PDA

View Full Version : Sharpness Puzzle...



SAShruby
8-Nov-2007, 22:32
I'm having a consistent problem. I steadily get unsharp negatives. This example is 1200 DPI raw scan of 1/2 square inch area. It's an equivalent of 2x2 square inch on 16x20 enlargement. Image is overall soft, looks like I'm out of focus.

This was taken by Arca Swiss 4x5 camera on Ries tripod, lens Fujinon WS 210mm @ F45, exposure 1/15 sec. No filter. Focused with Schneider 4x loupe.

Processed in Xtol 1:1, trays, semistand development for 20 minutes, first and last minute agitation by rocking tray. Negative came out with an excellent density.

I tested my ground glass, it's spot on. The focused point was the sharpest point on the negative but if enlarged, same soft edges.

Could be this caused by my method how I develop the negative?
Is Fujinon lenses so underperforming?
Or what else?

:confused:

Los
8-Nov-2007, 22:53
i saw similar results at f45 with a 135mm. your image looks in focus with reduced acutance. i would think your high contrast image (sunny day exterior) should have rendered a very sharp negative. development and/or diffraction could be affecting your acutance. do you get the same "softness" at wider stops?

Fred Braakman
8-Nov-2007, 22:55
Hi Peter,
I had similar problems in the not too distant past, and I found that if I secured the top of my enlarger so that it can not move or shake, I ended up getting sharper images. I bolted extensions from the wall behind the enlarger, and secured them with some bolts to the top of the enlarger assembly.

Fred

SAShruby
8-Nov-2007, 23:11
i saw similar results at f45 with a 135mm. your image looks in focus with reduced acutance. i would think your high contrast image (sunny day exterior) should have rendered a very sharp negative. development and/or diffraction could be affecting your acutance. do you get the same "softness" at wider stops?


Yes, I have same problem with wider apertures and with other lenses as well such as 300 Fujinon WS, 360 Fujinon WS Nikkor 450M.

Before enlarging, I was doing contact printing. I saw those soft edges since. I assumed it's caused primarily by the contact frame glass difraction. Obviously not.

SAShruby
8-Nov-2007, 23:13
Hi Peter,
I had similar problems in the not too distant past, and I found that if I secured the top of my enlarger so that it can not move or shake, I ended up getting sharper images. I bolted extensions from the wall behind the enlarger, and secured them with some bolts to the top of the enlarger assembly.

Fred

My enlarger is bolted to wall as well. I woudn't say this is my problem. The softnes is a consistent problem, not a occasional occurence. Unfortunately. Thanks for the tip though.

I find the softnes on negative. I think I need to resolve this one first.

Daniel_Buck
8-Nov-2007, 23:19
I might be off base here, but have you seen sharper results? or have you always had the softness? If you have always had it, it may be your scanner. Maybe the scanner is not focused properly, and your film needs to be raised or lowered on the glass just a tad bit? Anyone local to you have a sharp negative you could borrow to run a test? Or someone who has a scanner who can scan your negative, as a cross check to double check your findings.

SAShruby
8-Nov-2007, 23:23
I might be off base here, but have you seen sharper results? or have you always had the softness? If you have always had it, it may be your scanner. Maybe the scanner is not focused properly, and your film needs to be raised or lowered on the glass just a tad bit? Anyone local to you have a sharp negative you could borrow to run a test? Or someone who has a scanner who can scan your negative, as a cross check to double check your findings.

This is a scan from the 16x20 print - 2 square inches. Printed 300DPI just to have comparable results to negative scan. Even I look with my loupe, I see the same softness. I saw it in my contacts as well.

Scanner I use is Epson4990. I tested scanner to scan ruler. This is 1200 DPI scan of Ruler.

Daniel, thanks for the suggestion.

sog1927
8-Nov-2007, 23:41
Just to clarify: if you examine the negative directly with a loupe (taking the scanner completely out of the equation), does the negative still look unsharp (I think this is what you mean, but I'm not absolutely sure)?

Steve

This is a scan from the 16x20 print - 2 square inches. Printed 300DPI just to have comparable results to negative scan. Even I look with my loupe, I see the same softness. I saw it in my contacts as well.

Scanner I use is Epson4990. I tested scanner to scan ruler. This is 1200 DPI scan of Ruler.

Daniel, thanks for the suggestion.

Donald Miller
8-Nov-2007, 23:50
I try to never expose any 4X5 below F 32...more normally F22 for reasons of defraction. Additionally 16X20 is the upper limit of a print that I am satisfied with on that size negative...more usually 11X14.

SAShruby
8-Nov-2007, 23:51
Just to clarify: if you examine the negative directly with a loupe (taking the scanner completely out of the equation), does the negative still look unsharp (I think this is what you mean, but I'm not absolutely sure)?

Steve

Let me check. The trick with the negative is that it looks sharp. But, I have only 4x loupe so I cannot see more details. The other thing is that negative always looks more sharper that inverted positive image. But I can see edge softnes.

So to answer your question, I must say, negative is not sharp as I'd like to. I can't enlarge it more than 11x14 with acceptable quality. My 16x20 enlargement is clearly fuzzy when I look closely. From couple feet looks sharp but it's not acceptable to me.

SAShruby
8-Nov-2007, 23:57
I try to never expose any 4X5 below F 32...more normally F22 for reasons of defraction.

I know. I tried it with F45 just to see if the negative would improve. I shoot 4x5 mostly up to F32 too. There no too much difference between my F32's and F45 one.



Additionally 16X20 is the upper limit of a print that I am satisfied with on that size negative...more usually 11X14.

Curious about that. If 35mm film can be enlarged to 8x10 which is 7 times, why 4x5 would have different properties? Shoudn't be normal to do 16x20 from 4x5's?

Greg Lockrey
9-Nov-2007, 00:01
What kind of feet does your tripod have? This looks like vibration to me.

SAShruby
9-Nov-2007, 00:04
What kind of feet does your tripod have? This looks like vibration to me.

It's a Ries Tripod.

Greg Lockrey
9-Nov-2007, 00:09
It's a Ries Tripod.

Are the feet metal or rubber? (I don't own a Ries).

SAShruby
9-Nov-2007, 00:10
Are the feet metal or rubber? (I don't own a Ries).

Both. This shot was taken on metal screws. Previous were on rubber. Is it possible that shutter could be a cause?

Greg Lockrey
9-Nov-2007, 00:20
Both. This shot was taken on metal screws. Previous were on rubber. Is it possible that shutter could be a cause?

That's my next thought. Is it a Compur or Copal? My Compur's always sounded like they would scare a rhino. Especially at slow speeds.

I know that this is going to sound weird but harmonic vibrations are possibly at play here. Try setting the height of your tripod a little lower next time.

SAShruby
9-Nov-2007, 00:25
That's my next thought. Is it a Compur or Copal? My Compur's always sounded like they would scare a rhino. Especially at slow speeds.

I know that this is going to sound weird but harmonic vibrations are possibly at play here. Try setting the height of your tripod a little lower next time.

All are Copals. I will try to lower it. My usuall leg spread is around 30 degrees.

Greg Lockrey
9-Nov-2007, 00:32
All are Copals. I will try to lower it. My usuall leg spread is around 30 degrees.

I would pay attention to the length of the leg extension. That's where the harmonics would be in play. It's just an idea. You can probably get to your working height by lengthing the legs and using a wider stance, anything to change the length of the leg. Copals are definitely smoother IMO. There could be other factors causing vibration too. I could be wrong in my assesment, but it looks like vibration to me based on what I'm seeing here.

SAShruby
9-Nov-2007, 00:53
I would pay attention to the length of the leg extension. That's where the harmonics would be in play. It's just an idea. You can probably get to your working height by lengthing the legs and using a wider stance, anything to change the length of the leg. Copals are definitely smoother IMO. There could be other factors causing vibration too. I could be wrong in my assesment, but it looks like vibration to me based on what I'm seeing here.

