Sharpness of negatives

[Jack the boatman]

Hello,

I have been using my first 5 x 4 camera for a while now and haven't yet had a satisfactorily sharp image.

Details
Camera Shen Hao
Lenses Super Angulon 65mm f 5.6 and Symmar 135mm f 5.6. Cable release always used.
Most negatives are landscapes shot at f22 or f32 for usually about 1 sec.
Film/ Developer Adox 50 ASA developed in home made acutance developer for around 10 minutes or Rodinal 1:100 for 60 minutes.
All shots taken on a tripod.
The Super Angulon has a dished lens panel and the lens panel mounting legs have to be aligned at about 60 degrees backwards and then the lens panel manually set to parallel with film plane.

What I've tried:

Checked the distance from the edge of the ground glass screen to the surface of the ground glass screen, then compared this to the comparable distance on my film holders. All are equal and identical.

Set up books at varying distances from the camera, indoors on a sturdy tripod to eliminate any possibility of camera shake. I then focussed on the middle book at varying apertures with both lenses. Results showed that the book focussed upon, is actually the sharpest, but still not acceptably sharp.

Checked the negatives with an 8X loupe and fuzziness could be seen easily. This rules out scanning and subsequent processing.

I am reaching the hair tearing stage. Do I have to assume that both of these Schneider lenses are no good. I find this difficult to believe. The Super Angulon was sold from a reputable dealer to me graded as E++. It is apparently in excellent condition visually.
The Symmar also appears in excellent condition but was bought on Ebay.

Am I doing something stupid? Any suggestions?

Thank you

Jack

[E. von Hoegh]

How are you focussing the camera? Is the ground side of the GG toward the lens? Is your loupe focussed on the ground side of the glass?

Oh yes, wear a stocking cap.

[Bill_1856]

Mein friend, you do, indeed have a problem.
Try shooting at f:8.0, and focusing the GG carefully with a loupe AFTER you set the aperture.
If your shutters have self-timer, use them to trip the shutter.
If the hair problem continues, get Rogaine.
Good luck

[Leigh]

I can't image both lenses being bad. Those are top-quality optics.

It sounds as though you've covered most of the bases. Some suggestions, for whatever they're worth.

Use a film that has published performance characteristics, like rms granularity and lpm resolution.
Drop the home-made developer. Stick with Rodinal at 1:50, and normal times, not stand development.

The books are a reasonable target, but you might get more info by stretching a steel tape measure at an angle across the frame. This will give a more accurate measurement of the actual plane of focus, not as a distance from the camera, but by identifying the most accurate plane.
If the real plane is other than at you focus point you have a focus shift.

- Leigh

[Brian C. Miller]

Shave your head bald and then you won't have to worry about tearing it out.

Now then, about your actual problem: Instead of a number of books, cut up some box-type cardboard to make a step wedge, and then glue newsprint to each step. That's the best way to determine if there is a registration problem between the glass and the film plane. When you do this, make sure that the standards are aligned in their normal upright positions. The next thing to try if everything is good with the step wedge is to find out which aperture is the sharpest. Focus on some newsprint at various apertures in sequence, with a note of the aperture you've set the lens. Then after developing the negative, you can compare them and see which is the sharpest.

Development usually isn't the problem for sharpness, but for the time being, use a "standard" dilution and time.

When I got my Graflex Super Graphic, I didn't realize at first that it had a problem with a non-OEM ground glass. After completing the above tests, I determined the problem, replaced the ground glass and shimmed it into place, and now I have absolutely great results with my Wollensak. In your case, you may simply have stopped down too much, and a wider f-stop is sharper for you. But it's something that has to be determined with tests.

[pdmoylan]

You didn't mention which tripod or head and whether it tightens down to zero movement (no play in the mechanisms). try the tap test by tightening the the camera on the tripod, locking it all up and tapping the camera with your finger. Any noticable vibrations means possible unsharpness. If any of your fasteners on the camera do not tighten down so there is no play at all, you risk unsharp images.

[timparkin]

Hello,

I have been using my first 5 x 4 camera for a while now and haven't yet had a satisfactorily sharp image.

