Pictures, most often, a little on the blurry side

[Captain Kidd]

Ive noticed that the majority of my pictures, are ever so slightly blurry, maybe a better way of putting it is that they are not as sharp as I would expect. That said, im not looking for super sharp, I just expected my pictures to be a little sharper.

Generally the way I take a picture is to use hyperfocal distance, I pick the aperture and then using the dial on my lens, I set the aperture number (on the right) to infinity. Could it be this approach? I like everything being reasonably in focus so thought this is the best way.

Im using a Leica M6 with a summarit 50mm 2.5.

Here are three examples that I would just expect to be a little bit sharper:

pic 1
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8385186/Screen Shot 2017-01-26 at 17.09.58.png

pic 2
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8385186/Screen Shot 2017-01-26 at 16.57.43.png

pic 3
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8385186/Screen Shot 2017-01-26 at 17.23.32.png

This is an example that i feel is sharper
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8385186/Screen Shot 2017-01-26 at 18.22.05.png

Also, a novice question, does f8 generally give the sharpest results, is that right?

Would really appreciate your thoughts, my scanner is a plustek 8200

Thanks for any help,

David

 

[Captain Kidd]

and just to note, there is a sharpen button in vuescan which i havent clicked, and these images are screengrabs from the vuescan preview window.

Thanks

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

Here are three examples that I would just expect to be a little bit sharper:

Also, a novice question, does f8 generally give the sharpest results, is that right?

Would really appreciate your thoughts, my scanner is a plustek 8200

Thanks for any help,

David

F8 will give you more depth of field, but is seldom the sharpest, but it depends on the lens. F5.6 is usually the sharpest, but that is totally subjective on my part, and can vary wildly lens to lens.

Hyperfocal distance is tricky to use, when taking photos like yours I still focus.

 

[andybrown]

Try one on a tripod, with a delay and then see if that's any better. At least then you would know if it's the lens or some shake from you. To me the 4th one doesn't look any better. Sorry about that!
You would certainly think the pictures would be sharper

 

[x-ray]

Hyperfocal isn't going to give you critically sharp images except at or near the point the focus is set.

Plustek scanners are good but they aren't top of the line so there is probably some degradation there.

Your film may not be flat in the film holder which would cause softness.

All three can contribute to soft images.

You have a great camera and lens with a very accurate RF. Focus your camera. It's not like your subject is going to get away.
If you want to use it as a point and shoot why not buy a cheap point and shoot camera. Use your camera as it was designed, focus it.

 

[ferider]

Shoot as high speed as you can. Buffer your hyperfocal window with an additional stop. Say, you shoot at f8, put infinity on f5.6.

Could also be the scanner - compare the scanning results with a slide under a loupe.

 

[Captain Kidd]

Hyperfocal distance is tricky to use, when taking photos like yours I still focus.

Thanks, considering the pictures i posted, where would you focus to try achieve the largest depth of field, from the nearest object to the furthest. Basically id like my images all in focus.

Ive read to focus a third of the way into your scene, would this be a better approach?

 

[Captain Kidd]

If you want to use it as a point and shoot why not buy a cheap point and shoot camera. Use your camera as it was designed, focus it.

Im just learning, but if you wanted the entire scene in focus, in those images, what area would you think best to focus on.

I just came across this picture from Alex Webb
http://trinelibre.tumblr.com/image/40160239019

if he focused on the foreground wall in any aperture the background would be blurred and vice versa, is he focusing a third of the way in or using hyperfocal settings?

Id love to know a technique to get focus results similar to this (a technique to take pictures like him would be great too 🙂

 

[Captain Kidd]

another example of foreground and background in reasonable focus, rather than using hyfocal settings, if you wanted this result what would you be focusing on?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/95/d0/3b/95d03b08d002763f146c24e3c8b6da66.jpg

 

[Richard G]

Interesting questions. A lot of parameters. What film? And what shutter speed? That pink building in overcast couldn't have given you much more than 1/30 at f8 with Ektar (ISO 100) for instance. I'm 56 and have always had a mild tremor which miraculously I control very well when taking photographs. F5.6 is the sharpest aperture, balancing diffraction effects of smaller lens apertures against spherical aberrations of larger apertures. But shutter speed is just as important. With digital this all becomes more apparent.

