?
If yes the lenses are ok.
It was as sharp as I could get it. Some told me to check if the rear group is in contact with the shutter. I can confirm that with all my lenses it is.
Since you used two different cameras and are getting the same results
It may be a problem in what happens after you expose the film.
Dark room light leakage, chemical fog, scammer not working right.
Post an image of the problem negatives.
Could be. I'm out of ideas, that's why I ask here.
I have put a couple negatives on the net. I don't have negatives with the same film for the 4x5 as the 6x9. I also choose negatives that were taken without a yellow filter. When I have details about the shot I added it below. These are the 4800dpi scans of the Epson V700 converted to .jpg, nothing more. No other adjustments. So the files are large! 51MB for the 4x5, 23MB for the 6x9.
https://quirinus.one/forum_foto/unsharp/4x5_orig_013.jpg
Wista 45N, Fujinon 125 CM-W, Adox CMSII100 film, ID11 7'30".
https://quirinus.one/forum_foto/unsharp/4x5_orig_035.jpg
Wista 45N, Fujinon 90 SWD, f/19, 1/30, Fomapan 100, ID11
https://quirinus.one/forum_foto/unsharp/6x9_orig_025.jpg
Wista 45D, Fujinon 90 SWD (about 10mm shift up), f/22, 1/60, Fomapan 200, HC110 1+63 12' (this one has a light leak at the lower left part)
It can be that I'm far to critical and I'm expecting more than is reasonable. These are typical of about 80% of the negatives I get.
This is what I get with a Fuji GA645Zi handheld on an autumn day.
https://quirinus.one/forum_foto/unsharp/645_orig_003.jpg
Kodak Tmax 100, HC110 1+63.
Andrea Gazzoni
14-Apr-2022, 11:56
bad eyesight can be ruled out? had the same issue, it took me maybe three years to realize it was my eyes fault
Alan9940
14-Apr-2022, 12:11
Assuming that no sharpening was applied during scanning, on my monitor and to my old eyes your results look exactly like what I'd expect from a flatbed scan. And, honestly I don't see much difference between the GA645Zi scan and those above from 4x5. One thought about the scanner itself... Have you tested it to determine its true optical resolution? For example, my first flatbed scanner was an Epson Expression 1600 that was stated to achieve 1600ppi max resolution. After testing it, I determined that the highest quality scans happened at 800ppi. Just a thought...
Actually, one more thought... If your negatives look sharp through a loupe on a light table, pick the best one and send it out for a drum scan. Comparing a drum scan to your V700 scans should tell you oodles.
Bernice Loui
14-Apr-2022, 12:23
Some areas are fuzzy focus, some areas are sorta focus, some areas are kinda sharpish. This points to the limitations and realities of a flat bed scanner and film flatness. Or, film flatness in holder to grind glass/fresnel to film in film holder distance issues.
Regarding the film flatness in film holder issue, clip from the Sinar propaganda regarding film flatness and film holders. Also why so much tooting about BIGer sheets of film gain more film flatness problems.
226537
Challenges with film flatness, camera precision/accuracy relative to ground glass/fresnel distance and tolerances to film in film holder is magnified once large aperture lenses are used. Stopping down can hide various camera problems.
What are the image "sharpness" expectations from images made?
This was posted some time ago in regards to this obsession of "sharpness". The 5x7 Ektachrome was made decades ago using a Goerz 14" f9 APO artar (@f22), 5x7 Sinar C, Sinar shutter. Note the difference between 4990 flat bed scanner -vs- Leica M420 microscope at 260x magnification.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?164451-5x7-Ektachrome-Epson-4990-scanner-vs-Wild-M420-microscope
Reality is, none of this makes as much difference as believed or perceived, if a projection enlargement print is limited to never more than 4x, obsessive stuff like Uber sharp and all that is simply not that relevant in the finished print. What is FAR more important becomes image content, it's expressive qualities and IMO, tonality along with all those non "sharpness" focused aspects of the print.
This previous discussion applies here:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?118181-Are-Photographer-s-Obsessed-With-Sharpness-but-blind-to-the-bigger-picture
Bernice
If you run the simple ruler test with the lens (open or stopped down) -- mentioned days ago -- it doesn't matter if your eyesight is bad or your scanner is messing up. Something -- one spot -- on the negative will be as sharp as that lens can get -- even if your ground glass is misaligned.
If no plane (ruler distance mark) in the negative is sharp enough, then the problem in the lens.
That's the place to start first -- determine if the patient is alive or dead before you start operating.
Some areas are fuzzy focus, some areas are sorta focus, some areas are kinda sharpish. This points to the limitations and realities of a flat bed scanner and film flatness. Or, film flatness in holder to grind glass/fresnel to film in film holder distance issues.
.....
Challenges with film flatness, camera precision/accuracy relative to ground glass/fresnel distance and tolerances to film in film holder is magnified once large aperture lenses are used. Stopping down can hide various camera problems.
What are the image "sharpness" expectations from images made?
Could be I'm running into the limits of the scanner. But I don't think so. I'll get the light table out end of April (not at home the next week and weekends). As for large aperture... when used at f/22 think this is in the region where those various problems should be hidden.
Well, I expect it to be better than this. I expect to be able to read 10cm high letters on a billboard 5 meters out. Letters like that are worse than the flatbed scan of the stop board in your example. And that stop sign is a big lot smaller than the letters I would like to be able to read. Like the text on the 4 banners on the grave of the 4x5 photo in Amiens cathedral. I expect it to be as least as good as a 1950's Kodachrome projected 1.5mx1.5m by an ordinary projector on a common family screen.
If you run the simple ruler test with the lens (open or stopped down) -- mentioned days ago -- it doesn't matter if your eyesight is bad or your scanner is messing up. Something -- one spot -- on the negative will be as sharp as that lens can get -- even if your ground glass is misaligned.