Well, this weekend if weather will permit (forecast is raining till Tuesday) I will try it. Result will be posted as soon as I will develop the negative.

Thanks Greg.

Still, if anyone has any other suggestions, they're welcomed here.

Greg Lockrey
9-Nov-2007, 01:04
I'm not all that familiar with this 20 minute stand method of development that you descibed. I'm a HC-110 for 7 minutes with agitation every 30 sec kind of guy. I'm wondering if it might be the method of developement being that the emulsion is getting soft by being wet for so long. OR: how about the age of the film? What you do seem to have is consistancey and if you change something in the method will the problem become less? If so, you have your answer. My $.02.

Doremus Scudder
9-Nov-2007, 03:38
Peter,

I hate dealing with issues like this, there are so many variables involved. I had a nagging sharpness problem that I finally traced to a small camera repair that repositioned one side of the camera back outwards a bit...

Anyway, to address your problem: Here are the things I would look at/do:

I see "ghosting" on the highlight areas of the print which could be indicative of movement. You need to determine if this is on the negative or not. Examine the negative in the enlarger under the grain magnifier if you have a good one (e.g. Peak), or get a more powerful loupe (8x or 10x).

a) If this "ghosting is NOT on the negative, you have an enlarging problem. This could be movement of the enlarger during exposure, "popping" of the negative during exposure, defective enlarger lens, etc. You would need to track down precisely what the problem was... (another thread maybe...)

b) If the ghosting is on the negative, then it is an exposure problem. "Popping" of the negative (or shifting in the holder) during exposure is a possibility as is tripod movement. Wooden tripods can sometimes develop "harmonic resonance" with things like shutters firing, wind, etc. and cause movement. Take a couple of test shots indoors, with the tripod set up rock solid and low, at several shutter speeds/apertures of a detailed subject and then inspect the negatives to see if they are sharp (use the same lens and try to use sharp apertures in the f16-32 range). If they are sharp, then you have a movement issue, which should be easy to solve.

i) if the negs are NOT sharp, then you need to start looking at focus issues. You say your ground glass is "spot on," but are you sure? Do the close-up ruler test to check. Make sure your camera back and filmholders are seating properly (my problem above was caused by a folded over piece of the velvet light seal!). Do a test to see how much diffraction is affecting your shots: take the same scene at f22, f45, f64 and compare details. (I would bet that this is not a diffraction problem, although you will get some overall softness at f45).

Along the way doing all of this, you will most likely find and be able to solve your problem.

By the way, I have 16x20 prints from 4x5 negatives in which one can read the text of postage stamps in a store window that is just a small part of the print. There is no reason that a 16x20 should not be sharp.

Hope this helps and good luck finding the problem.

Best,

Doremus Scudder

Ted Harris
9-Nov-2007, 06:36
It's difficult to tell much from the screen image but there are a few other common possibilities that need to be checked:

1) Their could be alignment issues somewhere in your camera .... usually this occurs when the gg is out of alignment with the film plane/film holder.

2) Similarly, you could have enlarger alignment problems (I realize you think it is the negative) and, still the enlarger, what sort of an enlarging lens are you using?

3) The commonest problem and often last checked is our own eyesight.

I seriously doubt it is the tripod btw. If you are getting vibration with a heavy wooden tripod others will be worse (assuming everything is tightened down).

Marko
9-Nov-2007, 07:19
What Ted and Doremus said, there are too many variables in your equation. Perhaps you should try and elliminate them one at a time.

1. Camera:

a) Exposure movement
b) Optical path misalignment (i.e. lens and film not parallel)
c) Focusing problems
d) Support movement

2. Enlarger: same as above

3. Scanner:

a) Focusing problems
b) Movement of the negative
c) ???


So, you should try to test for camera first, in such a way as to elliminate both the enlarger and the scanner. Then:

1. Get a high power loupe
2. Use flash in a controlled setting to freeze any movement
3. Use an appropriate target with fine detail

If it's still fuzzy after that, it has to be either a misalignment problem or a focusing problem. You can elliminate the film "popping" by borrowing a couple of film holders from someone who gets sharp results. If the problem persists, have a friend do the focusing (to elliminate the human factor).

Finally, try a different camera (rent or borrow), just to double-check the human factor. It would be unlikely to get the same problem with two different cameras (including a different lens).

But whatever you do, divide the problem into the smallest blocks possible and work only on one at a time, down the list, until you reach the point where you can see the difference. Then backtrack two steps and try again for consistency.

If you try to examine everything at once, you'll never get there.

Greg Lockrey
9-Nov-2007, 07:21
If it was a matter of gg alignment, there would be a focus shift. Something would have been in focus even if it wasn't what you set your focus for unless you completely under focused. In other words you would have had to focus your 210mm at 200mm for example. This image appears to be focused on the mid range fense. It still isn't sharp either, but sharper than the foreground and background. So there is a focus point. Are your lenses (you said all of them do this) clean? No, the problem is common to all your lenses. Look at those things that are common. Age of film, processing technique and vibrations.

John O'Connell
9-Nov-2007, 07:31
Overall softness in all printing sounds like an enlarging problem, where your lens is stopped down too far or the negative pops after focusing. But you claim that the negative is soft, and your scan seems to bear that out.

I doubt it is the tripod itself---you'd see a difference in different conditions then, and you seem to claim that the effect is faily consistent. I think you'd suffer unsharpness from harmonic vibration in highly specific conditions with a big Reis tripod, like a Tacoma Narrows Bridge situation.

My guess is that it's in the camera, or in the connection of the head to the tripod or the camera to the head. I've had similar issues when I forgot to tighten down the QR mechanism on my tripod head, or when the head had slightly unscrewed from the tripod.

Fred L
9-Nov-2007, 07:48
Is the neg by any chance overexposed or over developed ?

keithwms
9-Nov-2007, 09:01
My strategy would be first to set up conditions for the sharpest possible test negative. Once you have that test negative, then you can start to pin down the source(s) of unsharpness.

Set up a test scene with sharpness checks right across the frame, i.e. a grid pattern or resolution chart or such. You must fill the ground glass with objects with which you can consistently check sharpness right across the frame. E.g. repeating, identical patterns. It is important to check all the way across because that will enable you to eliminate alignment issues later on.

For test purposes I once printed out some grid patterns and did a shot of that, because I am too cheap to buy a test chart. Whatever. N.b. I printed the same thing on transparency film to test alignment of my enlargers and learned a lot that way, my enlargers were way off.

Note, the test scene must be sufficiently illuminated that you can work at fairly high shutter speed and thereby eliminate vibration as much as possible. You also will want to work at an optimal aperture e.g. f/11. stopping down to f/32 is the worst thing you can do to check sharpness because diffraction will impose some overall loss of sharpness that can then obscure alignment issues. f/11 to f/16 would be a good test range.

After you get your Sharpest Possible Negative, then you will be better able to diagnose very basic things like... lens issues... planarity of the front and rear standards, tripod stability... shutter impulse.... GG registry... film flatness... your own eyesight! You will be able to vary shooting parameters and see what's up.

If, in spite of your best efforts, you still get a soft test neg then you will at least be able to answer whether it is soft right across the frame, or more toward the edges, etc. etc. You can pin down a lot of things that way.

In my opinion, the worst conditions for making a sharpness test neg are: long exposure (longer than say 1/125); stopped down a lot; poor illumination; nonstandard development...

I think that relying on a scanner is not good because there are inherent sharpness issues involved in scanning that may mask the real issues much further upstream. I mean, what if your front and rear standard aren't planar, or if there is some lens issue (say, the front and rear elements aren't appropriately secured in the shutter or whatever). The scanning might mask that, because you don't yet know if you are scanning optimally... a test neg would help you determine that. A 10x loupe can help a lot.

Sorry for the lengthy treatise ;)

SAShruby
9-Nov-2007, 09:43
I'm not all that familiar with this 20 minute stand method of development that you descibed. I'm a HC-110 for 7 minutes with agitation every 30 sec kind of guy. I'm wondering if it might be the method of developement being that the emulsion is getting soft by being wet for so long. OR: how about the age of the film? What you do seem to have is consistancey and if you change something in the method will the problem become less? If so, you have your answer. My $.02.

