Greyscale
Veteran
I agree with this. Try color film, and lab processing/scanning for a roll or few; this will at least make it more clear if your perceived sharpness issues are camera/lens related, or something in the processing/scanning/post-processing chain. Eliminate as many variables as possible while you get more comfortable with your equipment.
gb hill
Veteran
Are you 100% positive this is HP-5? Looks more like C-41 processed B&W. This has that distinct sepia or pinkish cast I sometimes get on my BW400CN or XP-2. I never get this with traditional b&w film. Anyhow this is a good shot & when changed to 8 bit grayscale looks even better.
Attachments
alfisti
Member
Jim, grayscale - you guys are making a lot of sense. Thanks!
Gbhill... It is definitely hp5+
I would live to know why I an getting the magenta tint..
Gbhill... It is definitely hp5+
I would live to know why I an getting the magenta tint..
charjohncarter
Veteran
Being a 'mediocre minus' photographer requires no work: buy a DSLR or a modern SLR: shoot. But to go to 'mediocre plus' you have to go to a manual camera settings (and it doesn't come with buying a film camera, or buying a camera that has manual). You said you started in the middle. Well, you answered you own question: now start from the beginning. Read a book: read a book on photography, real photography theory , then decide; do I want to be a 'mediocre plus' photographer or not.
Last edited:
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
Re: Focus shift - This has nothing to do with accidentally moving the focus ring. It refers to a lens being focus optimized for one particular f-stop. When you stop down or open up, the actual focus point moves slightly, even though the distance setting remains the same. On a DSLR, or film SLR with preview, you can correct for that. On a rangefinder, you can't.
Anyway, I don't think that's what's going on here. The photo of your daughter seems to have areas of sharpness at the same distance from the lens than some of the soft areas - compare the two cuffs, for example. This hints at film flatness being the problem. In the scanner, one hopes (no idea how good the Canon film holder is), not in the camera.
Second, when you say you adjusted the rangefinder, exactly what did you do? Do you mean adjusted so that the patch lines up at infinity? Or adjusted with ground glass at the film gate, for various distances?
Anyway, I don't think that's what's going on here. The photo of your daughter seems to have areas of sharpness at the same distance from the lens than some of the soft areas - compare the two cuffs, for example. This hints at film flatness being the problem. In the scanner, one hopes (no idea how good the Canon film holder is), not in the camera.
Second, when you say you adjusted the rangefinder, exactly what did you do? Do you mean adjusted so that the patch lines up at infinity? Or adjusted with ground glass at the film gate, for various distances?
alfisti
Member
Thanks for the comment - as a digital shooter, TECHNICALLY (i.e. not CREATIVELY) I'd rate myself as mediocre-plus, or maybe even proficient - I shoot manual all the time, and I understand my equipment very well. Then again it is modern equipment (5D mark I, EOS lenses, plus some older MF lenses I enjoy using with the 5D).
Moving to RF and to film, I have specifically aimed to get out of my comfort zone and take my learning to the next level. I'm a third of the way through "The Negative" and will keep reading. I am happy to have discovered this forum, though, as I've found reading and shooting, and comparing my results to previous results can only take me so far. I need the input from others!
Thanks for helping out. This is all very valuable guidance.
-Glenn
alfisti
Member
Ahhh. That makes sense about focus shift. I suppose that could be happening - but that's so far out of my control, I can't worry about it
Film flatness in the scanner... well that's an interesting thought. In fact I can tell you for certain, it doesn't LOOK flat to me. It looks like it's bowing at the edges. The film holder doesn't seem to do anything to keep that from happening. Now that you mention it, I guess I was expecting some kind of Canon wizard-black magic kind of thing to fix that.... that is starting to make sense.
In fact I've been scanning more negatives, and just found one (shot yesterday, I think) and found it scanned perfectly and is actually what I'd call pretty sharp (especially after adding some sharpening). I just printed this at 8x10 and it's a print (of course, if it were of a real subject, not a test shot!) that I'd be very happy with.... see below.
in this shot the point of focus was the nearest metal "flower" on the bird feeder. I also noted that this particular negative was pretty flat... so that could support the theory that the scanner is partly to blame. Unfortunately this shot was at the end of the roll and was the only one on the strip of negatives...