Details
Camera Shen Hao
Lenses Super Angulon 65mm f 5.6 and Symmar 135mm f 5.6. Cable release always used.
Most negatives are landscapes shot at f22 or f32 for usually about 1 sec.
Film/ Developer Adox 50 ASA developed in home made acutance developer for around 10 minutes or Rodinal 1:100 for 60 minutes.
All shots taken on a tripod.
The Super Angulon has a dished lens panel and the lens panel mounting legs have to be aligned at about 60 degrees backwards and then the lens panel manually set to parallel with film plane.

What I've tried:

Checked the distance from the edge of the ground glass screen to the surface of the ground glass screen, then compared this to the comparable distance on my film holders. All are equal and identical.

Set up books at varying distances from the camera, indoors on a sturdy tripod to eliminate any possibility of camera shake. I then focussed on the middle book at varying apertures with both lenses. Results showed that the book focussed upon, is actually the sharpest, but still not acceptably sharp.

Checked the negatives with an 8X loupe and fuzziness could be seen easily. This rules out scanning and subsequent processing.

I am reaching the hair tearing stage. Do I have to assume that both of these Schneider lenses are no good. I find this difficult to believe. The Super Angulon was sold from a reputable dealer to me graded as E++. It is apparently in excellent condition visually.
The Symmar also appears in excellent condition but was bought on Ebay.

Am I doing something stupid? Any suggestions?

Thank you

Jack

How do you know it's "too soft"? Are you looking under a loupe, scanning? How much detail do you expect? etc.. :-)

[timparkin]

How do you know it's "too soft"? Are you looking under a loupe, scanning? How much detail do you expect? etc.. :-)


Sorry I should have checked what you said about an 8x loupe. I would expect to see some fuzziness though, especially at f/32

I don't suppose you have an f/32 shot from a 35mm or 120 to compare with?

Tim

[Steve Barber]

"How do you know it's "too soft"? Are you looking under a loupe, scanning? How much detail do you expect? etc.. :-)"

Have you removed the ground glass and used your loupe to view the lens's aerial image and compare it to your negative? For example, when focused, is the aerial image of the book that you used to check focus and registration acceptably sharp? If so and the result on the negative is not as good, you have a registration problem. On the other hand, if the aerial image is unacceptably soft and no better than the negative result, then, you have a lens that is unacceptably soft and registration is, probably, not the problem.

And, the above using the Symmar, using it will be easier to see a difference

[chuck94022]

As others have suggested, I would first look at aperture. F/32 is going to start introducing diffraction fuzziness. Consider f/8 to f/16 and use movements to place your focus plane. For your tests, take your test shots around f/8.

But I would ask about your evaluation process as well, and the definition of too fuzzy. What is your intended print size? Are the printed results too fuzzy? You may be surprised at what it looks like in the print, versus looking at the negative. After all, it is a negative you are looking at, where white is black and black is white. Have you proofed it? Either by scan or contact print? A 4x5 negative can be less sharp than its 35mm equivalent because it doesn't have to be enlarged as much. Are you comparing the softness of this negative to 35mm?

[Leigh]

... and use movements to place your focus plane.
I would STRONGLY advise against that approach. You're introducing a whole new variable into the process.

There are already too many variables floating around.

- Leigh

[Jack the boatman]

Hello,

Thanks to everyone who has commented. You have given me food for thought and I will try out your suggestions.

In answer to some of the comments:

The ground glass is pointing towards the lens. The camera was new when I bought it.

I like the steel tape idea.

Assessing sharpness. I haven't printed any of my negatives because when seen on a 17 inch monitor the results are poorer than I want. I don't think anyone who sees the results I am talking about would disagree.

I am comparing with a Nikon d60 digital camera with 18-135mm zoom lens. I have taken results from this camera at f32 and the result is MUCH sharper than my 5 x 4. This is even after the digital image has been blown up to a greater magnification.

Aerial image. I didn't realise this could be done. I will try it.

Diffraction. I considered this, but again from the comparison with my digital images, I would have expected the digital image at f32 to suffer more than the 5 x 4 at f32. Am I right in assuming this. My understanding (very rusty) of the physics involved is that light will be bent whenever it passes a barrier. Because f32 on APCS is a much smaller absolute diameter than f32 on my 5 x 4, would diffraction not be more likely on the digital image?