Good morning everyone,

Greg,

Type of development is familiar with people using Pyro developers. Semistand development should give you more optical sharpnes. I'm not sure what do you mean by emuslion getting soft by being wet for so long....

The age of film is fine. It was a new shipment of HP5. I also tried FP4, Efke, J&C 100 Pro.
Same. All new.

photographs42
9-Nov-2007, 09:48
Peter,

As others have noted, the best way to isolate the problem is to eliminate as many variables as possible. I have more questions than answers. “When / how did the problem start?” Had you been getting good results and this problem just developed, or are you new to LF and have never gotten sharp results? If the problem just started, what did you change? Do you have other lenses? If so, have you had this problem with them? Have you tried normal development?

This statement “Even (if) I look with my loupe, I see the same softness. I saw it in my contacts as well.” pretty much places the problem on the negative itself. Answers to the questions above will help in narrowing down the cause.

Jerome

PS: I make 6 and 7 times enlargements from 4x5 negs regularly and they are very sharp. A 16x20 (4 times enlargement) should be no problem.

SAShruby
9-Nov-2007, 09:55
Peter,

I see "ghosting" on the highlight areas of the print which could be indicative of movement. You need to determine if this is on the negative or not. Examine the negative in the enlarger under the grain magnifier if you have a good one (e.g. Peak), or get a more powerful loupe (8x or 10x).

Hi Doremus,
As I stated I have Schneider 4x Loupe I can move around. Also I have Chromega critical focuser. If I look with Chromega under enlarger, yes negative is soft.



a) If this "ghosting is NOT on the negative, you have an enlarging problem. This could be movement of the enlarger during exposure, "popping" of the negative during exposure, defective enlarger lens, etc. You would need to track down precisely what the problem was... (another thread maybe...)

I have a glass negative carrier, so no pops.


b) If the ghosting is on the negative, then it is an exposure problem. "Popping" of the negative (or shifting in the holder) during exposure is a possibility as is tripod movement. Wooden tripods can sometimes develop "harmonic resonance" with things like shutters firing, wind, etc. and cause movement. Take a couple of test shots indoors, with the tripod set up rock solid and low, at several shutter speeds/apertures of a detailed subject and then inspect the negatives to see if they are sharp (use the same lens and try to use sharp apertures in the f16-32 range). If they are sharp, then you have a movement issue, which should be easy to solve.

Greg already mentioned it and I'm going to test it. Results will be posted.


i) if the negs are NOT sharp, then you need to start looking at focus issues. You say your ground glass is "spot on," but are you sure? Do the close-up ruler test to check.

I did that already. The sharpest point was spo on, unfortunately it was unsharp.


Make sure your camera back and filmholders are seating properly (my problem above was caused by a folded over piece of the velvet light seal!).


I always check that.


Do a test to see how much diffraction is affecting your shots: take the same scene at f22, f45, f64 and compare details. (I would bet that this is not a diffraction problem, although you will get some overall softness at f45).

I didn't do this one, as I said, I don't see a difference between F22, F32 and F45 at this point. in my negatives.


By the way, I have 16x20 prints from 4x5 negatives in which one can read the text of postage stamps in a store window that is just a small part of the print. There is no reason that a 16x20 should not be sharp.

I completely agree with you. Thanks for the suggestions.

SAShruby
9-Nov-2007, 09:59
It's difficult to tell much from the screen image but there are a few other common possibilities that need to be checked:

1) Their could be alignment issues somewhere in your camera .... usually this occurs when the gg is out of alignment with the film plane/film holder.

2) Similarly, you could have enlarger alignment problems (I realize you think it is the negative) and, still the enlarger, what sort of an enlarging lens are you using?

3) The commonest problem and often last checked is our own eyesight.

I seriously doubt it is the tripod btw. If you are getting vibration with a heavy wooden tripod others will be worse (assuming everything is tightened down).

Hi Ted,

1) The crop of the negative is from the middle section. I did a check of my GG, I don't think it's the issue. This was on top of my list in the process of elimination.

2) Before I go print I always check my enlarger alingment.

3) I did check my eyes as well:D +0.3 left +0.15 right. 20/20, no problemo.

SAShruby
9-Nov-2007, 10:05
...2. Use flash in a controlled setting to freeze any movement


That's why I got those Norman Lights for $2700.:D
My problem is obviously getting very expensive.


If it's still fuzzy after that, it has to be either a misalignment problem or a focusing problem. You can elliminate the film "popping" by borrowing a couple of film holders from someone who gets sharp results. If the problem persists, have a friend do the focusing (to elliminate the human factor).

Finally, try a different camera (rent or borrow), just to double-check the human factor. It would be unlikely to get the same problem with two different cameras (including a different lens).

I have Deardorff 8x10, 8x20, Arca Swiss 4x5. 25 4x5 filmholder, 12 8x10 filmholders and 1 8x10 Lotus filmholder. All the same. Ries tripod is their friend. Same problem.


But whatever you do, divide the problem into the smallest blocks possible and work only on one at a time, down the list, until you reach the point where you can see the difference. Then backtrack two steps and try again for consistency.

If you try to examine everything at once, you'll never get there.

This is exactly what I'm trying to do. One thing at the time. It's already being like that for a year. I getting helpless. That's why I asked you guys, which I appreciate your help.

SAShruby
9-Nov-2007, 10:07
If it was a matter of gg alignment, there would be a focus shift. Something would have been in focus even if it wasn't what you set your focus for unless you completely under focused. In other words you would have had to focus your 210mm at 200mm for example. This image appears to be focused on the mid range fense. It still isn't sharp either, but sharper than the foreground and background. So there is a focus point. Are your lenses (you said all of them do this) clean? No, the problem is common to all your lenses. Look at those things that are common. Age of film, processing technique and vibrations.


I agree with you Greg, ruler test ruled that out immediately. My lenses are kept in very clean environment. They're flawless, and very clean.

SAShruby
9-Nov-2007, 10:12
Overall softness in all printing sounds like an enlarging problem, where your lens is stopped down too far or the negative pops after focusing. But you claim that the negative is soft, and your scan seems to bear that out.

I doubt it is the tripod itself---you'd see a difference in different conditions then, and you seem to claim that the effect is faily consistent. I think you'd suffer unsharpness from harmonic vibration in highly specific conditions with a big Reis tripod, like a Tacoma Narrows Bridge situation.

My guess is that it's in the camera, or in the connection of the head to the tripod or the camera to the head. I've had similar issues when I forgot to tighten down the QR mechanism on my tripod head, or when the head had slightly unscrewed from the tripod.


Hi John,

I'm trying to fix negative first. I have Ries A-100 witt either Gitzao No.4 head or Ries A-250 head. There shoudn't be any problem. Even between the head and cameras.

SAShruby
9-Nov-2007, 10:13
Is the neg by any chance overexposed or over developed ?

Nope. I use BTZS system to determine exposure on my tests.

Gene McCluney
9-Nov-2007, 10:17
It looks to me like a bit of "wind blur" in the negative at the time of shooting, or a slightly "popping" negative at the time of printing, or combination of both. Or an inferior enlarging lens.

Mark Sampson
9-Nov-2007, 10:19
So if the problem is an unsharp negative, check to see that the rear standard is locked down after focusing. a tiny movement there could cause your symptoms.
The only thing at all like this that ever happened to me was when I mixed up the reassembly of the fresnel and groundglass; not that I'm suggesting that as a cause of your difficulties.

SAShruby
9-Nov-2007, 10:25
My strategy would be first to set up conditions for the sharpest possible test negative. Once you have that test negative, then you can start to pin down the source(s) of unsharpness.

