Why are my pictures not crisp

[Raffay]

Hello

I am not sure if "crisp" is the right word to use here or not, but I want to know why my pictures are not as clear, crisp etc as they should be. Below is a crop of a recent picture I took, scanned at 4800 dpi, I zoomed in and cropped so that it does not pixelate. I focused with a 10x loupe and even if we assume that the subject moved a little and that is the reason the eye is not as crisp as it should be, but the overall image is not very clean, somehow it feels that it is not properly "washed" or it needs some sort of cleaning, if you know what I mean. What do you experts suspect:

1. improper development
2. fixing issues, or
3. is it because of the tap water i use during pre-soak and development. Because water in the taps have a lot of dust particles, and maybe they get stuck to the film during pre-soak and later affect the development???

It is straight out of the scanning software, and has not be treated in photoshop. From a clarity of the image point of view it does not have that "wow" factor to it. When I look at portraits on this forum, apart from composition and lighting, all the images even some of the first off images from people have a certain clarity to them, that I believe gives you that satisfaction of doing LF, unfortunately, I don't get that. I am not willing to give up but would like your feedback so that I can improve.

[md99]

I suspect that the film doesn't occupy exactly the same spot that the ground glass did. I had a repairman fix this. Brought him the gg back and a loaded film holder.
Cheers!

[Raffay]

I suspect that the film doesn't occupy exactly the same spot that the ground glass did. I had a repairman fix this. Brought him the gg back and a loaded film holder.
Cheers!

How can I check that? I would not find anyone who could do this here in Pakistan.

Cheers
Raffay

[brucep]

To me it looks flat rather than soft so what you need to do is set the black and white cutoffs in your software, then the image looks fine. Then you can add some sharpening.

Bruce

[Jac@stafford.net]

Judging by the image of the light source and the eye's iris, it was probably shot with steady light (not flash), which hints that the shutter speed was great enough to be susceptible to motion. Add to that a bit of focus error. That's just my two-bits worth.

Regarding overall 'clarity', I suspect you mean tonality. It is underexposed one stop.

Just an aside: a 10X loupe is not for everyone, and every ground glass. For me and others I know it has too much power. An 8X and even a 4X works better. But that is highly individual.

[E. von Hoegh]

Raffay, you need to establish whether or not the negatives themselves are sharp. Then you can proceed to the scanning... Examine the negative with your 10 power loupe, or better yet a low (20x to 40x) power microscope. A soft negative can be caused by several things not related to development, such as poor focus, improperly positioned groundglass, a loupe which isn't properly focussed, and so on.

[Brian C. Miller]

There are a number of concepts that might be referenced by "crisp." One concept may be that of focus, and another may be that of contrast and relative hues of gray.

For fine detail, there's a couple of things that can reduce the actual or perceived detail. Actual detail can be reduced by something being out of focus, lens diffraction, film plane being too far from the ground glass plane, etc. For a quick check of actual detail, look at the negative on a light box. Does it look sharp on the light box? I.e., do you see the eyelashes and eyebrow hairs, etc? If so, fine. If not, what aperture and shutter speed did you use? If you didn't stop down all the way, then you're probably OK for the lens. Otherwise, you need to do a focus test. Take a ruler, or a step wedge with newspaper print on each step. Focus on the middle, then expose your film and develop it. Is the middle part in focus? No? Then your ground glass needs to be adjusted. Any competent machinist can add a little bit of shim material between the glass and the camera frame.

If you mean that the overall picture lacks "crispness" and doesn't "pop" or have "pizazz," then that's a development and printing issue. Play with the image a bit in your image program. Play with the various controls, starting with brightness and contrast. See if there's something that generally gives you a better image.

[Kuzano]

Far too many variables to even begin to render an answer... As I understand it,,,,

You use a camera... given... How good is the film, how good is the lens, how good is whatever focus mechanism.

You process your own film... so many variables, where does one start without dismantling all those variables.

You scan your own film... WHOOOOAH! I can't even go there. I leave that to others. I tried on three different NEW Epson flat bed scanners and I read and I did and I read and I did. I will never attempt scanning myself again, and it appears I wasn't having many more problems than any others.

Isolate all these functions....

Shoot fresh film with the camera and lens you are using. Have a pro lab process the film.... Yes, I said a pro lab with hopefully a great reputation. Sure, it's expensive. ONE TIME to confirm the problem is not YOU, The camera, or the film.

Then tackle the second part of the process.... Well actually you did in that first step. If the pro lab got good negs/transparencies, then work on you DIY processing until you are getting the same results as the lab. My bet is you won't unless you practice and change,,, many times.

But, to weigh how good those negs are, DO NOT DIY scan them. Have them scanned on a Pro drum scanner... Yes, It's expensive, but you may not get an answer until you pay a bit to check out this one step.

If a drum scan meets your satisfaction, then your processing is acceptable... to you.

Once you have determined that good scans can be made with your own processed negs/transparencies then you are charged with solving portion three of your dilemma. Getting a good scan yourself with the equipment you own, (or the prospect of buying a drum scanner)....

This is where I gave up. I am not paying for the complete three portions of the equation. I am more than willing to have professionals do my scanning....(although and option is to go back to enlargement and a wet lab, which by the way is a superior method to check the quality of your own processing of film)

My determination was that I could do it all and them screw it up with the scanner. I am firmly convince that in the presence of my level of patience and frustration, my level of skill, and the equipment I could afford for scanning, that part of the process actually took me backwards in my photography, and I willing pay for professional scans.

In any event, and I haven't read past your post, so if I say something wrong here, pardon me.....

But the Old, Tired question, how does one eat an elephant... (one bite at a time) fits the problem you posted.

You brought us an elephant, threw it on our table, and are asking us to eat the whole elephant.

You may get many answers, but I don't know how they can be applicable until you resolve for parts of the problem which is the acceptable way to learn many things.

My dad was a mechanic, all his life, so I became a car buff. I learned how to rebuild and restore old cars. I started by tearing engines apart. Many of them never saw the road. I ended up many years later building race engines that actually lasted for a few races. By itself it seemed an insurmountable task, but it really is a set of chores, in which you have to learn:

Design, measurement specifications, tolerances, proper and complete assembly, Fuel induction (carburetor theory and Fuel Injection), Ignition theory and systems, lube practices, test before run, test run, Install in properly coordinated drive train, ......Frankly I usually needed help with Ignition and electrical.

I say you need to go back to basics and test each part of the system.

I can't even comprehend eating your elephant????

But if it were me, I would know how to narrow down where the problem lies. I suspect with me the problem was at scanning.... I should have tried going back to enlargement and wet printing because I made it to a high level of satisfaction before I hit scanning. Does that make me feel bad. NO!!! I am happy I can do as much as I can, and forego the rest. Am I respectfull when confronted with someone who can do it all, and do it well. NO... Very few can do everything well, and they are usually arrogant people I cannot stand to be around. Am I Arrogant and hard to cope with.... Three ex wives would strike a resounding YES to that. Do I care... Nope!

[jnantz]

what fstop and shutter speed did you use?
some lenses are not the easiest to focus
and even the manufacturers suggested to
stop down a little bit when focusing.

was the image on the ground glass sharp ?
how did you scan the image .. was it a scan from a print
or from the film .. maybe the film was the wrong height
from the glass when you scanned it ?

[Peter York]

What was the scanner?