mmartin09
Established
Does anyone have some good tips for achieving consistent sharpness in developing negatives?. I've been using the same developer (HC-110B), same camera and lens (mp/summicron) but sometimes notice that I get really sharp, snappy negatives, and other times I get negatives that seem almost soft. The soft negatives are still useable, but just don't have that snap to them. Are there variables in the development process that affect this "sharpness" or is it likely something I'm doing in camera?
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I have never found any variables in developing technique. Different films make a difference as do developers but not developing technique. I am assuming you are not doing something weird from time to time.
I strongly suspect it is something you are doing in camera. Camera shake maybe?
I strongly suspect it is something you are doing in camera. Camera shake maybe?
DNG
Film Friendly
Agree with Bob, try a different film....
Delta, TMax, or other modern T-Grain films.
I prefer TMax 400 at 400 in HC110 H 1:60, in 600ml--10.5min at 20c
(I know it states 1:63, but at 1:60 is easier to mix using 600ml as my base amount for one roll)..
Delta, TMax, or other modern T-Grain films.
I prefer TMax 400 at 400 in HC110 H 1:60, in 600ml--10.5min at 20c
(I know it states 1:63, but at 1:60 is easier to mix using 600ml as my base amount for one roll)..
Ljós
Well-known
Sounds like something that robs you of sharpness at the exposure stage, i. e. "in camera" to me, too. Overdeveloping for example does cost sharpness, but it is not like turning an otherwise sharp image into mush.
Shutter speed, focusing technique, the way you hold your camera... these are factors I'd check first.
Shutter speed, focusing technique, the way you hold your camera... these are factors I'd check first.
mfogiel
Veteran
It is either different light (softer, weaker). wider aperture, camera shake, or plain misfocus - are you sure the effect does not depend on the lens used?
mmartin09
Established
I'll try to post some examples of what i mean this evening, but I pretty much always use the same film (tri-x) and same lens. I tend to agree... it must be something I'm doing in camera or maybe my rangefinder has gone slightly out of alignment or something like that.
shortstop
Well-known
Are the differences of the whole film? If yes, probably you inadvertently change some development parameter (time, agitation, temperature).
Godfrey
somewhat colored
If you're always using the same developer and development process (with fresh chemistry and proper temperature control), the issue is either in your shooting technique, a difference in the perceived contrast due to the light, or there's an issue with the camera's rangefinder (my M4-2 when I bought it had some rangefinder issues—dirty, off-vertical collimation, and needed calibration—that a full CLA cured completely).
The most easily modified characteristics due to development process are contrast, grain, and density. More agitation equals more contrast and grain. More development time @ a set temperature equals more density. Et cetera. My home development process is tuned to produce the best negatives for scanning: minimal grain, just enough density for Zone II details, low contrast so as not to block up the highlights. I do this by using minimal agitation, temperature stabilization across all developer, fix, and wash cycles. And, of course, my own table of time@temperature that I've created through experimentation and the data sheets.
G
mdarnton
Well-known
It will be interesting to see your examples. I can think of two possible causes.
The first is adjancy effect. This can be an effect of minimal agitation and more dilute developers.
http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/2009/11/adjacency-effects-in-b-film-development.html
It relies on developer exhaustion at the junction of bright and dark areas, which is one way you get sharpness, by making those borders more distinct, similar to sharpening digital photos. If you aren't strictly adhering to a consistent agitation method, this might be the problem/cause. I always agitate what I know is the minimum I can get away with to take advantage of this effect. Here's a relevant thread that I have just started reading through, so I can't tell you if it's going to help, but you might want to take a look at it: http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/63189-high-accutance-developers-resolution.html
The second possibility depends on whether your "sharp" pictures all happen to be daylight or flash, and the "unsharp" ones shot by incandescent. I've noticed that the color of incandescent light gangs up with skin tones and perhaps also lens characteristics to make pictures of people remarkably less sharp when shot by incandescent light. Note, this is NOT a camera vibration problem, which also could be a possibility--it's something else entirely.
The first is adjancy effect. This can be an effect of minimal agitation and more dilute developers.
http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/2009/11/adjacency-effects-in-b-film-development.html
It relies on developer exhaustion at the junction of bright and dark areas, which is one way you get sharpness, by making those borders more distinct, similar to sharpening digital photos. If you aren't strictly adhering to a consistent agitation method, this might be the problem/cause. I always agitate what I know is the minimum I can get away with to take advantage of this effect. Here's a relevant thread that I have just started reading through, so I can't tell you if it's going to help, but you might want to take a look at it: http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/63189-high-accutance-developers-resolution.html
The second possibility depends on whether your "sharp" pictures all happen to be daylight or flash, and the "unsharp" ones shot by incandescent. I've noticed that the color of incandescent light gangs up with skin tones and perhaps also lens characteristics to make pictures of people remarkably less sharp when shot by incandescent light. Note, this is NOT a camera vibration problem, which also could be a possibility--it's something else entirely.
Michalm
Well-known
I have seen negative sharpness variation when having film developed (C41) at different labs at different times and it does not depend on the lens or camera settings , light etc.