Thanks again for your comments

Jack

[Bruce Watson]

Assessing sharpness. I haven't printed any of my negatives because when seen on a 17 inch monitor the results are poorer than I want. I don't think anyone who sees the results I am talking about would disagree.

You might well be surprised.

You can't judge the sharpness of a final print by looking at a computer monitor. If you want to know what the final print will look like, you have to make a print. If you are looking at actual pixels in Photoshop with a 72ppi monitor, and you're talking about making a print at 360ppi, the monitor is showing you a 360/72=5x magnification!

I'm just sayin' that a soft image in a computer monitor is normal.

That said, LF ain't easy. This ain't no point-'n-shoot. LF rewards accuracy and precision. Most LFers go through a fair amount of film and prints to become fluent in the medium. Patience and practice, lots of practice, are your friends.

[E. von Hoegh]

Hello,

Thanks to everyone who has commented. You have given me food for thought and I will try out your suggestions.

In answer to some of the comments:

The ground glass is pointing towards the lens. The camera was new when I bought it.

I like the steel tape idea.

Assessing sharpness. I haven't printed any of my negatives because when seen on a 17 inch monitor the results are poorer than I want. I don't think anyone who sees the results I am talking about would disagree.

I am comparing with a Nikon d60 digital camera with 18-135mm zoom lens. I have taken results from this camera at f32 and the result is MUCH sharper than my 5 x 4. This is even after the digital image has been blown up to a greater magnification.

Aerial image. I didn't realise this could be done. I will try it.

Diffraction. I considered this, but again from the comparison with my digital images, I would have expected the digital image at f32 to suffer more than the 5 x 4 at f32. Am I right in assuming this. My understanding (very rusty) of the physics involved is that light will be bent whenever it passes a barrier. Because f32 on APCS is a much smaller absolute diameter than f32 on my 5 x 4, would diffraction not be more likely on the digital image?

Thanks again for your comments

Jack

The diffraction limit at f:32 is independent of focal length. However, the aberrations will scale with focal length assuming the same lens design. While you are almost certainly into diffraction at f:32, meaning that diffraction is limiting resolution rather than aberrations, the limit at f;32 is still roughly 50 lp/mm. Try using the lenses at f;11. Forget viewing the scans of the negs on a monitor, it's not a useful asessment of sharpness. Too many links in that chain.

[Dennis]

My lenses certainly aren't fuzzy at f32. That's my favorite f stop and I am a sharpness freak. I wouldn't expect it on a new camera but on both my 4x5 and 8x10 I have to be very careful that putting in a film holder doesn't make the back move a tiny bit. I keep a shim with my 4x5 to disallow movement and often put a light stand up under the back on my 8x10 to prevent any sort of sag.
Dennis

[chuck94022]

I would STRONGLY advise against that approach. You're introducing a whole new variable into the process.

There are already too many variables floating around.

- Leigh

I should have been more clear. I meant to do that in the field, not for a lens test!

[chuck94022]

Hello,
...

I am comparing with a Nikon d60 digital camera with 18-135mm zoom lens. I have taken results from this camera at f32 and the result is MUCH sharper than my 5 x 4. This is even after the digital image has been blown up to a greater magnification.

...

Diffraction. I considered this, but again from the comparison with my digital images, I would have expected the digital image at f32 to suffer more than the 5 x 4 at f32. Am I right in assuming this. My understanding (very rusty) of the physics involved is that light will be bent whenever it passes a barrier. Because f32 on APCS is a much smaller absolute diameter than f32 on my 5 x 4, would diffraction not be more likely on the digital image?

Thanks again for your comments

Jack

Well for one thing, the D60 sensor is taking discrete samples of the light and providing a pixelated interpretation of what it detected. A D60 will thus mask a lot of diffraction and appear sharp, while not rendering detail as fine as film can. So I am not surprised by your D60 observation.

I still maintain that you are not operating in the sharpest region of your lens, and film is very unforgiving in this regard as an analog recording medium.

Frankly I think we are all groping in the dark here. All we have is your subjective observation of a negative. And here we are telling you to tear your camera apart and check the ground glass! ;-) (I'm exaggerating...) I have no idea if what you are seeing is normal or not. But best of luck!