If no plane (ruler distance mark) in the negative is sharp enough, then the problem in the lens.
That's the place to start first -- determine if the patient is alive or dead before you start operating.
It is on the list for next week. Won't be able to develop until end of April. But it will be done. I'll even do it with several lenses to see if that gives any variation.
I'll even do it with several lenses to see if that gives any variation.
It's always good to have something to compare it to. I hope it's not your lens -- but that would make it simple, and avoid a lot of other work. It happened to me once. I sold the lens, got another one, and the problem was solved. As a result, the first thing I do when I buy a lens -- new or used -- it test it against another lens. There are duds out there -- and not just used gear, but it's especially important to check used lenses. Let us know how it goes.
Bill Poole
14-Apr-2022, 20:19
To me the most problematic of these scans is the one of the church altar--not sure what's going on there, with some areas very soft. (I could not see an aperture noted for that one, which might be an issue.) The two outdoor images seem within limits of what I would expect from a V700 scan, especially if they haven't been sharpened, which all digital output needs in my experience. For what it is worth, I never scan at greater than 3600 DPI on the V700, and even that is not supposed to be a whole lot better than 2000 dpi according to what I have read from others. I very much like the 6x9 image, probably because I am more familiar with T-max and like its look. It's hard to isolate variables in apples-to-oranges tests. (Diffrent films, lenses, etc.) Good luck nailing down your issues. Hope this helps--ignore if not.
RichardRitter
15-Apr-2022, 03:44
Find someone who has a working darkroom or send the negatives to a service that dose darkroom printing.
Have contact prints made and have one or two enlargements made.
Compare to the scams and digital prints.
cptrios
15-Apr-2022, 11:10
To me, the crane image doesn't look too bad for what it is, and the church altar has some really obvious camera shake. Actually, it looks almost as if the focus was nudged forward/backward during exposure, since it gets progressively worse as you move out from the center.
Edit: I just noticed that you shot that on CMS 20. That must have been a very long exposure. Lots of things could have happened during that time!
Bernice Loui
15-Apr-2022, 11:22
Don't expect uber resolution results from a flat bed scanner. The 4990 is used to share images via data only. Seems 2400 dpi (nee ~10 microns per pix) is about the reasonable limit for these Epson flat bed scanners. A good optical microscope objective with green light (~500nm) will do about 0.2_ish micron. In both cases, film/image flatness, overall system stability makes ALL the difference.
IMO, non of this is that important if the enlargement is not more than 4x. Sheet film can offer much improved overall tonality and other aspects aside from "sharpness" over smaller film formats.
Bernice
Joseph Kashi
15-Apr-2022, 15:49
FWIW - I've found when scanning 5x7 Ilford Delta 100 that I got significantly sharper scans when I stopped scanning using the flat bed or open film holders and instead started doing wet scans with the inexpensive Epson wet scan film holder, which works up to 5x7 film. I'm using an Epson V850.
The actual stepper motor maximum inter-line resolution of the V850 is about 2900 dpi, so using a 3200 pi setting is about the maximum dpi that could make any practical difference. I usually use 2400 dpi - from my perspective, I cannot perceive a meaningful difference between a 2400 dpi wet scan and a 3200 dpi dry scan.
r_a_feldman
15-Apr-2022, 18:29
To me, the crane image doesn't look too bad for what it is, and the church altar has some really obvious camera shake. Actually, it looks almost as if the focus was nudged forward/backward during exposure, since it gets progressively worse as you move out from the center.
Edit: I just noticed that you shot that on CMS 20. That must have been a very long exposure. Lots of things could have happened during that time!
I see two issues with the altar image:
1. There was camera motion. The blown-out highlights in the upper left show diagonal motion, like a back-slash \.
2. The floor is sharp — even out from the altar — and the metal railings are sharp, indicating that the plane of focus was too close to the camera and/or not parallel to the vertical.
paulbarden
15-Apr-2022, 20:44
Yes, I always try to be between f/16 and f/27. Maybe a bit arbitrary but on the other hand I'm mostly at a fair distance of the subject.
To me it all seems just as "not quite sharp".
It was as sharp as I could get it. Some told me to check if the rear group is in contact with the shutter. I can confirm that with all my lenses it is.
Could be. I'm out of ideas, that's why I ask here.
I have put a couple negatives on the net. I don't have negatives with the same film for the 4x5 as the 6x9. I also choose negatives that were taken without a yellow filter. When I have details about the shot I added it below. These are the 4800dpi scans of the Epson V700 converted to .jpg, nothing more. No other adjustments. So the files are large! 51MB for the 4x5, 23MB for the 6x9.
https://quirinus.one/forum_foto/unsharp/4x5_orig_013.jpg
Wista 45N, Fujinon 125 CM-W, Adox CMSII100 film, ID11 7'30".
https://quirinus.one/forum_foto/unsharp/4x5_orig_035.jpg
Wista 45N, Fujinon 90 SWD, f/19, 1/30, Fomapan 100, ID11
https://quirinus.one/forum_foto/unsharp/6x9_orig_025.jpg
Wista 45D, Fujinon 90 SWD (about 10mm shift up), f/22, 1/60, Fomapan 200, HC110 1+63 12' (this one has a light leak at the lower left part)
It can be that I'm far to critical and I'm expecting more than is reasonable. These are typical of about 80% of the negatives I get.
This is what I get with a Fuji GA645Zi handheld on an autumn day.
https://quirinus.one/forum_foto/unsharp/645_orig_003.jpg
Kodak Tmax 100, HC110 1+63.
If you’re not liking these images, then it’s time to switch to a high acutance developer, like Pyrocat HD
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.