John Bragg
Well-known
One very neglected aspect of apparent sharpness is the effect of using even the best lenses without a lens hood. Flare can be very destructive of resolution and it is not always obvious. Even a cheap generic rubber lens hood is better than none.
Dwig
Well-known
I think there are too many definitions of "sharpness" being used here, hence the confusion.
Sharpness, in truth, doesn't exist and can't be measured in the real world of physical things. It only exists in our imaginations (read: mental images). It is what our brain thinks it saw when it was realy a mix of many image attributes including but not limited to contrast, density range, and resolution.
The first two of these can be altered in processing, either on purpose or my error (e.g. exhausted developer, incorrect time or temp., ...). The third is purely an in-camera issue (lens resolution, lens or body flare, focusing accuracy, motion blur, ...).
If "sharpness" seem low on a whole roll it may be the result of improper processing yielding lower contrast negs or, possibly, a "haze" resulting from incomplete fixing or, in the case of C-41 processing, bleach.
mmartin09
Established
What would you guys think about this image? This is the one that I was perceiving as not as sharp. In this shot, I focused on the 'A' in Radio Flyer.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I think all the possible reasons have been covered above! I thought first of the lighting, whether direct or diffuse; whether the subject is frontally lit or side-lit (the latter brings out texture and detail); and I thought of camera shake and overdevelopment. It's all been said. Some films, like Ilford Delta 100, look sharper to me than, say, HP-5.
There's one thing I might add: Some of my pictures look sharper than others, too. Some subjects just don't make sharp pictures, like maybe stone statues with rounded edges. Add flat light, and that can really finish it off. And some things can really look sharp, like machinery in a bright direct light. When they want to sell you a $50.00 printer in the office supply store, they always use a picture of a cat, with its whiskers brilliantly lit. That would look sharp even if you used the bottom of a coke bottle for a lens.
So, yeah, try a different film, but also select subjects that look tack-sharp to begin with. Keep your shutter speed up, and the aperture moderate. Not f/1.2, and not f/22. Use a faster film to help keep shutter speeds up. Stand with both feet planted firm, take a deep breath, let it out halfway, and squeeze off the shot (press the bottom of the camera up as you press the shutter button down), don't jerk it.
And some of my shots are still sharper than others.
There's one thing I might add: Some of my pictures look sharper than others, too. Some subjects just don't make sharp pictures, like maybe stone statues with rounded edges. Add flat light, and that can really finish it off. And some things can really look sharp, like machinery in a bright direct light. When they want to sell you a $50.00 printer in the office supply store, they always use a picture of a cat, with its whiskers brilliantly lit. That would look sharp even if you used the bottom of a coke bottle for a lens.
So, yeah, try a different film, but also select subjects that look tack-sharp to begin with. Keep your shutter speed up, and the aperture moderate. Not f/1.2, and not f/22. Use a faster film to help keep shutter speeds up. Stand with both feet planted firm, take a deep breath, let it out halfway, and squeeze off the shot (press the bottom of the camera up as you press the shutter button down), don't jerk it.
And some of my shots are still sharper than others.
mdarnton
Well-known
That looks like subject failure to me. With no depth of focus, the whole feeling of detail relies on a single piece of subject matter that doesn't have anything to be sharp. You can't make an apple pie out of chairs, as they would say if they'd thought of it.
There must be some depth of focus, otherwise we wouldn't have the image we can see above.
Chris101
summicronia
To me, it looks like you are off on your focus. The top edge of the lower wheel looks like it's in focus, as well as a spot on the cement, near the bottom left, about halfway up the crack between slabs. This is a bit further than you intended to focus.
Use a strong magnifier and look at the grain. If the grain is sharply defined, then any issue in the image is from the camera.
Use a strong magnifier and look at the grain. If the grain is sharply defined, then any issue in the image is from the camera.
teddy
Jose Morales
What would you guys think about this image? This is the one that I was perceiving as not as sharp. In this shot, I focused on the 'A' in Radio Flyer.
Looks like a decent image. I always make 2 sharpness enhancement passes to an image. If you sharpen this in software, it will look even better.
Looks a bit like Fomapan, foma is a lower contrast film and is not as 'sharp' as others, like Tri-X or Acros.
Brian Legge
Veteran
Focus and the recompose with a moderately wide aperture? That can cause softness at your intended point of focus. In this case, your focus could be behind the intended subject.
Can you describe your development - no stand development or other low agitation methods I assume? What sort of shutter speeds are you using?
Can you describe your development - no stand development or other low agitation methods I assume? What sort of shutter speeds are you using?
Mablo
Well-known
As far as I see it the image is sharp enough but perhaps in the wrong places. The upper part of the foremost lower wheel is sharp enough. Now, as your camera is pointing downwards it means the (shallow) depth of field is slanted. So you would expect to find another sharp point somewhere behind the foremost upper wheel. That seems to be the case. The protruding black element between the wheels is quite sharp. This is just a case of a quite normal focus-recompose error when using a shallow depth of field.