Set up a test scene with sharpness checks right across the frame, i.e. a grid pattern or resolution chart or such. You must fill the ground glass with objects with which you can consistently check sharpness right across the frame. E.g. repeating, identical patterns. It is important to check all the way across because that will enable you to eliminate alignment issues later on.

For test purposes I once printed out some grid patterns and did a shot of that, because I am too cheap to buy a test chart. Whatever. N.b. I printed the same thing on transparency film to test alignment of my enlargers and learned a lot that way, my enlargers were way off.

Note, the test scene must be sufficiently illuminated that you can work at fairly high shutter speed and thereby eliminate vibration as much as possible. You also will want to work at an optimal aperture e.g. f/11. stopping down to f/32 is the worst thing you can do to check sharpness because diffraction will impose some overall loss of sharpness that can then obscure alignment issues. f/11 to f/16 would be a good test range.

After you get your Sharpest Possible Negative, then you will be better able to diagnose very basic things like... lens issues... planarity of the front and rear standards, tripod stability... shutter impulse.... GG registry... film flatness... your own eyesight! You will be able to vary shooting parameters and see what's up.

If, in spite of your best efforts, you still get a soft test neg then you will at least be able to answer whether it is soft right across the frame, or more toward the edges, etc. etc. You can pin down a lot of things that way.

In my opinion, the worst conditions for making a sharpness test neg are: long exposure (longer than say 1/125); stopped down a lot; poor illumination; nonstandard development...

I think that relying on a scanner is not good because there are inherent sharpness issues involved in scanning that may mask the real issues much further upstream. I mean, what if your front and rear standard aren't planar, or if there is some lens issue (say, the front and rear elements aren't appropriately secured in the shutter or whatever). The scanning might mask that, because you don't yet know if you are scanning optimally... a test neg would help you determine that. A 10x loupe can help a lot.

Sorry for the lengthy treatise ;)

Keith, you just made my Saturday busy.:) I did pretty much the same, but the grid is a very good suggestion. I have some grids around so I will do same with grid.

SAShruby
9-Nov-2007, 10:32
Peter,

As others have noted, the best way to isolate the problem is to eliminate as many variables as possible. I have more questions than answers. “When / how did the problem start?” Had you been getting good results and this problem just developed, or are you new to LF and have never gotten sharp results? If the problem just started, what did you change? Do you have other lenses? If so, have you had this problem with them? Have you tried normal development?

This statement “Even (if) I look with my loupe, I see the same softness. I saw it in my contacts as well.” pretty much places the problem on the negative itself. Answers to the questions above will help in narrowing down the cause.

Jerome

PS: I make 6 and 7 times enlargements from 4x5 negs regularly and they are very sharp. A 16x20 (4 times enlargement) should be no problem.

"When / how did the problem start?” Had you been getting good results and this problem just developed, or are you new to LF and have never gotten sharp results?"

I believe my problem is since beginning. I don't think I have had a good result yet. It's true I didn't do too much testing either. This is first time I evaluate my process of making negative/print. Consider it as going from the fun phase to a serious phase with my photography.

"Do you have other lenses? If so, have you had this problem with them?"
As I said earlier I do have other lenses and problem is the same. i have only Nikkor anf Fujinons.

"Have you tried normal development?"
No. Not really. So far there are only two variables they didn't change. Tripod and development, which is going to my fisrt post.
It's either Lens, Development or which I didn't consider - Tripod.

Thank you all.

SAShruby
9-Nov-2007, 10:37
It looks to me like a bit of "wind blur" in the negative at the time of shooting, or a slightly "popping" negative at the time of printing, or combination of both. Or an inferior enlarging lens.

My enlarging lens is El-Nikkor 135mm. I wish I would have APO El_nikkors. But still, I think enlarging lens is a good one. I have negative problem. To be honest there is no big difference between negative softness and print softness. Printing so far look good.

Marko
9-Nov-2007, 10:37
This is exactly what I'm trying to do. One thing at the time. It's already being like that for a year. I getting helpless. That's why I asked you guys, which I appreciate your help.

No offense, but if nothing helps, why don't you have someone else make a few test shots with your system (strobe, camera, lens, holder and loupe), once with your negative and using your process and then again, but using their negative and their process?

This should elliminate the user error, just to be sure.

SAShruby
9-Nov-2007, 10:42
So if the problem is an unsharp negative, check to see that the rear standard is locked down after focusing. a tiny movement there could cause your symptoms.
The only thing at all like this that ever happened to me was when I mixed up the reassembly of the fresnel and groundglass; not that I'm suggesting that as a cause of your difficulties.

Hi Mark,

with Arca cameras it takes a lot of power to move back to missalingment. No need to even lock your rear standard. As I said ruler test gave me a clue that negative is unsharp, even the point I focused is the sharpest point. It means I can't find any section of my negative being razor sharp.

photographs42
9-Nov-2007, 11:08
Peter,

I have over 20 LF lenses. Some new, some old and some very old. Some are sharper than others but none of them exhibit the softness you experience. I would be very surprised if the problem is the lens if you have more than one and get the same kind of result from all of them.

I have never tried stand development but it is common for some people and shouldn’t be the source of your problem but I would try normal development just to eliminate that factor.

You’ve gotten a lot of good advice here and have several things to try. My suggestion would be to set up your camera indoors (no wind) and focus on something three-dimensional that is well lit, has fine detail (the grid idea is good) and is not animated (EI: not a person or pet). Try for a shutter speed in the one second range to help eliminate the shutter vibration issue (which I don’t think is the problem) and an aperture of f/22 or f/32 to rule out diffraction (which I also don’t think is the problem). Use a shutter release. That hasn’t been brought up but I think we all assumed you are using one. Develop with normal agitation. Good luck.
Jerome

SAShruby
9-Nov-2007, 11:21
Peter,

I have over 20 LF lenses. Some new, some old and some very old. Some are sharper than others but none of them exhibit the softness you experience. I would be very surprised if the problem is the lens if you have more than one and get the same kind of result from all of them.

I have never tried stand development but it is common for some people and shouldn’t be the source of your problem but I would try normal development just to eliminate that factor.

You’ve gotten a lot of good advice here and have several things to try. My suggestion would be to set up your camera indoors (no wind) and focus on something three-dimensional that is well lit, has fine detail (the grid idea is good) and is not animated (EI: not a person or pet). Try for a shutter speed in the one second range to help eliminate the shutter vibration issue (which I don’t think is the problem) and an aperture of f/22 or f/32 to rule out diffraction (which I also don’t think is the problem). Use a shutter release. That hasn’t been brought up but I think we all assumed you are using one. Develop with normal agitation. Good luck.
Jerome


Yup. That's exactly what I intent to do. First what I do, I spread the legs more wide, on spikes. Second I do is to develop with normal agitation. Maybe Xtol has to be processed normally. I wish I could try my Jobo. But unfortunately I don't have small tank to process one 4x5. Anyway. I'll post results.

Greg Lockrey
9-Nov-2007, 20:44
Are your spikes and/or rubber feet on the tripod able to be locked down i.e. with a locking nut? If those are loose it might be enough for your vibration. Something seems to be loose somewhere.

Doremus Scudder
10-Nov-2007, 04:11
The plot thickens!

Sounds like a real mystery now.

So, on to more esoteric possibilities. It seems you have isolated the problem to the taking process (I believe you mentioned that the negatives when viewed under the grain magnifier were unsharp... this rules out enlarging problems).

If the negs are all taken with the same camera (even with different lenses), look for a pinhole near the front of the camera (even on the lensboard) that may be projecting an unsharp ghost image on your film. (If this were the case, exposures made quickly, i.e. little time between pulling the darkslide, exposing and re-inserting darkslide, would be sharper).

If the negs are all unsharp by about the same amount, are made with different cameras and different lenses, then... I don't know... negative handling (heat, etc.), way too much sulfite in the developer or presoak by accident... moving the camera when releasing the shutter... loose front standard or lens board that wiggles when releasing the shutter... (I'm just brainstorming here, thinking "out loud")... play in the tripod head resulting in the same...