Regarding calibrating the rangefinder - I adjusted for infinity, and for close focusing. I got it as accurate as I could at 1M, but since the vertical alignment is so far off (check out the thread on "Did I break my FED-5" on the FSU board) I expect I could be getting parallax error if I'm not holding the camera level :-( I cannot for the life of me get the vertical back in alignment. I may send it somewhere for a CLA.
Thanks
-Glenn
alfisti
Member
And p.s. - I have no idea why some of these negs look magenta and some don't.... I suspect the scanner driver (which is not very advanced) is making some decisions for me....
Vics
Veteran
Plus one for that. Why are so many folks on here looking to get world-class results with the cheapest camera/lens/film/fill in the blank? Photography, whether digital or film. is expensive. Always has been.
Having ranted, I would say shoot Tri-x, develop in Kodak D-76, and to get the best IQ, print in a wet darkroom. I think you'll start to love the results. Oh, and get a Leica.
alfisti
Member
well the reason for me using inexpensive gear is simple - it's an experiment. I can't say I'll be shooting film for any period of time, so I need to keep the investment small.
I am also interested in the rangefinder experience, and I can't spend thousands of dollars (and sell my thousands of dollars of DSLR gear to fund it) without knowing if I enjoy it or find it valuable.
I figure the only way to know is to shoot a bunch of rolls through an inexpensive rangefinder and see if I enjoy this method of composing and focusing.
Additionally I want to fill in my knowledge with what I missed with film "at the beginning" and have a better understanding of contrast and subject tonality/range, and digital is too distracting for too familiar for that.
Plus - my experience has shown that the best equipment is not always necessary to get good results. Case in point - the picture at the beginning of this thread (the color one) was taken with the humble 50mm 1.8... cheapest lens in the Canon lineup. The 5D was bought with 127k shots on the clock, used.
If I can determine that I can get what I'm looking for ("keeper" shots) with this equipment, even if it's not 5D quality, then I can make further determinations on what I should buy or sell.
Thanks
-Glenn
I am also interested in the rangefinder experience, and I can't spend thousands of dollars (and sell my thousands of dollars of DSLR gear to fund it) without knowing if I enjoy it or find it valuable.
I figure the only way to know is to shoot a bunch of rolls through an inexpensive rangefinder and see if I enjoy this method of composing and focusing.
Additionally I want to fill in my knowledge with what I missed with film "at the beginning" and have a better understanding of contrast and subject tonality/range, and digital is too distracting for too familiar for that.
Plus - my experience has shown that the best equipment is not always necessary to get good results. Case in point - the picture at the beginning of this thread (the color one) was taken with the humble 50mm 1.8... cheapest lens in the Canon lineup. The 5D was bought with 127k shots on the clock, used.
If I can determine that I can get what I'm looking for ("keeper" shots) with this equipment, even if it's not 5D quality, then I can make further determinations on what I should buy or sell.
Thanks
-Glenn
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Glenn.
It is a matter of broadening your expectation. I came from digital also, but I soon learned that I can immediately adjust my expectation to what film is about. It's tacky to describe, but I *love* film, with its softness, imperfection, and texture (grain). Don't get me wrong, I *can* produce images as sharp as digital, but most of the time, I like the opposite look.
Some people can't or won't understand film. That's why we have people who throw their hands in disgust after giving film a try. Or sell their film cameras in a hurry after ecstatically switching to digital. For them, digital is the right tool and medium.
Don't feel that you have to force yourself to like film. You've given film a fair trial, that is more than some will ever do.
It is a matter of broadening your expectation. I came from digital also, but I soon learned that I can immediately adjust my expectation to what film is about. It's tacky to describe, but I *love* film, with its softness, imperfection, and texture (grain). Don't get me wrong, I *can* produce images as sharp as digital, but most of the time, I like the opposite look.
Some people can't or won't understand film. That's why we have people who throw their hands in disgust after giving film a try. Or sell their film cameras in a hurry after ecstatically switching to digital. For them, digital is the right tool and medium.
Don't feel that you have to force yourself to like film. You've given film a fair trial, that is more than some will ever do.
alfisti
Member
Thanks, Will. Well stated. Only time will tell. I have a lot more shooting to do before I make any decisions. The journey is fun of it
Vics
Veteran
"Plus - my experience has shown that the best equipment is not always necessary to get good results. Case in point - the picture at the beginning of this thread (the color one) was taken with the humble 50mm 1.8... cheapest lens in the Canon lineup."
The 50mm SLR lenses are cheap because it's the easiest FL to design, correct and build. 1.8 is like F2. Not really fast, but probably sharper and better corrected that its faster sisters. You'll ALMOST always find that slower lenses offer better IQ. Not always, but almost always.
On your other comments, I'd only say that if you buy good gear and still don't like it, you can always get your money back (if you bought it right.) My Leica M3 w/'cron 50 was about $1100. I think I could get that and more for it now, 5 years later. Best of luck in your adventure in film.
The 50mm SLR lenses are cheap because it's the easiest FL to design, correct and build. 1.8 is like F2. Not really fast, but probably sharper and better corrected that its faster sisters. You'll ALMOST always find that slower lenses offer better IQ. Not always, but almost always.
On your other comments, I'd only say that if you buy good gear and still don't like it, you can always get your money back (if you bought it right.) My Leica M3 w/'cron 50 was about $1100. I think I could get that and more for it now, 5 years later. Best of luck in your adventure in film.
FrankS
Registered User
I'm not at all surprised that you are having some difficulty in going from top end digital gear to the film gear you have chosen. Film isn't easy. With film one has to commit the whole roll and at least 1/2 hour to process and dry negs compared to the individual frame instant feedback of digital.
Last edited:
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
I don't understand why some guys here still want to talk the OP into more expensive cameras. That is not the solution. The gear he has, if properly used and adjusted, should be capable of much better quality.
@alfisti - The earlier suggestion to get pro scans is a good one. You could also check your film strips with a loupe, though it might be easier to shoot a roll of slide film for that. Which incidentally will also give you a better idea about the shutter speed accuracy of that FED than B&W or color print film does.
Also, it sounds like you're running the scanner on auto? No experience with the Canon software (I use an Epson) but you will have to get more acquainted with it than that. Auto is barely good enough for identifying the keeper shots on the roll.
@alfisti - The earlier suggestion to get pro scans is a good one. You could also check your film strips with a loupe, though it might be easier to shoot a roll of slide film for that. Which incidentally will also give you a better idea about the shutter speed accuracy of that FED than B&W or color print film does.
Also, it sounds like you're running the scanner on auto? No experience with the Canon software (I use an Epson) but you will have to get more acquainted with it than that. Auto is barely good enough for identifying the keeper shots on the roll.
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
By the way, you could also forget the scanner altogether and use a macro setup with your DSLR for "scanning." One very slick version can be found in this old thread: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=87939 (see posts #13 and 22)
It's charjohncarter's, who also contributed above, so maybe he can share more tips.
For a makeshift rig, you could put one of your negs in a slide frame and tape it to a north-facing window for even lighting.
It's charjohncarter's, who also contributed above, so maybe he can share more tips.
For a makeshift rig, you could put one of your negs in a slide frame and tape it to a north-facing window for even lighting.
charjohncarter
Veteran
It is very difficult to digitalize a negative. Whether my way or using a scanner. There are drawbacks to both (but your own process will be better than any Costco or drugstore scan), but the important thing is to fine tune your process. Really understand a histogram (which sometimes I think I don't). But to start be sure you have all the negative information on the digital version of your negative. I some times spread the histogram arrows out to be sure I have everything (this is during the digitalization process). Then go to levels (now post process) and adjust your black and white points (manually, the way you like them) finally you can move the middle arrow for mid-tone brightness. If it needs a little more do some curves. I don't use photoshop but elements and Easy Curve is a free plugin for curves (I think that is the name, if it isn't PM me and I'll look it up). Good luck.
Last edited:
Gradskater
Well-known
dont give up
dont give up
This picture here is similar to your initial digital picture (focus on eyes, bokeh, color), but shot on film with a Canon QL17 GIII.
To get this picture (which looks as good as any higher iso digital to me), a lot of things have to work.
Everyone's advice is correct, and here are my few cents.
First, your camera has to work correctly. Shutter times and rangefinder alignment need to be spot on, and the older cameras (believe me, I have too many) are hit or miss without a cla.
Second, I used Fuji iso100 film. And even still the negative will never be as "clean" as a digital file. That's just how it goes with film.
Third, the processing (assuming you exposed the image like you wanted) is important. I do all of my processing at home, so I can better control the process and prevent scratches.
Fourth, scanning the image and post processing is an art unto itself. This was scanned on a plustek 7300, and then the curves were played with to get the image to look like I want. This image was not sharpened after scanning.
It's not especially difficult, but the stars kind of have to align, and then each step along the way has to be done correctly. Film is just a longer process with more places to mess up than digital. Keep going at it and you'll get results you like.
dont give up
This picture here is similar to your initial digital picture (focus on eyes, bokeh, color), but shot on film with a Canon QL17 GIII.
To get this picture (which looks as good as any higher iso digital to me), a lot of things have to work.
Everyone's advice is correct, and here are my few cents.
First, your camera has to work correctly. Shutter times and rangefinder alignment need to be spot on, and the older cameras (believe me, I have too many) are hit or miss without a cla.
Second, I used Fuji iso100 film. And even still the negative will never be as "clean" as a digital file. That's just how it goes with film.
Third, the processing (assuming you exposed the image like you wanted) is important. I do all of my processing at home, so I can better control the process and prevent scratches.
Fourth, scanning the image and post processing is an art unto itself. This was scanned on a plustek 7300, and then the curves were played with to get the image to look like I want. This image was not sharpened after scanning.
It's not especially difficult, but the stars kind of have to align, and then each step along the way has to be done correctly. Film is just a longer process with more places to mess up than digital. Keep going at it and you'll get results you like.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
i'm sorry but you are comparing a multi-hundred bucks camera with a modern lens to the cheapest rangefinders ever made 30-40 years ago?
Plus you are using an iso400 film, that you (as beginner, as you say it) don't even use it at 400 but under-and overexpose it (and develop accodringly)- this changes the film properties as well, did you check that such a film/dev combination is ideal for what you want (details/sharpness)?
Finally, as already mentioned, you scan it with a not too good scanner, afaik. This adds an additional step in the process where things might go wrong.
So yes, you are doing something wrong - you are doing the wrong comparison.
By the way there's nothing wrong with not-ultrasharp photos, plenty of great shots are not critically sharp. But if that's what you aim for...
Plus you are using an iso400 film, that you (as beginner, as you say it) don't even use it at 400 but under-and overexpose it (and develop accodringly)- this changes the film properties as well, did you check that such a film/dev combination is ideal for what you want (details/sharpness)?
Finally, as already mentioned, you scan it with a not too good scanner, afaik. This adds an additional step in the process where things might go wrong.
So yes, you are doing something wrong - you are doing the wrong comparison.
By the way there's nothing wrong with not-ultrasharp photos, plenty of great shots are not critically sharp. But if that's what you aim for...
alfisti
Member
All great advice. Gradskater, that's the kind of results I'm looking for I suspect I'm a CLA and a good scanner away from getting decent results. I am beginning to understand about the film I've chosen (contasty, not known for detail) and again, it's all learning. It's all good I have a few rolls of Superia 400 on the way, I'll shoot with those and have them processed. If that doesn't net decent results, I'll look to have one or both cameras CLA'd.
Thanks
I suspect I'm a CLA and a good scanner away from getting decent results. I am beginning to understand about the film I've chosen (contasty, not known for detail) and again, it's all learning. It's all good I have a few rolls of Superia 400 on the way, I'll shoot with those and have them processed. If that doesn't net decent results, I'll look to have one or both cameras CLA'd.Thanks