[E. von Hoegh]

Well for one thing, the D60 sensor is taking discrete samples of the light and providing a pixelated interpretation of what it detected. A D60 will thus mask a lot of diffraction and appear sharp, while not rendering detail as fine as film can. So I am not surprised by your D60 observation.

I still maintain that you are not operating in the sharpest region of your lens, and film is very unforgiving in this regard as an analog recording medium.

Frankly I think we are all groping in the dark here. All we have is your subjective observation of a negative. And here we are telling you to tear your camera apart and check the ground glass! ;-) (I'm exaggerating...) I have no idea if what you are seeing is normal or not. But best of luck!

Tear the camera apart? hardly. You just remove the back. Checking for proper istallation of the GG when one is having trouble focussing is a bit like checking for gas in the tank when the car cranks but won't start.

[chuck94022]

Assessing sharpness. I haven't printed any of my negatives because when seen on a 17 inch monitor the results are poorer than I want. I don't think anyone who sees the results I am talking about would disagree.



You said before you were assessing through a loupe. Here you say you are assessing on a 17 inch monitor. If that is the case I assume you are scanning. Have you assessed your scanner? All but the highest quality scans require a bit of sharpening, in my experience.

[SergeiR]

Diffraction. I considered this, but again from the comparison with my digital images, I would have expected the digital image at f32 to suffer more than the 5 x 4 at f32. Am I right in assuming this. My understanding (very rusty) of the physics involved is that light will be bent whenever it passes a barrier. Because f32 on APCS is a much smaller absolute diameter than f32 on my 5 x 4, would diffraction not be more likely on the digital image?


APSC peaks at about f5.6 (FF on f8 , 4/3 at about f4). Past that - diffraction. Plus you got digital vs film (includes questions on processing, alignment & etc).
So you comparing oranges and ducks. Different species entirely.

So, since you now can check your images on 17" monitor (scanned? what scanner, what mounting technique used) - show them to forum, and collective mind would be able to say something, instead of guessing.

[chuck94022]

Tear the camera apart? hardly. You just remove the back. Checking for proper istallation of the GG when one is having trouble focussing is a bit like checking for gas in the tank when the car cranks but won't start.

I said I was exaggerating!!! :-) i own two field cameras, I know what we're talking about! :-)

[Jack the boatman]

Hi,

I have attached an example taken in Glencoe. Hope this helps

Jack

[patrickjames]

It seems that all the possibilities that I can think of are already in this thread except for one. Are you loading the film backwards? That would cause the fuzziness your image seems to have.

[E. von Hoegh]

It seems that all the possibilities that I can think of are already in this thread except for one. Are you loading the film backwards? That would cause the fuzziness your image seems to have.

It would also, due to the anti-halation dye, leave the film badly underexposed.

[Jack the boatman]

Hi,

No, I am careful to use the notches on the film to ensure it is in the film holder properly.

Jack

[mcherry]

How are your eyes?

I am nearsighted (or is it farsighted?), I can't see things close to me. So, with some loupes I have a hard time focusing. If the loupe isn't focused to the ground glass, and I focus the image to my eye, it will not be in focus. Also, some loupes suck.

So the first step is making sure you're properly focused on the ground glass. Set up a piece of white board in front of your camera and use your loupe to view the ground glass. Look at the lines etched into the glass. Those lines should be razor sharp and you should be able to make out the etching detail. If not, your problem lies with your loupe (and/or your eyes). You want a high optical quality loupe and, if you have any eye issues, you want to be able to focus the loupe on the ground glass (etching lines). Once you do that, then you can trust your eyes for focusing.

I would bet a bright shiny penny, that's your problem.

[E. von Hoegh]

How are your eyes?

I am nearsighted (or is it farsighted?), I can't see things close to me. So, with some loupes I have a hard time focusing. If the loupe isn't focused to the ground glass, and I focus the image to my eye, it will not be in focus. Also, some loupes suck.

So the first step is making sure you're properly focused on the ground glass. Set up a piece of white board in front of your camera and use your loupe to view the ground glass. Look at the lines etched into the glass. Those lines should be razor sharp and you should be able to make out the etching detail. If not, your problem lies with your loupe (and/or your eyes). You want a high optical quality loupe and, if you have any eye issues, you want to be able to focus the loupe on the ground glass (etching lines). Once you do that, then you can trust your eyes for focusing.

