I have found the bottom

[Bill_1856]

After thinking it over, I've decided that that there's at least one other POV -- it is possible that you're right.

[Kirk Fry]

90mm Angulons have a spotty reputation. Some are brutally sharp at f22 (I own one.) others not so much. I would try it with a 150 mm plasmat (any post WWII model), on a tripod, with a loupe, with a shutter release at f22 and Tmax100 film. Make sure your Fresnel lens is in the correct place in front of the ground glass between the lens and the ground glass. Yes I know it seems goofy but that is the way it is described in the Crown Graphic repair manual. There are 4 different ways to do it, three of them wrong. If you flip it around the ground glass ends up in the wrong place leading to FUZZY pictures...... (Hint if you leave the Fresnel out, the ground glass is guaranteed to be in the wrong place unless you shim it.) KFry

[Ben Syverson]

(Hint if you leave the Fresnel out, the ground glass is guaranteed to be in the wrong place unless you shim it.)

...one of THE most annoying things about the Graflex cameras. I had to take a band saw to my Super Graphic's fresnel to turn it into shims.

I can't stand fresnels -- at 10X it looks like the entire world is ribbed for her pleasure.

[BetterSense]

I would conduct a test using a tripod, focusing carefully with a 10x loupe, and then using maybe f/22.

I reshot it just now (a bit earlier in the morning than last time, but I have a meeting today). I used f/32 and the leaf shutter in the Angulon with a cable release. I focused with a low-powered loupe, but to be honest between the fresnel and only f/6.8 lens, it seemed that achieving truly "snap-in" focus wasn't possible. Nevertheless I focused as best I could on some detail in the shot. I brought my tripod but I actually set my camera on a rock-solid landscaping feature for the shot. I can be sure that the camera didn't move. However the 90mm lens puts the front standard on the rails in the body instead of on the bed which have slop in them so the front standard isn't as solid as I would like and could be wiggled around a bit. Oh well. Maybe I'll develop the film at lunch.

Does removing the fresnel (reshimming the GG to match) make the image much dimmer? Is it a good upgrade to replace the ground glass altogether with a newer, brighter one? I think that would be a good upgrade, I'm just not sure about the fresnel.

[eschatologized]

I don't think anyone mentioned your enlarger as the possible problem. What lens and aperture were you using?

And definitely stop down below f/11.

What do you have against tripods? If you brought a tripod, I don't see why you would use a landscaping feature instead, even if you think it is solid.

I assume you used a cable release.

[Bob McCarthy]

When I look at the picture, I don't see any directional blurring/astigmatism. I would expect motion blur to not be perfectly even in all directions, so I figured that motion blur was not a significant factor in my resolution. My subject was also at nearly infinity (100 yards) and I shot an aperture significantly smaller than the one I used to verify focus, so I figured focus was not a significant factor in my resolution. I could be wrong about any of this, which is why I post on forums like this. I know I'm ignorant; I don't need to be told so.

Your describing motion blur where the shutter speed is not adequate to freeze "subject" motion. The building is not moving.

It the case of handholding, "you" are moving (think of vibrating) and smoothing/unsharpening any detail during the time the shutter is open and light is being captured by the film.

bob

[Brian Ellis]

HP5+ film is plenty sharp, the problem isn't your film. I used it aalmost exclusively for 15 years without a complaint.

Angulons are old lenses. Back when they were made Schneider was a middling lens company, roughly on a par with Wollensak. Quality control varied a lot and of course there's no telling what owners before you may have done to the lens. If you have a good example you certainly can make a technically excellent photograph but your chances will improve with a more modern lens. It doesn't have to be the latest greatest XL version but a used lens from the APO Symmar line for example perhaps would help matters.

However, as others have said, until you put the camera on a tripod and spend some time learning how to focus and how to determine the optimum aperture another lens won't matter very much. There are a couple articles in the articles section of this forum by QT Luong that will tell you all you need to know about both subjects.

[Bill_1856]

One other suggestion (there are certainly getting to be a lot of them), don't check sharpness from an enlarged print -- look at the negative directly with a high-power lens (I use a 35mm lens from my SLR).

[Robert Hughes]

Back when they were made Schneider was a middling lens company, roughly on a par with Wollensak.

... not that there's anything wrong with Wollensak - all my LF lenses are Wollies.

[BetterSense]

I don't see why you would use a landscaping feature instead, even if you think it is solid.

I don't think any tripod gets more solid than a cement wall. But then, I have my own complicated theories about tripods and their vibrational modes and Q-factor....

One other suggestion (there are certainly getting to be a lot of them), don't check sharpness from an enlarged print -- look at the negative directly with a high-power lens (I use a 35mm lens from my SLR).

That could be important for finding out exactly where the unsharpness is coming from, but since my final output is a print, checking the sharpness of an enlarged print is a very valid test.