View Full Version : View Camer Focusing vs Results
RmFrase
31-Jan-2010, 18:12
Being a newbe, I've found out a lot by trial and error as well as help from a friend of mine from a local camera club. However, I've come across something that i just can't quite find a solution.
When focusing, I use the Rodenstock Lupe, and focus it until the hatch lines on the fresnel are sharp. Once I've focused the Lupe, I then focus the on my object as normal.
The issue I've encountered is that I'm wondering if there is a distance gap, once I place the film into the camera (ie: PA-45) that is further enough to cause the object to now be Out-of-Focus?
I placed a small piece of printed paper with about an 8-10 size font into the center of this flower. I focused on that until the the print was sharp.
I then used the Camera's Tilt to bring the rest of the flower's petals into focus, rechecking the image on the fresnel from top to bottom, and ensuring I could see the fine details of the petals.
However, the scanned image appears blurred once enlarged. Could that gap between the film and where the fresnel was cause this distortion?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2713/4320102415_303bc8e8f8.jpg
memorris
31-Jan-2010, 21:38
The design of the film holders puts the film at the same place as the ground glass. So, by design no but some holders are notorious for being off enough to create soft focus.
I was taught to use a lower power focus aid so you do not see the details of the fresnel and to focus the image sharply. In several books and from some who have been shooting for many years have warned about having too much magnification.
Not quite sure how your fresnel and GG is set up, but if you are focusing on the fresnel instead of the grounded side of the GG, that might be your problem.
Other possibilities -- the film and the GG may not be on the same plane. Your scanner might be the one off. Your fresnel is in the wrong place (relative to the GG).
Vaughn
Ivan J. Eberle
31-Jan-2010, 22:53
You don't mention the camera, but if the original design called for a groundglass only, and at some point the GG was replaced by a fresnel/GG sandwich (fresnel to the front) that effectively shims this GG depth out by the thickness of the fresnel, yes, then you could indeed have this very problem.
The standard depth for a filmholder is .197" for modern 4x5s, and the groundglass should be within .007" of that when measured with a dial indicator.
One solution is to put the GG to the inside (original location) and the fresnel to the back outside. Another is to cut the fresnel so that it is smaller and doesn't shim the GG from its original place if placed on the inside.
The Camera is the 4x5 Shen-Hao TZ45-IIB, and is all original. I'll also test to see if there might have been some ever-so-slight movement (that was not noticible visually,) in the subject that might have caused this as well.
The light was low, (natural light only) and I took several shots ranging from 1/2 - 2 seconds of various f-stops.
But, I'm temporarily out of film, until about Thursday of this week.
-R
bobwysiwyg
1-Feb-2010, 07:17
Did you lock down all movements after focusing, before tripping the shutter?
photographs42
1-Feb-2010, 07:44
There is a simple test for focus accuracy. I’m sure it’s documented somewhere but simply stated, you photograph a ruler (preferably a flat metal one) at an oblique angle. Focus on the 6” mark with film plane and lens plane parallel and aperture wide open. If the 6” mark is in focus on the developed film you’re good to go. If some other mark is focused sharper you need an adjustment.
Also, get the scanner out of the equation. Use your loupe on the film held to a light box or window.
Jerome
Brian Ellis
1-Feb-2010, 08:12
It's hard to tell without seeing the original but just looking at your image I wouldn't have guessed this flower was a candidate for gaining much by using tilt. It doesn't look all that deep and there are petals sticking way up in the air. At best it seems likely that some of the petals would have been above the plane of focus, so that not only would you need tilt, you'd also need to stop way down. You don't mention stopping down (or refocusing after applying tilt which also might have been necessary).
Did you by chance just apply tilt and think that alone would bring the entire flower into focus without stopping down to an aperture smaller than the one you used to compose and focus (presumably wide open)? Maybe it would have but it doesn't look like it from the picture. Or maybe you did that (and also refocused after the tilt if necessary) and just didn't mention it.
Here's my steps.
Opened the lens to 5.6 in order to see.