I would bet a bright shiny penny, that's your problem.

Focussing the loupe on the etched lines on the GG is only useful when the lines are on the ground side of the glass. They are frequently on the outside/smooth side of the glass.
But, double checking that the loupe is correctly focussed on the texture of the ground glass is always a good idea.

[patrickjames]

You may want to check to see if the film is notched on the wrong side.

Other than possible camera movement it doesn't seem that you are doing anything wrong. You may want to do a test with flash to eliminate that variable. Lens tests are best done with flash in my opinion. Everything that should be sharp is at 1/500.

[Brian Ellis]

Maybe your expectations are too high, which would be somewhat understandable if you did a lot of reading here about the supposed vast superiority some claim for 4x5 vs any other format.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Jack, that image is beautiful. Has a really nice pictorial feel to it.


Checked the distance from the edge of the ground glass screen to the surface of the ground glass screen, then compared this to the comparable distance on my film holders. All are equal and identical.

How did you do this ?

Are you sure that the film holder when inserted the film is at the same plane as the gg? I once had an old Linhof IV, and they were not on the same plane. It was very slightly off. A simple test is the "toothpick test", outlined in an older issue of PT magazine. Is there a fresnel underneath your gg? If so, was it installed properly?

Andrew

[mandoman7]

Hi,

I have attached an example taken in Glencoe. Hope this helps

Jack

We need a lot more magnification to see the problem. Take a small portion like the white glacier sections and post an enlarged view and then we can see what you're talking about.

[chuck94022]

There is no way to evaluate this image with the information you have provided. The image is scanned in. How did you scan? Is your scanner sharp? What post processing did you do, if any? This image is greatly reduced. There is no way to judge unsharpness from such an image.

You need to do a few things: provide a 100% sample (100% of the scan size - if you scan at 2400 dpi provide an image that gives all the bits, not a reduction) of the area you believe represents the plane of sharpest focus (not some random point in the image, but a point that is in the middle of the focal plane).

Detail all the steps that got you to the posted image ( scanned print? If so, was the print made optically? Was it enlarged or contact print? If a scanned negative, what scanner? What settings? Obviously it was inverted somewhere. What other post processing was done, like levels, curves, sharpening, dodging, burning, gamma correction, etc.? Any Photoshop?)

[chuck94022]

By the way it a beautiful composition and wonderful light... Sharpness is not the only criterion for a lovely image!

[Vaughn]

Did you have a tripod leg in the stream? Probably not -- nice image!

[K. Praslowicz]

Sharpess is probably fine, you're just ready to move straight into to 8x10. ::shifty eyes:: :p

[Jack the boatman]

Hi,

Thanks again, I am very impressed with the number and quality of replies.

Chuck. See attached. This is a portion of the skyline scanned at 2400 dpi on Epson U1200 scanner as colour negative. Converted to B&W then levels and some contrast added and brightness adjusted.

I have not made a print, I no longer have darkroom facilities, it's only a few years since I chucked out a Durst 9 x 6 enlarger.

I haven't had it printed so far because I was sure that the problem occurred before the scanning stage, perhaps I need to re- consider.

78467

[Jody_S]

I haven't had it printed so far because I was sure that the problem occurred before the scanning stage, perhaps I need to re- consider.

78467

That result is similar to what I get with a similar scanner. If you want to know if the scanner is leaving a lot of detail behind, the cheapest way to test that is to get a drum scan done of that neg? Unless you know someone with a wet darkroom.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Ok, so in your first post you mention that most images are landscapes with a 1 second exposure. I know you live in a rather windy part of the world, perhaps the problem you are having is bellows or camera vibration caused by the wind? Remember, the bellows are like a big sail that catch the slightest breeze so you have to find ways to protect them (I just stand between the camera and the direction of the wind normally).

I say this assuming that you are able to focus on the ground glass in a way that the image appears sharp on the glass, then you lock down the focus so it will not move. Also, I assume that all other controls are locked down as well so nothing slips.

There are some good videos on view camera operation that might be of interest, I believe Bruce Barlow who is active on this forum has produced a very popular one. You might contact him to obtain a copy.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Also, are you checking the neg with a loup to determine if it is sharp or only by scanning the image? If by scanning, then you better be sure it is not a scanner focus issue.

