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?