Maybe others have some more creative ideas?

I'm really interested in knowing what your solution will be. Do post when you find the culprit.

Good luck,

Doremus Scudder

David Millard
10-Nov-2007, 05:44
This may have been mentioned, but shooting some sheets of E6 that you then have commercially processed could eliminate your B&W developing as a source of the problem.

Mick Fagan
11-Nov-2007, 05:03
This may have been mentioned before but, is the ground glass (GG) inserted correctly?

It is possible to have the GG reversed and have the textured surface facing the photographer, instead of the lens. As I understand it, the focusing is done by using the textured surface to focus on, if this is reversed it may explain the slight out of focus across the range of lenses and film holders.

Or is there a fresnel lens attached on the lens side of the GG, with the different GG distance not being accounted for?

These are the two possibilities I would be thinking of, if all of my negs were coming out soft.

Mick.

Paul Fitzgerald
11-Nov-2007, 11:19
Peter,

now you know why most photographers are going bald, from pulling their hair out.

Simple suggestion, walk away, just walk away from the camera. Don't think about it, look at it or touch the camera for a week. Go Christmas shopping or anything else that has nothing to do with photography, then come back to it with a fresh pair of eyes.

Start at square one, loading the film holders. The light trap has 2 tabs that hold the film in place. When you pull the dark slide, it releases the light trap and may allow enough movement to show what you have going on. Load the film biased to the bottom side of the holder so it can not move. You could also mark the darkslide where it just clears the light trap and pull it only that far and wait 1 min., pull the slide out all the way and trip the shutter. If the film will move, it already would have by than.

Pin sized light leak or slight lens board movement could also show what you have going on.

Good luck with the hunt.

SAShruby
11-Nov-2007, 13:45
Ok Fellas,

This is another negative: 1*0.8 inch DPI 1200. It would represent 16x20 enlargement.
Better than first one? Would you consider this one acceptable or still I have to dig deeper....

Greg Lockrey
11-Nov-2007, 15:39
Ok Fellas,

This is another negative: 1*0.8 inch DPI 1200. It would represent 16x20 enlargement.
Better than first one? Would you consider this one acceptable or still I have to dig deeper....

The numbers are backward....is this a scanning mistake or did you happen put the film into the holder backward too? I see some shake in the numbers on the ruler also. You can see the lines of the scale have double ghosting as if the camera is shaking up and down. I'm looking at it at about 400% in PS.

CG
11-Nov-2007, 16:16
I dunno, your second test shot looks a lot better to me. What's different? Did you shoot the second a different way? I keep getting the feeling it's camera movement, since all yout lenses and all your cameras have kept giving you less than what you want.

The one common factor has been the tripod and your handling of the shooting.

I'm wondering whether the general area of exposure time is similar - say an eighth to a thirtieth or so? That area is well within the time that any camera movement can really show up and not have time to damp down like it can in much longer exposures.

The thoughts that have occured to me are:

1. For some reason your camera / tripod unit may be moving slightly, just enough to take the sharpness off your shots. Have you done any work with really long exposures? Say 30 seconds, a minute, or longer? A lot of the camera movement from many causes has time to dissipate after the first few seconds, and you might find that really long exposures might show less blurr, and hint at a diagnosis of movement as a likely suspect - The same pertains if you get good sharpness frrom very fast exposures.

2. Are you spreading the legs wide enough to make a stable base? I don't trust a narrow base.

3. I dumb question: are you using any kind of extension column, leg extensions, or any modification that might create a long easy to vibrate mechanism? Looking at the Ries website, they do have leg extensions - but few people use them, and I don't see any column extensions, so my conjecture is quite unlikely ... worth asking nonetheless.

4. Mentioned before, cable release?

5. After you pull the darkslide, do you give the camera plenty of time to stop moving?

6. Have you ever waited till the darkslide is dead still - when you can't see the slightest jiggle in the reflections off any part of the camera? I once put a glass of water on top of my camera and pulled the darkslide. It took a shocking time for the camera to stop jiggling the water.

Best,

C

Jordan
11-Nov-2007, 16:54
I also thing there is some issue with the tripod, perhaps the legs are moving ever so slightly. Have you checked to make sure your lens is screwed together properly?

SAShruby
11-Nov-2007, 17:25
The numbers are backward....is this a scanning mistake or did you happen put the film into the holder backward too? I see some shake in the numbers on the ruler also. You can see the lines of the scale have double ghosting as if the camera is shaking up and down. I'm looking at it at about 400% in PS.

Greg, It a scanning issue. Film was put into holder correctly.

SAShruby
11-Nov-2007, 17:32
I dunno, your second test shot looks a lot better to me. What's different? Did you shoot the second a different way? I keep getting the feeling it's camera movement, since all yout lenses and all your cameras have kept giving you less than what you want.

The one common factor has been the tripod and your handling of the shooting.

I'm wondering whether the general area of exposure time is similar - say an eighth to a thirtieth or so? That area is well within the time that any camera movement can really show up and not have time to damp down like it can in much longer exposures.

The thoughts that have occured to me are:

1. For some reason your camera / tripod unit may be moving slightly, just enough to take the sharpness off your shots. Have you done any work with really long exposures? Say 30 seconds, a minute, or longer? A lot of the camera movement from many causes has time to dissipate after the first few seconds, and you might find that really long exposures might show less blurr, and hint at a diagnosis of movement as a likely suspect - The same pertains if you get good sharpness frrom very fast exposures.

2. Are you spreading the legs wide enough to make a stable base? I don't trust a narrow base.

3. I dumb question: are you using any kind of extension column, leg extensions, or any modification that might create a long easy to vibrate mechanism? Looking at the Ries website, they do have leg extensions - but few people use them, and I don't see any column extensions, so my conjecture is quite unlikely ... worth asking nonetheless.

4. Mentioned before, cable release?

5. After you pull the darkslide, do you give the camera plenty of time to stop moving?

6. Have you ever waited till the darkslide is dead still - when you can't see the slightest jiggle in the reflections off any part of the camera? I once put a glass of water on top of my camera and pulled the darkslide. It took a shocking time for the camera to stop jiggling the water.

Best,

C

This shot was taken on wider base. I removed hard rubber insert between camera and tripod. Exposure was 2.8 seconds. I "used extension legs" on my ries. When I pull darkslide time to exposure was around 10 seconds. And I alway use cable release.

I will look into shaking after darkslide pull.

SAShruby
11-Nov-2007, 17:34
I also thing there is some issue with the tripod, perhaps the legs are moving ever so slightly. Have you checked to make sure your lens is screwed together properly?

I think so. I checked it. Both elements are tight. I'm not sure if they are properly positioned, but there are no spacers.

Bernard Kaye
11-Nov-2007, 21:49
A 4X loupe is not adequate, with or without your problem. Go to 8X to see if the image on GG is sharp, and as several have mentioned, is GG ground side facing lens? If not, your film plane is closer to lens than your GG focusing surface, infinity focus can not be correct. Every comment is correct but when selling these things, "reversed GG" was common as was the fresnel problem.
Bernie Kaye

SAShruby
11-Nov-2007, 22:15
A 4X loupe is not adequate, with or without your problem. Go to 8X to see if the image on GG is sharp, and as several have mentioned, is GG ground side facing lens? If not, your film plane is closer to lens than your GG focusing surface, infinity focus can not be correct. Every comment is correct but when selling these things, "reversed GG" was common as was the fresnel problem.
Bernie Kaye

Yes gg ground glass is facing lens. Fresnel is first and then GG. I searched here how gg and fresnel suposed to be put together. For Arca swiss fresnel is first and GG behind fresnel.

Jim Graves
11-Nov-2007, 22:29
Don't mean to distract you guys but just wanted to say this is an incredible forum ... I'm relatively new to LF and being able to follow threads like this one is amazingly informative!

Greg Lockrey
11-Nov-2007, 23:19
I was just talking with a guy today who does architectual renderings and used to photgraph these with a 4x5 Calumet. He was telling me that when he shot slower than 1/4 sec that movement was always a problem especially if there was traffic going by outside. He had to do most of his photography late at night and hoped no one was driving by. He even then he said that he had to hold his breath and pushed the cable release very slowly. Like shooting a target rifle.

Can you hang a weight under the camera? Your camera bag for example and have it just touch the ground. This might dampend some vibrations.

Now to put this into perspective, I make scans for him and sometime I have to stitch these together with PS CS and he can detect on an 8x10 proof image where the scans overlap if PS didn't match them up correctly....he has one heck of an eye. I usually have to go to 300% to see it myself.

Mick Fagan
12-Nov-2007, 00:08
If the fresnel lens is placed first, followed by the GG, I am under the assumption that the GG has been moved from it's original position and is slightly away from the film plane.

The lens is first, followed by the fresnel lens, followed by the GG. As I understand it, by doing this, the GG has been moved slightly further away from the lens.

This would change your focusing point, so that unless your camera back is somehow adjusted to allow for this change, I don't believe you can get correct focus for your film, which is being held in film holders that do not allow for the thickness of the fresnel lens.

Mick.

SAShruby
12-Nov-2007, 00:19
Hey C,

I put a glass of water on top of my camera. and shaked camera to see how long it takes to settle. It took around 4-5 seconds to stop all vibrations. Also camera release contibutes a little bit. You need to be very cautios to press cable release. Make sure you do not press all the way, it will create shakes.

Greg, that is quite interesting what you're saying. I just confirmed before I saw your post we have to pay attention to how you press release cable. Trere is no problem to shake camera at any point of time. Thank god that shuttes is not shaking lens.

I will try to weight tripod to minimize more shakes. I did some additional testing tonight. Film is drying, I'll post result tomorrow.

SAShruby
12-Nov-2007, 00:28
If the fresnel lens is placed first, followed by the GG, I am under the assumption that the GG has been moved from it's original position and is slightly away from the film plane.

The lens is first, followed by the fresnel lens, followed by the GG. As I understand it, by doing this, the GG has been moved slightly further away from the lens.

This would change your focusing point, so that unless your camera back is somehow adjusted to allow for this change, I don't believe you can get correct focus for your film, which is being held in film holders that do not allow for the thickness of the fresnel lens.

Mick.

Mick this positioning of the fresnel and GG is from factory, therefor I'm not changing it. You can read more Here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=17024&highlight=fresnel+lens+arca+swiss)

CG
12-Nov-2007, 00:33
Check this out. I saw this a long time ago and it keeps making sense.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/sacht3.html The five legged thing would keep a heavy view camera from moving very much.

Bogen I believe makes an accessory post to do a similar thing.

Best,

C

Mick Fagan
12-Nov-2007, 00:36
Peter, if the factory released the product that way, it should be correctly installed, hopefully it is.

Mick.

Marko
12-Nov-2007, 05:50
Peter, if you have an LF acquaintance close by, why don't you try to have him/her take a few test shots with your camera as it is and you take a few with his/hers and then compare the results? That should elliminate (or confirm?) the possibility of user error.

Then you start swapping pieces of equipment to elliminate other possible causes - lens, back (gg), tripod... One at a time, of course.

Ted Harris
12-Nov-2007, 07:16
Peter,

Marko posted what I was about to say after reading through the posts since I last checked in. There are a number of LF photographers in Vancouver, even one or two on this Forum. Why not seek them out?

john borrelli
12-Nov-2007, 09:59
I agree with others about trying an E6 slide film to help rule out some of the B and W processing variables from other issues. As I don't think this has been mentioned, here is something else to look for as a cause of your problem. If you are using an Arca Swiss camera like the F series, there is a thread on a "focusing problem" on this forum that is important to be aware of with these cameras. I describe the issue this way: The locking rings around the focusing knobs are NOT locking rings. Look at their function as providing tension so that the standards are less likely to move when taking a picture. Like a knob that provides tension to a ball head that also has a seperate locking ring knob(which your camera doesn't have). The best way to use these "locking rings" then is to tighten them enough to provide tension to the standards BEFORE focusing, then secondly, completely lock up one of the standards after rough focusing. Then thirdly,use the other standard for additional fine focusing. After fine focusing DO NOT try to "lock up" the standards further(which seems like the logical thing to do at this time). If you turn the "locking rings" after focusing you may actually be minutely moving the standards out of focus(as I was). Even if you remember to recheck the groundglass after focusing the typical loupe may not provide the ability to notice how you have minutely shifted the focus.

SAShruby
12-Nov-2007, 10:33
Ok, here is the third shot. It's a 12 second exposure, unfortunately I cannot make one right now with less than one second until my strobes arrives.

I think this one is so far the best one. Remeber, It's a raw scan, not sharpenned, not spotted. Again 1.0 x 0.8 inch of film scanned at 1200 DPI - equivalent of 16x20 print.

Comments?

Bernard Kaye
12-Nov-2007, 10:52
Try it without Fresnel; nothing to lose. Determine whether sharp focus point is same with and without Fresnel by marking rail or bed where front standard is with and without.
Bernie

photographs42
12-Nov-2007, 11:09
Peter,

This has to be a focus problem. I think you need to do a focus exercise with a ruler but I don’t think you are doing the ruler test correctly. All of the ruler images I have seen from you are taken straight on.

The idea is to lay the ruler flat on a table and aim the camera at an angle of 30 to 40 degrees to the table (ruler) with the ruler running parallel to the camera sight line. Focus on the 6” mark of the ruler using a large aperture (wide open) from as close a distance as you can reasonably get. The result should be an image of the ruler with the 6” mark sharp and the other marks progressively more out of focus because of the very shallow DOF. If the 6” mark isn’t in focus, some other mark should be.

I just can’t believe the problem can be from vibration or loose anything. Either the lens is soft (and I can’t imagine all of your lenses are soft) or it is not focused.

Jerome

PS: Just saw your last post. That looks pretty good to me. I would still try the exersise above.

Bernard Kaye
12-Nov-2007, 11:46
I agree with Jerome: if camera was issued without a Fresnel and if previous owner added it, GG focusing surface is not in its original plane; image is out of focus for film plane when you focus on GG. Many ifs but you are seasoned, you are not jerking or flinching; it is out of focus as to film plane..
Bernie

SAShruby
12-Nov-2007, 12:38
Peter,

This has to be a focus problem. I think you need to do a focus exercise with a ruler but I don’t think you are doing the ruler test correctly. All of the ruler images I have seen from you are taken straight on.

The idea is to lay the ruler flat on a table and aim the camera at an angle of 30 to 40 degrees to the table (ruler) with the ruler running parallel to the camera sight line. Focus on the 6” mark of the ruler using a large aperture (wide open) from as close a distance as you can reasonably get. The result should be an image of the ruler with the 6” mark sharp and the other marks progressively more out of focus because of the very shallow DOF. If the 6” mark isn’t in focus, some other mark should be.

I just can’t believe the problem can be from vibration or loose anything. Either the lens is soft (and I can’t imagine all of your lenses are soft) or it is not focused.

Jerome

PS: Just saw your last post. That looks pretty good to me. I would still try the exersise above.

Those are not rule tests. I'm way past rules tests.

Bill_1856
12-Nov-2007, 12:43
This is ridiculous! Eight pages of Forum masturbation about why the image isn't sharp!
Is the %^&*$ negative sharp or isn't it? If it is, then the problem is in enlarging/scanning, etc. It it isn't (or you can't tell), then there's a problem with the camera/lens/photographer.

SAShruby
12-Nov-2007, 12:44
I agree with Jerome: if camera was issued without a Fresnel and if previous owner added it, GG focusing surface is not in its original plane; image is out of focus for film plane when you focus on GG. Many ifs but you are seasoned, you are not jerking or flinching; it is out of focus as to film plane..
Bernie

Ok, I will sacrifice one shot without fresnel. As I said, I have three cameras, one with fresnel, two without. The problem was not just in one camera. My point is, fresnel is highly likely not a problem. I have a depth micromerer, all my GG are aligned. All of them. Ruler test was first test I did. Let's move on with respect my GG's.

SAShruby
12-Nov-2007, 13:15
This is the test picture I did last night.

SAShruby
12-Nov-2007, 13:52
This is ridiculous! Eight pages of Forum masturbation about why the image isn't sharp!
Is the %^&*$ negative sharp or isn't it? If it is, then the problem is in enlarging/scanning, etc. It it isn't (or you can't tell), then there's a problem with the camera/lens/photographer.

Well... This "forum masturbation" as you call it, helped others to think about their approach, as well as making my picture sharper. If you don't like it, stay away from it.

Marko
12-Nov-2007, 14:57
This is ridiculous! Eight pages of Forum masturbation about why the image isn't sharp!
Is the %^&*$ negative sharp or isn't it? If it is, then the problem is in enlarging/scanning, etc. It it isn't (or you can't tell), then there's a problem with the camera/lens/photographer.

So, if this thread is "Forum Masturbation", how would you describe your esteemed contribution to it?

Kleenex, maybe?

:rolleyes:

Greg Lockrey
12-Nov-2007, 17:03
So, if this thread is "Forum Masturbation", how would you describe your esteemed contribution to it?

Kleenex, maybe?

:rolleyes:

Just wait until he has to ask about a perplexing problem.:rolleyes:

Fred L
12-Nov-2007, 19:13
Have you taken a careful look through your lens from all angles and with different light sources ? I'm betting it's your glass.

Bernard Kaye
12-Nov-2007, 20:53
Some if not many, would "die" to make your picture of the wine glasses.

I, too, sense or "see" flare but have no idea whether it is in taking or enlarging lens. I suspect enlarging lens where it would not be expected but is common with highlight negatives, though your negative may be dense; are there thin or bright areas? It could be caused at the diaphragm or reflection of light from the enlarger column or other objects in the darkroom and you would not see it though you are standing there. Light will be reflected in the enlarging lens which will be lessened by a coated lens with a dark and properly in tact diaphragm; lens designers are aware of this.
A serious and I hope not an overly personal question: how well do you see close up which gets me back to your using a 4x loupe and asking your choice of enlarging focusing device?
There is a weak link and I know it is not your picture taking skill, the glasses prove that.

Bernie

SAShruby
12-Nov-2007, 22:10
Some if not many, would "die" to make your picture of the wine glasses.

I, too, sense or "see" flare but have no idea whether it is in taking or enlarging lens. I suspect enlarging lens where it would not be expected but is common with highlight negatives, though your negative may be dense; are there thin or bright areas? It could be caused at the diaphragm or reflection of light from the enlarger column or other objects in the darkroom and you would not see it though you are standing there. Light will be reflected in the enlarging lens which will be lessened by a coated lens with a dark and properly in tact diaphragm; lens designers are aware of this.
A serious and I hope not an overly personal question: how well do you see close up which gets me back to your using a 4x loupe and asking your choice of enlarging focusing device?
There is a weak link and I know it is not your picture taking skill, the glasses prove that.

Bernie

Hi Bernie,

Thanks for your comment about the picture. Those areas are bright. I tried to make a high key image of coctail glasses. It didn't ended up exactly how I wanted. The base was a flat surface only. It should be bended to the height avoiding a loss of light which turned out to be light grey on the top of the image. This is direct negative scan without sharpening and only thing I did was spotting out dust. No burning or dodging.
That lighter area on the left side is caused by fill light I had on the top. It was not the best setup of my lights. I don't like those two black areas in the top glass either. It was a test, but overall a solid test. Primary objective was to make sharp image.

For focusing I use as I said Schneider 4x loupe as everyone around uses similar loupe. For enlarging I use two focusers. I have Chromega critical focuser and Microsight grain focuser. I say again, enlargements are not a problem at this point. Sharpness of the negative is/was a problem. Sharpness got considerably improved, by removing rubber hardenned spacer between tripod and camera, spreading legs more wide.

Next test will be to weight tripod to minimize vibrations even more, and I promised to do one shot without fresnel.

Bernard Kaye
12-Nov-2007, 22:56
If you can borrow an 8x loupe, please humor me. That is what I sold (pushed on) pros and is what Adams recommended. I know they can cost but please try it, even if you have to set up your camera & tripod on sidewalk outside camera store and use one borrowed from store which I used to arrange for pros. You may be surprised. DO NOT LEAVE YOUR GEAR UNATTENDED FOR EVEN A SECOND.
Bernie

Greg Lockrey
13-Nov-2007, 00:12
Peter, by any chance are you using a filter on your lens? Some cheaper filters add to the glare and cause reflections.

SAShruby
13-Nov-2007, 10:47
Peter, by any chance are you using a filter on your lens? Some cheaper filters add to the glare and cause reflections.

Nope, All my filters are Tiffen's and B+W's. I think coctail glasses caused som flare reflections by themselves.

Greg Lockrey
13-Nov-2007, 16:13
Nope, All my filters are Tiffen's and B+W's. I think coctail glasses caused som flare reflections by themselves.

No, the cocktail glasses seemed better, I was thinking more about the ruler shot.

Andrew O'Neill
13-Nov-2007, 22:43
Hi Peter,

May I ask why you are using xtol 1+1 for stand development? It may be too strong for this type of development. Expose another sheet and develop without stand method. It is quite likely that your film may be suffering from infectious development which in turn causes soft edges. Just a thought...

Turner Reich
13-Nov-2007, 22:48
Do a focus shift test. Change developer and method of development.

SAShruby
14-Nov-2007, 00:22
Hi Peter,

May I ask why you are using xtol 1+1 for stand development? It may be too strong for this type of development. Expose another sheet and develop without stand method. It is quite likely that your film may be suffering from infectious development which in turn causes soft edges. Just a thought...

Hi Andrew,

The answer is quite simple. I'm too lazy sit in total darkness for 15 minutes racking my sheets every 30 seconds. Second, I have Jobo but not small tanks to process sheet film on at the time - yet. Working on it on Fleebay. You maybe right about stand development and Xtol agresivennes. I''ll try to do it as normal.

SAShruby
14-Nov-2007, 00:25
Do a focus shift test. Change developer and method of development.

Can you elaborate for me - focus shift test? I'm not going to change developer, I'm very happy with xtol. I will change the development.

PViapiano
14-Nov-2007, 01:58
Hi Andrew,

The answer is quite simple. I'm too lazy sit in total darkness for 15 minutes racking my sheets every 30 seconds...

You're joking, right?

Please tell me that you know this already, but stand development is a particular method of developing used for a particular or special purpose, usually to compress the range of a very contrasty subject, ie, an indoor scene that includes windows shot during the day. Take a look at Steve Sherman's site...stand dev is not what you should be using for your everyday dev method.

If you can't sacrifice 15 minutes for your hobby or your profession because you're lazy, then what do you expect to accomplish?

It's like buying a BMW and saying you're too lazy to press the gas pedal, so you coast instead...and then complain about the car's acceleration. And then admit it on an online forum.

cowanw
14-Nov-2007, 05:05
To get back to the issue of focus, if that were the problem, some where in the three dimensional image there would be a focus point. Perhaps try some one elses kit. Have someone try your kit.
Regards
Bill

SAShruby
14-Nov-2007, 08:46
You're joking, right?

Please tell me that you know this already, but stand development is a particular method of developing used for a particular or special purpose, usually to compress the range of a very contrasty subject, ie, an indoor scene that includes windows shot during the day. Take a look at Steve Sherman's site...stand dev is not what you should be using for your everyday dev method.

If you can't sacrifice 15 minutes for your hobby or your profession because you're lazy, then what do you expect to accomplish?

It's like buying a BMW and saying you're too lazy to press the gas pedal, so you coast instead...and then complain about the car's acceleration. And then admit it on an online forum.

Chill out! FYI, stand development doesn't have only one purpose.