I then focused on the top (bottom of the fresnel,) then used tilt, and re-focused, and repeated this process from top-to-bottom on the fresnel until all appeared sharp.
took the readings from the Sekonic meter, and stopped down (various shots) from f/11 - f/25 adjusting for shutter speed.
this morning, I tested the Epson V700 Scanner by placing a different Test image from a book onto the platter, just as I have with the Fuji Instant Prints - and the scanner checked out ok as the resulting image was sharp.
Once I get new film in, I'll make sure I have better lighting so that I can Re-take the shots at a much higher shutter speed (just in case the flower actually moved during the 1/2 to 2 seconds initial expoures.)
Peter Mounier
1-Feb-2010, 10:16
It is hard to tell from the small image that you posted, but I have a couple of thoughts...
Did you also check the focus from side to side? At a wide open aperture, it may be the solution. Also, could it be that the neg needs post scan sharpening? All scans need some sharpening after scanning.
Peter
Darin Boville
1-Feb-2010, 10:34
Another thought. I'm just in the beginning stages of learning to scan LF negs but one of the things I was most surprised about was the high level of sharpening required of the scan.
What were your sharpening settings?
--Darin
PS: Looks like Peter beat me to it!
My initial settings was "standard." I'll provide additional information when get home from work in next 4hrs.
However, I remember using the following settings:
Resolution: 3200 DPI
Quality: Best
Image Type: Photo
8 (and then 16) gray scale, saved as a .tif image
Dust removal: on, and also off
Digital "ICE" set to "Standard" and then "High" (I didn't like the results received from being set to High, and was not fond of Standard, so I turned it back off.
Since this hasn't been an issue for me before, with prior photos (although I used Quickloads at that time until they stopped making them. :mad: )
I'm starting to lean towrds the probability that there was an ever-so-gentle movement to the flower that caused the blurring in the 1/2 to 2 second exposure.
I ordered from Badger Graphics (3) Boxes of Fuji Instand FP-100B45 film. and requested it be shipped 2nd day Air. I'll use a faster shutter speed on the next set of tests to make sure. And IF they come out sharp, then it would have definately been a 'learning curve' issue.
-Robert
Have you tried on film instead of instants?
I have noticed that Fuji's instant films does not produce very sharp image. When scanning them, the 600dpi resolution is already overkill. There isn't enough details on the print to dig with that resolution. So I scan instants only with 300dpi resolution.
Don't know if Polaroid's were sharper or not. Only used Fuji's instant films.
From normal photographic prints that I have done, my Epson V700 can get details up to 1200dpi, after that the first limitation is the scanner itself; it doesn't see much more than that when scanning prints or very large transparent material (like 8x10 negatives/positives).
As you wroted that quickloads gave good results, I would suspect just the poor resolution of the original Instant film print.
I guess that polaroids/fuji instants are designed to be give only resolution that eye can resolve under normal circumstances. It does not have any extra resolution for scan enlargements.
Paul Kierstead
2-Feb-2010, 13:54
Here's my steps.
this morning, I tested the Epson V700 Scanner by placing a different Test image from a book onto the platter, just as I have with the Fuji Instant Prints - and the scanner checked out ok as the resulting image was sharp.
If you are scanning film, that does not test your V700, or possibly you are using it incorrectly. On the V700, scanning a print/book/reflective material has the point of focus at the glass, but when scanning transparent materials, the point of focus is above the glass. If you have been scanning with your film on the glass, that would be your likely culprit. Can you see the grain in the scan? (this will depend somewhat on the film, I'll admit, the V700 can't particularly see the grain on super fine-grained film IME).
Paul Kierstead
2-Feb-2010, 13:55
Ah, I might misunderstand, I think you are using the term "film" to include the instant print materials.
As stated above, they are not very sharp.
Have you tried on film instead of instants?
Not yet, but will try that in the next few days when the Instant film arrives. I'll use the Instant, then without changing anything, pop in the the Quickload and try that.
But since I cannot do my own processing, I will have to wait till the following week to see the results.
