Why are all of my photos soft?

[cowanw]

But it will be great for soft focus portraits now.

[jonby]

Thanks - I've tried all sorts of different distances, but it never gives a sharp result. I think perhaps there's something wrong with it.

I wouldn't assume there's something wrong with it. It looks very similar to the output from a number of Epsons I've used. The V700/750/800/850s are a bit better than this but not hugely. None of them are capable of pulling all the information from a sharp film image. Still a good compromise for many people though - especially in the larger formats. Question is though, if you're not going to use your scanner, how will you get your images from the film? I presume that the D800 shot that produced this detail was not a shot of the entire negative? Do you think you will do multi-shot digitisation and stitch? This can be pretty time consuming - especially without a good setup. Or do you have a darkroom? Despite what I said about the Epson V700 etc, many find that they are a good solution overall.

Anyway, glad you found your answer and that you eliminated your camera/lens/technique as the problem. This is always heartening! I'd be interested to see a D800/5x4 comparison now that you have a better way to compare them.

[BertieWooster]

I wouldn't assume there's something wrong with it. It looks very similar to the output from a number of Epsons I've used. The V700/750/800/850s are a bit better than this but not hugely. None of them are capable of pulling all the information from a sharp film image. Still a good compromise for many people though - especially in the larger formats. Question is though, if you're not going to use your scanner, how will you get your images from the film? I presume that the D800 shot that produced this detail was not a shot of the entire negative? Do you think you will do multi-shot digitisation and stitch? This can be pretty time consuming - especially without a good setup. Or do you have a darkroom? Despite what I said about the Epson V700 etc, many find that they are a good solution overall.

I've built a makeshift dslr scanning rig for now - it's fairly straight forward and should allow me to scan a sheet within a couple of minutes. I don't have any money unfortunately, so a better scanner is out of the question.

Anyway, glad you found your answer and that you eliminated your camera/lens/technique as the problem. This is always heartening! I'd be interested to see a D800/5x4 comparison now that you have a better way to compare them.

I attempted a quick comparison today, but I was a little hampered. I'll try and do something better tomorrow, but for now, there's this to chew on. A close-up from a tiny part of the frame, just off centre. On the left the D800 with a Nikon 28-80mm cheapo lens at f/8, and on the right my Sinar with S-K 135mm at f/16. Equivalent focal lengths approximately the same. I sized the digital photo up to match the size of my DLSR scan of the negative. I think it shows a substantial improvement in resolution - and that's with a not-very-good lens.

[Bob Salomon]

I attempted a quick comparison today, but I was a little hampered. I'll try and do something better tomorrow, but for now, there's this to chew on. A close-up from a tiny part of the frame, just off centre. On the left the D800 with a Nikon 28-80mm cheapo lens at f/8, and on the right my Sinar with S-K 135mm at f/16. Equivalent focal lengths approximately the same. I sized the digital photo up to match the size of my DLSR scan of the negative. I think it shows a substantial improvement in resolution - and that's with a not-very-good lens.

And, unless that SK is a macro you still don’t know how good it is.

[BertieWooster]

And, unless that SK is a macro you still don’t know how good it is.

The image wasn't a macro shot, though - that's just a very tiny part of the frame.

[jonby]

I've built a makeshift dslr scanning rig for now - it's fairly straight forward and should allow me to scan a sheet within a couple of minutes. I don't have any money unfortunately, so a better scanner is out of the question.



I attempted a quick comparison today, but I was a little hampered. I'll try and do something better tomorrow, but for now, there's this to chew on. A close-up from a tiny part of the frame, just off centre. On the left the D800 with a Nikon 28-80mm cheapo lens at f/8, and on the right my Sinar with S-K 135mm at f/16. Equivalent focal lengths approximately the same. I sized the digital photo up to match the size of my DLSR scan of the negative. I think it shows a substantial improvement in resolution - and that's with a not-very-good lens.

Yes the film looks quite a bit nicer than the digital shot. A lot more refined. It will blow up to a large print a lot better IMO. The challenge will be to maintain this quality across the whole neg in a single image. Thanks for posting it.

[Nigel Smith]

Not sure why these attachments have loaded resized quite small, must be the forum software at work. Originals where in the 400KB - 500KB range and much more detailed, but anyway, I think it stills shows you can get decent scans of 4x5 on a Epsom V700. The last 2 were 'actual size' crops from the full image (image 1). Scanned at 2400dpi according to the file. Looking at the perspective of the background, looks I used my 210mm lens (210/5.6 Rodenstock Sironar-N) Can't remember the film, probably J&C 400 or maybe HP5.. would need to walk down to the other end of house to check.

[Jim Noel]

The simplest answer, although probably not the cheapest, is to buy a scanner designed to scan transparencies with direct light, not reflected. I have used a MIcrotek for over 10 years with great success. It scans printed matter on the glass, and transparencies on tray underneath with no glass intervening.

[Corran]

All film scanners scan with direct light. Most have glass to put the film on but those Microtek (and Agfa rebranded) scanners used tray systems - a neat trick but not the reason for better scans. I used to have an Agfa 2500 and it was a pretty good scanner.