Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,867   Posts: 1,583,239   Online: 1055
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 46
  1. #11
    stormbytes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New England, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    244
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Marco Gilardetti
    And keep in mind that nothing will be more "in focus" than the point which REALLY IS "in focus" - whatever the DOF table may say.
    I'm not going with any DOF tables. If you look at the photo that I referenced at the top of this thread, you will see that BOTH of the model's eyes are in crisp, sharp focus. So.. DOF or no DOF, it certainly IS possible. All I'm trying to do here is figure out why it's not happening for me.
    -
    Daniel

  2. #12
    stormbytes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New England, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    244
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Soeren
    Can you determine if your negs arent sharp ?
    ** My negs are "in focus", but not "tack sharp"

    Are your enlarger, -lens and -technique good ?
    I'm using a Saunders VCCE XLG with a Schneider Componon-S 80mm lens. Should be more then adequate. I'm enlarging to about 8x10.

    Are your negs contrasty or soft, dense or thin ?
    Negative density varries from shoot to shoot, but this problem has persisted all throughout - this is years worth of negs we're talking about here.

    It could be that the lens you own is a dog. Try another one out if you can. Maybe even another system.
    I own 2 PS-series lenses, same problem. As for another system, I plan on making a stop at B&H Photo and putting a roll through one of their demo floor-model Mamiya 645-AFD to see if there's a difference. Same with their Hassies.

    Read Barry Thornton's "Edge of Darkness". That man is a sharpness freak and although very basic there is a couple of good points in his Book.
    I'll certainly look into that, thanks for the tip.
    -
    Daniel

  3. #13
    stormbytes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New England, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    244
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
    It's the light, not the camera.

    The main reason this shot is so sharp is because it was made in a studio with strobes (probably just one light in a square softbox, camera right--read the catchlight in the eyes). He shot at f:22, for pretty full DOF, but on 6x7 that's not so excessive as to cause a diffraction problem. Strobes take care of all camera shake and subject movement issues, so strobe shots will always have this sharp look unless something else is terribly wrong.
    David,

    This certainly occured to me. But shooting at F/11 @ 1/250th I should be able to get pretty damn close to this. I'll try using a higher F-stop, but somehow I'm not convinced the problem isn't in the camera itself.

    I consulted on this matter with Philip Cohen, a personal friend and a well known commercial photographer. He brought to my attention that the problem could very well be mirror slapping - apparently a known ailment of the Bronicas. Seeing as mine is an Sq-a, long discontinued, it is quite possible that the dampner has hardened and the shock is causing the lack of sharpness. I plan on doing a test later this afternoon, shooting newsprintg as well as a live model, comparing frames with and without pre-lock. I will post my results.
    -
    Daniel

  4. #14
    stormbytes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New England, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    244
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by df cardwell
    Miles from a Westonian image, this picture of Appuger Dante Stella was made with a long lens, wide open, on fast film. Only the eyelashes are focussed, yet the tonal contrast sells the image as 'sharp' even if most of it is out of focus.
    Don,

    That's a beautiful portrait, and though generally in focus, I don't know that I'd agree about the eyelashes being tack sharp as in the image referenced in my original post.

    Rodinal's a great developer, and certainly enhances accutance. However, it can only work with the latent image that is already on the exposed film, and somehow I think mine are lacking in this regard. Where? How? that remains to be seen But I will continue updating this thread as progress is made. Time permitting of course.
    -
    Daniel

  5. #15
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by iserious
    I thought Rodinal was *THE* accutance developer? And as far as the film is concerned, do you feel that Tri-X lacks the resolving power to yeild the sharpness I'm looking for?
    The film to sharpness ratio has to do with the magnification of the image: how big is the detail you're trying to image relative to the granularity ?

    Tri X is perfectly capable of rendering eyelashes with great clarity ( normal lens, from 2 meters ) at a 4 to 5x enlargement.

    TMY, a 7 to 8x enlargement.

    But only if the light shows them clearly.

    But you DON'T need an acutance developer to make sharp pictures.

    Can you see the focus screen clearly ?

    .
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    584
    Images
    18
    I've shot a SQa for ten years and (I think) I don't have a problem. I shoot any film I can get my hands on, developed in what ever I have on hand (right now HC-110 and Rodinal with Diafine thrown in). My negs are acceptably sharp. I shoot the S series lenses, and by the way, PS does not stand for Pro Series, they are just the newer series of lenses.

    Thoughts that come to my mind is whether your focusing screen is out of sync. What you see as in focus on the screen may not be what is getting to the film. Is the screen the original or replacement? Is it seated properly? Did the mirror get knocked out of alignment?

    I'm not a professional or an expert but I'll put my Brony up against a Hassy anyday.

    Brian

    PS, I you're going to trash it, send me a PM. I have a nice trash can I can put it in.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wi
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3,242
    What are you using to focus your enlarger? What are you using for a negative carrier? Do you use the waist level finder with a tripod and mirror up? Some tripods though otherwise very stable can show the results of harmonic virbrations if the shutter/mirror causes such vibrations that are incompatible with a given tripod. A Adams discussed this problem that he had between a very large Gitzo for 8x10 work and his Hasselblad which did not allow him to produce sharp results with this combination.
    Last edited by Claire Senft; 04-21-2006 at 11:47 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Claire (Ms Anne Thrope is in the darkroom)

  8. #18
    Travis Nunn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Henrico, Virginia USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,604
    Images
    32
    Does the SQa have mirror lock-up? That would confirm whether there is a mirror slap problem or not
    ____________________________________________
    Searching my way to perplexion

  9. #19
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,511
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    437
    Perhaps it would help to diagnose your problem if you could post an image of yours that shows the problem you're having.
    As with your contrast control issue with HP5+, I don't know where the source of your sharpness problem is coming from, as the Bronica system has had an excellent reputation for tack-sharp optics, and has been used quite successfully for many years by many working professionals.

  10. #20
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,784
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera
    Perhaps it would help to diagnose your problem if you could post an image of yours that shows the problem you're having.
    As with your contrast control issue with HP5+, I don't know where the source of your sharpness problem is coming from, as the Bronica system has had an excellent reputation for tack-sharp optics, and has been used quite successfully for many years by many working professionals.
    Yes, is it a DOF issue? Is something in the shot "tack sharp" but not the rest, as much as you like? Or is it an overall softness, which would point to focus, optical, or steadiness issues in either the camera or enlarger? See if you can rule out DOF first.

    You could try shooting a high detail static subject with a wide lens at a smallish stop, and fast shutter, on a tripod, using mirror lock up, for big DOF with maximum steadiness, and examine the resulting print for overall sharpness. If its still mushy, you can probably rule out DOF.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin