Consistent sharpness in developing negatives

[shortstop]

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.

What diaphragm did you use? The "R" of Flyer is slightly out of focus, but in a plane anterior to the plane of the"a" of Radio. Indeed the view is slightly from above. With an open diaphragm the anterior plane "R" will be blurred.

 

[mdarnton]

There must be some depth of focus, otherwise we wouldn't have the image we can see above.

The image we see above has virtually no depth of focus. Will you explain what you are seeing?

I'm wondering if the OP understands depth of focus, actually. Some more photos might show that. How about one from the roll considered good? I'm betting that roll is shot of finer detailed subjects at a smaller lens opening.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

If we are seeing an image--any image--"depth of focus" must exist. You may be confusing the term with "depth of field".

 

[Highway 61]

Ditch your doggy 50 Summicron and get an Elmarit 21mm for your MP and shoot some sunny landscapes at f/16 with the lens focusing barrel constantly set at 100ft, whatever you have in front of you. Then, develop your films while pronouncing the magical formulas we all learnt from people who met the man who met the man who was the brother of George Eastman. Then you will have the most incredibly sharp Tri-X negatives you've seen, period.

 

[mmartin09]

I've never heard of "depth of focus". Should I be ashamed to admit that? I did focus, then recompose at probably f4 or so. So maybe this, combined with the downward angle could cause a slight mis-focus? I never have considered how angles might affect depth of field, but I think that makes sense. I'll need to think on that a little more to try and digest it.

 

[mmartin09]

Here's one that seems sharper to me...

 

[Rob-F]

I've never heard of "depth of focus". Should I be ashamed to admit that? I did focus, then recompose at probably f4 or so. So maybe this, combined with the downward angle could cause a slight mis-focus? I never have considered how angles might affect depth of field, but I think that makes sense. I'll need to think on that a little more to try and digest it.

The term "depth of focus" is used by cinematographers, while we still photographers say "depth of field."

Focusing on one part of the subject and then recomposing causes the point of focus to move in an arc. If, in he art museum, I focus on the edge or the frame of a painting--like with an impressionist painting that has no crisp brushstroke edges to focus on--then when I recompose to center the painting in my frame, the distance to which I focused now lies behind the painting, and not in the same plane as the painting. It's called Cosine Error, because the plane of focus has been displaced by an increment that is proportional to the cosine of the arc through which the camera was swung. The solution: recompose by sidestepping along a line parallel to the intended plane of focus.

 

[Dwig]

The term "depth of focus" is used by cinematographers, while we still photographers say "depth of field."...

... and optical technicians often use "depth of field" to refer to measurements at the subject plane and "depth of focus" to refer to measurements at the image plane (film plane, sensor plane).

 

[shortstop]

Depth of focus is the same concept of depth of field but recoprocally, i.e. on the side of the plane of focus.

 

[Ljós]

Here's one that seems sharper to me...

mmartin09, first of all, your pictures have a nice tonality and (if we leave the sharpness-discussion aside for a moment) and the result of your analog film/scan output is of higher image quality than the average here on RFF. In my opinion. So there is a lot of things you are doing right.
The picture above: I like the look. Coming back to the sharpness question: where did you want the plane of focus to be? Her eye is not really sharp, but the proof would be in the negative. But it can be tricky to nail focus on the eye(s), and overall it is a nice, sharp enough picture.

If I were you I would make systematic focus tests with your MP and Summicron: f2, closest focus distance. There are lots of threads about such tests here on RFF. A quick way to do it, without much fuss: find something structured and detailed to focus on, make three pictures: one where you focus a smidgen in front, on spot on (as per your rangefinder), one behind. Picture No 2 should be the sharpest, and if it aint, then in all likelihood your rangefinder, or your lens, or both are out of spec.

 

[mmartin09]

mmartin09, first of all, your pictures have a nice tonality and (if we leave the sharpness-discussion aside for a moment) and the result of your analog film/scan output is of higher image quality than the average here on RFF. In my opinion. So there is a lot of things you are doing right.
The picture above: I like the look. Coming back to the sharpness question: where did you want the plane of focus to be? Her eye is not really sharp, but the proof would be in the negative. But it can be tricky to nail focus on the eye(s), and overall it is a nice, sharp enough picture.

If I were you I would make systematic focus tests with your MP and Summicron: f2, closest focus distance. There are lots of threads about such tests here on RFF. A quick way to do it, without much fuss: find something structured and detailed to focus on, make three pictures: one where you focus a smidgen in front, on spot on (as per your rangefinder), one behind. Picture No 2 should be the sharpest, and if it aint, then in all likelihood your rangefinder, or your lens, or both are out of spec.

Thank you for the kind words, Ljós.

I actually performed a test and I think it has come down to a combination of two things. First, focus, recompose error as others have mentioned probably played a part in slightly missing focus. Second, digital scanning. In the test I performed, I did some comparing of the scanned digital files with the negatives on a light table (with a loupe), and more than once, the negative looked very nice and sharp, but the scan didn't come out quite as sharp as I would have expected. Maybe I should just stick to enlargements.

 

[Highway 61]

Second, digital scanning. In the test I performed, I did some comparing of the scanned digital files with the negatives on a light table (with a loupe), and more than once, the negative looked very nice and sharp, but the scan didn't come out quite as sharp as I would have expected. Maybe I should just stick to enlargements.

Besides the obvious critical focus examples you display, please know that only a good dedicated film scanner made by Nikon or Minolta (I won't mention the $10,000 Imacon machines here) will do justice to a Leica lens.

If you use a flatbed scanner to scan 35mm negatives, be prepared to be disappointed.

Forget about the Plustek and Reflecta scanners as well.

The bride portrait is beautiful. To my eyes the focus seems to be on the ear perl, not on her own left eye (where it theorically should be). But it might be an optical illusion due to contrast and flare.