Ah, I might misunderstand, I think you are using the term "film" to include the instant print materials.
As stated above, they are not very sharp.
I was placing the film positive (since it is in effect a photo print) onto the platter face down and scanning as a 'Photo/document.'
Since I also placed an actual printed document as a test as well, and it was extremely sharp, either the flower moved during the exposure, OR the fuji instant film isn't as sharp as you had referenced.
We shall see when the new film arrives and I re-test using a faster shutter speed in better light.
-Robert
Let me say thank you too all who have assisted me with this issue. The film is due to arrive Wednesday, and I should have the spare time to re-test by Friday or by Saturday.
-Robert
Jon Shiu
2-Feb-2010, 14:42
I think also you need to understand that at close-up distances there is very little depth of field and for a 3 dimensional object like this you would need to stop down to the maximum, like f64 to get it in focus.
Jon
Jon, I'll try stopping down even further.
Thanks,
-Robert
Brian Ellis
2-Feb-2010, 20:13
Jon, I'll try stopping down even further.
Thanks,
-Robert
That was my thought when I saw that you made a series of photos from f/11 to f/25 (? - 22?). Even f/22 is very wide for what looks like a closeup though you don't say what focal length the lens was. In your description of the steps you took you also seem to be saying that you were able to get everything in focus from front to back and side to side just by using tilts at f5.6, which is also surprising given the subject matter and the distance I'm guessing you were from the flower.
I had used (2) different lenses, and adjusted distance accordingly. A 90mm f/8.0 and a 210mm at f5.6. When I did the intial focus, and where the petals of the flower were in sharp focus, both lenses werer at the wide-open setting so that I could see it clearly.
For the 90mm, I was at about 24 inches, and for the 210mm, at least 4 feet. But even at f8 or 5.6, if the subject is in focus at those settings, wouldn't it stay in focus at f11 -> f25?
I dont think that you will want to be using either the dust removal function or digital ICE for scanning reflective images. The dust removal function uses, afaik, a small amount of gaussian blur to cover any scratches or small amounts of dust, this is always going to lead to softer scans.
Digital ICE uses a deductive infrared scan to remove dust from transparent materials, certainly doesnt work with colour neg or mono and I'm sure the mileage is extremely limited with reflective materials. I dont know if this will lead to extra softness or not, but its certainly unnecessary.
I cant comment on the resolution of the 'roids as I have no experience here.
Paul Kierstead
3-Feb-2010, 13:11
Digital ICE uses a deductive infrared scan to remove dust from transparent materials, certainly doesnt work with colour neg or mono and I'm sure the mileage is extremely limited with reflective materials.
ICE definitely works with colour neg. It will work with chromogenic mono negs, but not traditional B&W negs (or Kodachrome, or any other process where the silver remains). It does not work with reflective materials.
Correct - ICE definately did NOT work on this image.
And I've got to figure out a better way of cleaning the glass and the instant print, because no matter how much I clean them with compressed air, or even a lense cloth - the scanned image is covered with tiny dust particles that only reflect (are noticable) once the image is scanned. :(
gbogatko
7-Feb-2010, 09:33
Here's what I do -- works for me.
Ensure the rough side of the GG is closest to the lens. If a fresnel is present, ensure it is on the side furthest away from the lens.
De-focus radically, 1 or two turns of the knob -- make sure there's nothing on which to focus.
Focus the loupe until you are as sharply focused as possible on the ground side of the GG. It should look grainy.
Refocus the subject and shoot.
Assuming an accurate distance between lens and GG and lens and film when the holder is inserted, you should be dead on. Of course, if that is not the case i.e. the holder is NOT at the same distance then you're out of luck.
George
George,
The rough side of the ground glass was closest to the lens. And I have been focusing until the ground glass looked grainy and re-focused on the subjects. This had been my process all along.
I went out again this weekend to test the film - and once again, I was dissappointed on the results.
Attached are (2) of the images that I painstakenly focused to ensure that I could see the bolts on the engine and the details of the hair on the Nose Art.
but when I got home and Scanned them - I was frustrated at the lack of sharpness.