SAShruby
14-Nov-2007, 08:51
To get back to the issue of focus, if that were the problem, some where in the three dimensional image there would be a focus point. Perhaps try some one elses kit. Have someone try your kit.
Regards
Bill

Again, and I say it last time, I performed ruler test as one of my first tests. Focusing IS NOT AN ISSUE!!! Got it? People, before you make a suggestion, please, read the entire thread!

Andrew O'Neill
14-Nov-2007, 10:15
I certainly don't understand why some people have to be so mean spirited on this forum...but anyways Peter, I'd love to hear your results from a normally developed sheet of film in xtol 1+1.

cowanw
14-Nov-2007, 13:13
Again, and I say it last time, I performed ruler test as one of my first tests. Focusing IS NOT AN ISSUE!!! Got it? People, before you make a suggestion, please, read the entire thread!

I am sorry. What I was trying to say, in my usually obtuse way, was that it was clear that focus was NOT the issue. I thought recent posters were missing that.
I apologize for adding to your frustration.
Regards
Bill

SAShruby
14-Nov-2007, 14:05
I am sorry. What I was trying to say, in my usually obtuse way, was that it was clear that focus was NOT the issue. I thought recent posters were missing that.
I apologize for adding to your frustration.
Regards
Bill

Bill,

There is no frustration at all. Don't take it personally. I'm a kinda guy I do not take too many comments personally. I have a rough skin.

My point was, I mentioned it few times already, focusing is not an issue. BTW, sharpness rapidly improved as you can see if you look at last close-up picture. OTOH, there is still room for an improvement. The "sharpness puzzle" is 95% resolved. I'm looking for another 5%.

Thanks for your input anyway. Help is appreciated.

SAShruby
15-Nov-2007, 09:32
Andy,

I can't send you PM because your mailbox is full.

Andrew O'Neill
15-Nov-2007, 10:08
I just emptied it...sure gets full fast.

Bernard Kaye
15-Nov-2007, 21:00
How do you fare with landscapes of rolling hills (acutance) and night shots of street lamps (flare) ?

There may be optic problem(s) other than focus.

My tests two decades ago revealed horrible results in flare and poor results in acutance with lenses lauded for sharpness and color rendition.

Bernie

Turner Reich
15-Nov-2007, 21:09
Sounds like a loose nut behind the wheel doesn't it? A very disengaging conversation.

SAShruby
15-Nov-2007, 22:38
Sounds like a loose nut behind the wheel doesn't it? A very disengaging conversation.

Turner,

I'm not sure I understand. Can you elaborate?

Anyway, I finished another test. This time as I promised, I put some weight under tripod to prevent shaking, waited like 30 second after pulling darkslide, slowly released shutter and at last, developed it normally. Negative is drying as we speak, I'll post results as soon as possible.

LargeFormatShooter
15-Nov-2007, 23:39
Sounds like a loose nut behind the wheel doesn't it? A very disengaging conversation.


Mr. Bill_1886, Mr. Turner Reich: You not make mistake. You only persons with bravry to say what many other people think.

Mr. SAShuby own 3 camera and every 3 camera have same mistake in all picture not focus? He not try to find mistake himself use trial and test. It be like question, what is life? what car I drive because this one too big und that one too small. That car too long this one too short one half inch. groundglass maybe? enlarger maybe? gg maybe not? elnarger may be not? fresnel may be? May be not fresnel? ALL camera make same mistake all at same time? Maybe film not sharp? Problem not

grounglass-focus/flilm/enlarger/tripod/wind/mount lens. Maybe cable rlease shake in typhoon? He way past rule test. Sound like expert tell people this and that? Not this and that?

For stand development you must have minimum 4 ton granite table for support tank. You must get no harmonic vibration or any other nature of movement of chemical in you tank.. After, tie tripod on top. It no matter rubber or spike feet? There be no vibration and is great.

Mr. SAShuby shuld ask friend help him. I may be think he contains no friends? His attitude is very arrogant and he think he know it all.

Mr. SAShuby: My suggest you start all over one lens. one camera same tripod cablerlease and expose film. Do more work by self and obsever how you do. Do not be so cheap shoot more then one sheet negative film. In realty, I real think bestest suggest is you sell proffessional cameras and buy digi easy touse camera. Then Sharp picture possible. But because you I not so sure that help in you get sharper picture. May be best in purchase postcards and not bother photograph pictures.

I think Mr. SAShuby is enjoy his time to wank with all you people but not think how perform smart analyze in his situation. Give him very hugest towel.

This must be portrait dedicate of Mr. SAShuby.

SAShruby
16-Nov-2007, 00:24
Mr. Bill_1886, Mr. Turner Reich: You not make mistake. You only persons with bravry to say what many other people think.

Mr. SAShuby own 3 camera and every 3 camera have same mistake in all picture not focus? He not try to find mistake himself use trial and test. It be like question, what is life? what car I drive because this one too big und that one too small. That car too long this one too short one half inch. groundglass maybe? enlarger maybe? gg maybe not? elnarger may be not? fresnel may be? May be not fresnel? ALL camera make same mistake all at same time? Maybe film not sharp? Problem not

grounglass-focus/flilm/enlarger/tripod/wind/mount lens. Maybe cable rlease shake in typhoon? He way past rule test. Sound like expert tell people this and that? Not this and that?

For stand development you must have minimum 4 ton granite table for support tank. You must get no harmonic vibration or any other nature of movement of chemical in you tank.. After, tie tripod on top. It no matter rubber or spike feet? There be no vibration and is great.

Mr. SAShuby shuld ask friend help him. I may be think he contains no friends? His attitude is very arrogant and he think he know it all.

Mr. SAShuby: My suggest you start all over one lens. one camera same tripod cablerlease and expose film. Do more work by self and obsever how you do. Do not be so cheap shoot more then one sheet negative film. In realty, I real think bestest suggest is you sell proffessional cameras and buy digi easy touse camera. Then Sharp picture possible. But because you I not so sure that help in you get sharper picture. May be best in purchase postcards and not bother photograph pictures.

I think Mr. SAShuby is enjoy his time to wank with all you people but not think how perform smart analyze in his situation. Give him very hugest towel.

This must be portrait dedicate of Mr. SAShuby.

LOL. You're quite a funny guy, I can tell. I believe SAShuby would laugh as well. Anyway, i'm not going to comment on that not because I coudn't, but because it's a waste of my time.

SAShruby
16-Nov-2007, 00:26
Well, after a very good laugh which made my evening, here is promised picture.

riooso
15-Dec-2007, 22:12
Very nice Sas

Christopher Breitenstein
16-Dec-2007, 15:21
It seems you want a sharper image. correct?

Xtol is a "Fine grain" developer, Meaning lower accutence thus a less sharp image. Fine grain developers work by semi-disolving the grain crystals which fills in the space between the grain and reducing its apperence. Switch to a high accutence developer.

Pyro developers will have more apperent grain, but because they only develop the the outer most silver halide layer they produce much sharper negs.

best of luck

Kuzano
16-Dec-2007, 17:58
I just came across this post. A very long time ago, I read an extensive piece on extra measures to steady a tripod. I have not read all your posts, and that article is long since gone, in terms of finding it. However, the short story is that the author did extensive and detailed studies of image sharpness. His result was that he acquired another level of sharpness by hanging two large weights from a bag mounted on an eyelet at the bottom of his tripod center post. He also allowed considerable time for all movement to damp down before tripping his shutter.

His final solution... he carries a net shopping bag empty in his camera kit, and on site, he loads it with rocks found on site and hangs it from his center post.

Again, this may have been mentioned in your numerous responses, but just thought I'd pass it along.

Toyon
17-Dec-2007, 16:04
Could be the tripod head and mount. I had an arca swiss that vibrated like a tuning fork (when it was not locked up!!). Finally I got rid of the POS. I bought the solidest head I could find, with the biggest mounting plate and a really solid tripod. Also, there is quite a bit of diffusion at f45.