[Jack the boatman]

Also, are you checking the neg with a loup to determine if it is sharp or only by scanning the image? If by scanning, then you better be sure it is not a scanner focus issue.

Hi, Thanks for your reply.

Yes I have checked the negative with a loupe and the negative is soft I believe.

I am aware of the wind problem in this country and I do everything I can to avoid it being an issue.

All the camera controls are tightened before exposure and if possible I shelter the camera.

I am using a relatively light tripod because carrying a monster into some of the places I want to go to is not possible, for me .

Jack

[E. von Hoegh]

What tripod are you using? What material? Tripods are important....like the footings for a bridge kind of important.

[Jack the boatman]

What tripod are you using? What material? Tripods are important....like the footings for a bridge kind of important.

I am using a carbon fibre Manfrotto CXPRO4. I bought this primarily for my digital camera when hillwalking, but have used it for the Shen Hao for the shot I have posted in Glencoe.

I am NOT carrying a heavier tripod for that type of terrain.

I also have quite a heavy Velbon 3 section aluminium tripod.

I used the Velbon to take the photos of the books that I described in an earlier post. This was done indoors and there was no wind problem, yet the results were also soft. This suggests that the tripod is not the only problem

I think the suggestion to use a focussing loupe and to check the aerial image is worth following up. The loupe I have been using is a cheap plastic one.

Thanks for your help

Jack

[Gem Singer]

Jack,

More likely than not, that's the cause of your problem.

Those inexpensive 8X plastic loupes were not designed to be used for ground glass focusing.

Purchase a high quality 4X-6X loupe, that has an adjustable diopter eyepiece. Adjust it for your eyesight.

Your focusing problem should be solved.

[E. von Hoegh]

I bet Gem is onto something. When you get a proper loupe, remove the lens and focus the loupe on the GG texture. Replace the lens, and you may (hopefully) have an epiphany of sorts.

I have a Linhof ST IV for 4x5, and use a 5~ pound Tiltall. It's all the tripod I've ever needed for 4x5 and all smaller cameras. For my 8x10 I have a 16lb CeCo, and I've dragged that into the Adirondak mountains of New York state, where I live, for the past couple decades.

[Steve Barber]

You do not need to spend time or money for a high quality loupe, any 50mm enlarging lens will do. Alternatively, use a 50mm (or thereabouts) lens from a 35mm SLR camera. The magnification will be about right and the optical quality will rival even the best loupe. Just look through the lens from the front with the subject to the rear. You won't be able to fix the focus and will have to hold it at the right distance, but that does not make any difference when looking at the aerial image because you won't have anything to place the lens (loupe) on, anyway. Just set up the camera with your 135mm lens focused at infinity, remove the back to get the ground glass out of the way and use the back standard to gauge the approximate plane of focus and steady your hand while you move the loupe to the point needed where the aerial image is in focus.

[Charlie Strack]

You could try an exposure indoors with flash. That would remove the issue of camera/tripod shake for a test.

Ansel Adams mentioned in one of his books that a particular camera and tripod combination wouldn't work because it cause vibrations--a possible consideration.

Also, is the film loaded under the side lips? I've on occassion loaded film and only got one side under the lip. I feel for that when loading now.

Just a few thoughts.

Charlie

[polyglot]

Also, is the film loaded under the side lips? I've on occassion loaded film and only got one side under the lip. I feel for that when loading now.

I came here to say that. Improperly loaded film will be very soft. While loading and once the sheet is about 3/4 in, lift the tail of the sheet up away from the plane of the holder. It should bend cleanly near the hinge (the insertion point of the film rails). Make sure your darkslide is well open (say, halfway) so that the bending sheet can't touch that. If the sheet comes away from the holder at all, it's not under the rails.

Also (assuming a typical Graflok back), is the holder *clicked* all the way in? The little click in the last mm of travel as you insert the holder into the camera is the holder bedding down into the correct plane. If it's not clicked in, it's about 1mm too far from the lens, which would also cause softness.

[Jack the boatman]

I came here to say that. Improperly loaded film will be very soft. While loading and once the sheet is about 3/4 in, lift the tail of the sheet up away from the plane of the holder. It should bend cleanly near the hinge (the insertion point of the film rails). Make sure your darkslide is well open (say, halfway) so that the bending sheet can't touch that. If the sheet comes away from the holder at all, it's not under the rails.

Also (assuming a typical Graflok back), is the holder *clicked* all the way in? The little click in the last mm of travel as you insert the holder into the camera is the holder bedding down into the correct plane. If it's not clicked in, it's about 1mm too far from the lens, which would also cause softness.

Yes, I have in the past loaded film into the darkside slot instead of the proper slot. I make sure now that it is loaded properly.

I wasn't aware of the "click" over the last mm or so. This could certainly cause problems. I'm sure that most of the time it has been pushed home properly, but I will now ensure that that is the case.
I have tried an old 50mm Zuiko from my OM1 and it certainly is better quality than the loupe I have been using. I will use this in future.

I have checked the aerial image and it certainly looks very sharp, but I cannot be sure that I am in the same plane as the film would be.

This reminds me of the time many many years ago when I tried to learn to hit a stationary golf ball. There were101 things that I had to do all within about half a second.

Hopefully I will get better results with my 5 x 4 than I ever got on the golf course.

Thanks Again

Jack

[Cletus]

I second Leigh's suggestion of using the 'graduated tape'. I use a wood yardstick, but the principle is the same. Set it up about 4'-6' in front of your camera at about a 45deg angle (one end of the stick closer to you, the other end further) on a horizontal plane. Focus wide open (using a proper, reliable 4x to 6x loupe) on the center of the stick, or around the 1' 6" mark. Make sure everything is dead steady and make your exposure. it sounds like you have a focus shift problem and the number of inches away from the center of the stick that appears tack sharp will give you the approximate amount and forward or backward adjustment necessary.

If no part of the stick is tack sharp, you can eliminate focus shift completely and then go onto some of the other ideas mentioned here. Unless you've done this simple test, you haven't eliminated the most likely cause of your trouble and will continue to "pull your hair out" chasing red herrings.

As to the question of "how sharp is sharp", if you can easily read the marks on the yardstick in your area of sharp focus with the lens wide open - it will only be a couple inches due to the narrow depth of field - you should be able to determine that for yourself.

In any case, whether it's in the center of the stick, or somewhat forward or back because of a focus shift issue, you'll be able to see the area that is sharpest and thus determine the "max sharpness" your setup is capable of. This is a simple test and solid be the first thing you do in order to get the at the most probable cause of your problem.

[Cletus]

Oh, and make sure you have a BRIGHT LIGHT aimed at the stick to get an acceptably fast shutter speed!

[Jack the boatman]

Oh, and make sure you have a BRIGHT LIGHT aimed at the stick to get an acceptably fast shutter speed!

Hi again.

I have tried the tape measure idea using a 50mm Zuiko lens as loupe.

I also ensured the film was properly loaded and that the film holder was pushed in properly.

Exposure was at f5.6 and 1/50th sec.

I focussed on 15 inches which was about the middle of the tape.

Developed in Rodinal 1:50 for 15 mins.

Results:

15" was the sharpest area of the image and the image was also sharper than anything I have seen before. I reckon you have helped me to solve the problem.

Thanks very much.

Jack

[Steve Barber]

...I have checked the aerial image and it certainly looks very sharp, but I cannot be sure that I am in the same plane as the film would be.

No, but it does eliminate the lens as the problem and it is consistent with the negative image of the book not being the same as what you saw on the ground glass when you focused on it. In other words, what you are getting on your negatives is not the image you see when you have it focused on your ground glass. That proves the registration of the film plane with the film holder inserted into the camera is not the same as the registration of the ground glass when the image is in focus on it.

The question is, "How much is it off and in what direction?" Using a ruler to figure it out will work, but I like a ready-made target for this better. You can download the image with this link:

http://www.ragarecords.com/photo/images/focustesttarget.tif

Print it out on an A4 or letter size sheet and use it as described in the post for using the ruler; with the lens looking down from about a 30 degree angle above it and focused on the line marked, “CM”. And, as was said, use the lens wide open with plenty of light on the target to shorten the shutter time. When developed, you can easily see any difference in film plane as opposed to the plane of the ground glass and which way and how much the ground glass needs to be shimmed to make both planes the same, if any.