It's got to be the nature of instant film as compared to the Fuji Quickload "Velvia" and "Acros" and others that I've used with unbelievable detail down to the veins on the leaves on plants and trees. I've attached a Fuji QuickLoad Sample of a Velvia Transparancy showing the detail I was used to having. The sample was a crop, and the leaves were at least 20 feet away. For this shot, I used a 210mm lens. The Black&White Nose Art was only about 9-10 feet away at best - using a 90mm.
So, my options are to just use the Instant film to test before using my remaining supply of QuickLoads, or break down and use the older style of manually loading film into holders.
Thanks to everyone who responded. It's greatly appreciated.
-Robert
Lenny Eiger
7-Feb-2010, 19:26
but when I got home and Scanned them - I was frustrated at the lack of sharpness
I would add two things.
1) When you are dealing with images that are close, the depth of field gets far more critical. I can't overemphasize this enough. I don't believe in more real world sharpness from leaving the lens more open. I like depth of field and so I close down to f45 or f64. Almost always. I have tested this and the loss of sharpness from closing down is so minimal it makes no real difference to me. Other's may disagree, and that's fine, takes all kinds.
2) The scanner you are using is likely the culprit. It does not scan sharp. If you want a sharp scan, you need to use a drum scanner. They are expensive, tho' not as much as most believe. You can certainly get someone to scan something for you - like myself - to take the scanner out of the equation. I'd be happy to be wrong...
However, all you have to do is look at the images that Sandy has presented, and others, to see that the consumer flatbeds are not sharp.
There are two things that people do to mitigate these issues. The first is to shim up a piece of glass, or betterscanning holder, until the scanner does better. By all accounts, it appears that its quite worth it. The other is that people sharpen things... quite considerably, with a radius of 1 or so, to see things sharper. That has its issues as well, but is the answer. No one using a scanner like the one you have is getting sharp scans, they are sharpening them.
Lenny
Paul Kierstead
7-Feb-2010, 19:45
Lenny, I respect your knowledge in scan sharpness, but seriously, he is talking about scanning instant prints. It is not the scanner, and a drum scan will not improve his results. As you can see, even a very modest crop is not sharp. It is the prints, they look lovely in real life and scan lovely when not enlarged but can survive very little enlargement.
Lenny Eiger
7-Feb-2010, 19:49
Lenny, I respect your knowledge in scan sharpness, but seriously, he is talking about scanning instant prints. It is not the scanner, and a drum scan will not improve his results. As you can see, even a very modest crop is not sharp. It is the prints, they look lovely in real life and scan lovely when not enlarged but can survive very little enlargement.
Paul, Thanks for not jumping on me. Instant prints, hmmmm. I guess he needs to get a good print made and see - or look at his neg first with a loupe.
Lenny
mandoman7
7-Feb-2010, 20:02
...
However, all you have to do is look at the images that Sandy has presented, and others, to see that the consumer flatbeds are not sharp...
Lenny
I would question the ability to distinguish between drum and flatbed scans in postings on this forum, if that's what's being said.
Lenny Eiger
7-Feb-2010, 20:19
I would question the ability to distinguish between drum and flatbed scans in postings on this forum, if that's what's being said.
John,
That's ridiculous. That's exactly why I keep speaking up. I'm not saying that without creative sharpening you can't get a result, but to say you can get the same thing from an 800 dollar scanner as from the top end drums, that's just patently ridiculous. You can bring a neg down and I'll prove it to you...
I've included an example for you to see. I have also seen it myself. This is beating a dead horse.
Lenny
mandoman7
7-Feb-2010, 20:57
Of course a drum scan is superior. My question is whether the difference is still observable when the image has been reduced to 72 dpi.
I paid for drum scans recently to sell some 20x24's, knowing that my consumer scanner would compromise the result. I do have a respect for drum scanning and have paid for quite a bit of it over the years. But its a stretch to suggest that you can tell a drum from a desktop scan in postings.(I'm not sure that's the same dead horse, there are so many in this forum. :))
What about letting us see some of your recent work, posting your drum scans here? I'm interested to see what you're shooting these days, being in the same neighborhood and everything...
JY
I've tested the scanner and from the previoius results I've received from the Fuji Quickloads (ie: Velvia and Across and others,) sharpness was never the issue when scanned with my Epson V700 Scanner. I had always been pleased with transparancy and negative results and was able to make an enlargment of those to 30 inches with increadible results.
I've simply come to the conclusion that for Polaroid type prints (ie: Fuji FP-100B45) the sharpness is just not there.
I spent a good 10 minutes on Saturday ensuring that the subject was in focus. Top -bottom, left - right.
Even with the 90mm lens I was using, during the focusing I was able to read the small print on the propeller blade. During the initial focusing on the plane at f8.0. Once I had everything in focus, I then stopped down to f32 - f45.
There was no wind, no movement and took a 1/2 - 1 second exposure to get the image I posed for the re-test.
I scanned a velvia transparancey I had from two years ago, and the new B&W Instant. The Transparancy was clearly superior in every respect with regards to the Instant.
Since the demise of the Quickloads, I may just start buying several film holders and a start buying sheet film.
Thanks again,
Robert
neil poulsen
7-Feb-2010, 21:48
I had used (2) different lenses, and adjusted distance accordingly. A 90mm f/8.0 and a 210mm at f5.6. When I did the intial focus, and where the petals of the flower were in sharp focus, both lenses werer at the wide-open setting so that I could see it clearly.
For the 90mm, I was at about 24 inches, and for the 210mm, at least 4 feet. But even at f8 or 5.6, if the subject is in focus at those settings, wouldn't it stay in focus at f11 -> f25?
It sounds like you're using modern lenses, given the focal lengths and f-stops that you mention.
On some older lenses, there can be a focus shift as the lens is stopped down. But, it doesn't sound like that's the problem in this situation.
Lenny Eiger
7-Feb-2010, 22:54
Of course a drum scan is superior. My question is whether the difference is still observable when the image has been reduced to 72 dpi.
JY
John,
If that's what you meant, I misread your post entirely. Sorry for the confusion...
I've had a rough day, I'm not going to post again until I get some rest....
Lenny
The lenses are modern Nikkor and Fujinon.
the 210 mm is an f5.6 - f64
90mm is an f8 - f45
All of the images were initially focused at the f5.6 or f8. then stopped down.
-R
mandoman7
8-Feb-2010, 09:23
John,
If that's what you meant, I misread your post entirely. Sorry for the confusion...
I've had a rough day, I'm not going to post again until I get some rest....
Lenny
Sounds like getting out for a shoot wouldn't hurt either. Have you done any work in the delta areas just southwest of where you are? I've always been intrigued by the little marinas and the light on the water.
CarstenW
9-Feb-2010, 13:31
During the initial focusing on the plane at f8.0. Once I had everything in focus, I then stopped down to f32 - f45.
Might you be getting into diffraction territory? Try focusing at f/8 and shooting at f/8. Then you'll at least know if the focusing point on the GG corresponds to that of the lens.
CarstenW
10-Feb-2010, 14:45
I guess it isn't going well, since I see that you are selling your kit on the B&S forum?
RmFrase
13-Feb-2010, 17:49
I really loved the Quickloads, and am extremely dissappointed that they (Fuji) are pulling out of that medium.
I don't relish the idea (not yet anyway) of having to go into the bathroom and fumble with negatives in the dark, and with fingerprints and dust, then go out and get the shot, and then reverse the process in changing tent while out in the field, or at home. And spending Hours with PhotoShop removing the dust. Taking the digital scanned image to a photolab only to see that I missed some more dust and having to re-edit.
The Quickload had very little dust and it was easy to use. It's own little 4x5 neg, in it's handy-dandy sleeve. Pop it in, take the photo, take it out, mail it off.
I may get back into the LF system, but not for a while.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.