And, regarding your comment about golf, if your negative image shows the lens focused on the line as it was on the ground glass, then, yes, the easy fix is not going to be the solution. :(

[Steve Barber]

As always, I need to check to see what has been posted while I have been composing.

With the lens and registration eliminated, you can, now, move on to all of the other possibilities that continue to frustrate all of us.

[Cletus]

Jack -

I'm sure glad that helped point you in the right direction. I'd like to take the credit for offering the suggestion, but I really think Leigh was the one who offered up this method early on in the thread.

The nice thing about that particular test is - aside from using a calibrated target, which is really the best for this - is that you can incrementally increase the 'angle' of the tape and thus, "zero in" on the issue. With the tape at an extreme angle and shooting with your lens wide open, the narrow DoF will only allow a very small portion of the tape graduations to be sharp, the rest will blur away - you can get a much better idea of where your exact focus point is. The closer your stick or tape is to the lens, the narrower the DoF and the more accurate the test.

Using this method I was able to accurately see the effect of adding a 1.5mm fresnel in front of my GG (I have a Shen Hao too) and it was a very small difference, negligible really. Certainly not enough for me to worry about shims, or focus compensation, as some have had to do when installing fresnels, or changing to a different GG.

Glad you're getting your problems solved though and hopefully keeping most of your hair in the process!

[Bill_1856]

I use a 5~ pound Tiltall. .

Hi, E. Von H.
You gave me a wake-up notice. I wondered if for years I'd been misquoting the weight of my Tiltall, but I just weighed it again and it was exactly 6# 1.5 oz. Still pretty damn light -- one would have to spend hundreds of $$$ to shave more than a pound off with equal capacity and tilt/pan head.
Dammie, they're hard to beat for up to 5x7!

[E. von Hoegh]

Hi, E. Von H.
You gave me a wake-up notice. I wondered if for years I'd been misquoting the weight of my Tiltall, but I just weighed it again and it was exactly 6# 1.5 oz. Still pretty damn light -- one would have to spend hundreds of $$$ to shave more than a pound off with equal capacity and tilt/pan head.
Dammie, they're hard to beat for up to 5x7!

To tell the truth, I've never weighed mine except in my hand. Now I'll have to! Mine's a Marchioni, I wonder if the Leitz versions were different.

Tiltalls are hard to beat, period. They're one of those things they got right the first time. I forget what I paid for mine, something like $35 or so used in the 80s. I'll never need another, that's for sure.

[E. von Hoegh]

Hi again.

I have tried the tape measure idea using a 50mm Zuiko lens as loupe.

I also ensured the film was properly loaded and that the film holder was pushed in properly.

Exposure was at f5.6 and 1/50th sec.

I focussed on 15 inches which was about the middle of the tape.

Developed in Rodinal 1:50 for 15 mins.

Results:

15" was the sharpest area of the image and the image was also sharper than anything I have seen before. I reckon you have helped me to solve the problem.

Thanks very much.

Jack

Well, that's good news! You can't focus if you can't see the ground glass..... Do get a proper focussing loupe, though. The convenience and reliability is worth it.

[Jack the boatman]

Hi,

Thanks again to all who contributed.

Jack

[Jim Jones]

To tell the truth, I've never weighed mine except in my hand. Now I'll have to! Mine's a Marchioni, I wonder if the Leitz versions were different.

Tiltalls are hard to beat, period. They're one of those things they got right the first time. I forget what I paid for mine, something like $35 or so used in the 80s. I'll never need another, that's for sure.

My Leica Tiltall weights 6# 4 oz. and my Marchioni weighs 6# 5+ oz., both with similar slings attached, on a cheap household scales. Perhaps the Srar D version I lost a few years ago weighed a bit less, with small plastic instead of larger aluminum knobs. That cheap Star D would have lasted a lifetime, too.

[E. von Hoegh]

My Leica Tiltall weights 6# 4 oz. and my Marchioni weighs 6# 5+ oz., both with similar slings attached, on a cheap household scales. Perhaps the Srar D version I lost a few years ago weighed a bit less, with small plastic instead of larger aluminum knobs. That cheap Star D would have lasted a lifetime, too.

I'll weigh mine tonight or tomorrow.