You tolerate mild out of focus of unimportant foreground detail and any out of focus of important, smaller distant detail is unacceptable. I always focus on the subject or scale focus to be on the subject. In the gallery I have a recent shot with a sharp lens of 28mm focal length and I focussed on the central tree with the rock beside it. F8 and 1/125s. The agapanthus tops in the foreground look acceptable.

A 35mm Summarit will give you more depth of field. Alex Webb probably used his Summaron f5.6 28, with even more depth of field.

 

[Captain Kidd]

Thanks Richard G, this is very interesting, the film for those was either fuji pro or kodak portra, both at 400. The shutter speed I don't know, maybe 125 but thats a guess. I really like your picture and im surprised that you focused so far into the image and still got the flower tops in the foreground in focus.

With my approach using hyperfocal, I would have set f8 to infinity using the depth of field dial, in which case the focus would be set to around 9 metres. The tree with the rock looks alot further than that. I think im more confused now.

Could I ask, looking at my pictures, for the largest depth of field, what areas would you instinctively focus on.

Thanks for getting back to me, I really appreciate it.

 

[lynnb]

Andy, Roland and Richard have all touched on technique to avoid camera movement at the instant of exposure - make sure you have the camera braced against eyebrow/forehead, breathe smoothly or hold breath, squeeze shutter gently with fleshy part of finger and use a high enough shutter speed, to avoid camera movement which can result in the softness shown. Stance also helps - feet apart, elbows close to body. The higher resolution the camera/lens is capable of recording, the more important this becomes.

 

[Captain Kidd]

Thanks lynnb, i have actually noticed on occasion a little over excitement and I press the shutter with a little too much enthusiasm, Ill try be more conscious of your tips in future.

 

[______]

If you are using a 50mm lens at f8 and have set your hyperfocal distance for infinity, then everything from roughly 15 feet to infinity will be reasonably sharp, but will only be really sharp at roughly 30 feet. Looking at your photos, I would say you would be better served have things closer in better focus rather than things at infinity. Why not actually focus? None of your photos are of action, where setting a hyperfocal distance is handy when you don't have time to focus.

 

[JHutchins]

If you are using a 50mm lens at f8 and have set your hyperfocal distance for infinity, then everything from roughly 15 feet to infinity will be reasonably sharp, but will only be really sharp at roughly 30 feet. Looking at your photos, I would say you would be better served have things closer in better focus rather than things at infinity. Why not actually focus? None of your photos are of action, where setting a hyperfocal distance is handy when you don't have time to focus.

Focusing at the hyperfocal distance isn't solely, or even mostly -- especially in this age of fast autofocus, a technique for dealing with developing action. People who want the maximum possible depth of field also use it. But anyone who uses it needs to recognize that there is always a*plane* of best focus and progressive defocus on either side. How important that defocus is depends on how much the recorded image is magnified for display or how close you look at it. If you zoom in to examine your image at the pixel level you will see soft focus everywhere but a breadthless plane. If you make a small print and look at it without further magnification you will have a deep range of things that look sharp. In between you will have in between.

 

[Captain Kidd]

Why not actually focus? None of your photos are of action, where setting a hyperfocal distance is handy when you don't have time to focus.

Alot of my pictures have something in the foreground that i would like in focus too, along with the background. Its that reason i set the camera to infinity. To try and achieve a reasonable sharpness across the image.

Someone else has said why dont i just focus, I would if I knew where to focus. What area would keep the foreground and background in reasonable focus?

 

[Captain Kidd]

Thanks J Hutchins, I think as far as focusing, for my approach, is concerned will be to learn better that plain you mention, and notice when infinity is not necessarily needed, for instance the pink house. Thanks again

 

[Captain Kidd]

This is a picture by Martin Parr, would you think he's using hyperfocal distance settings or is he focusing on a certain area, if so what area? The flowers are very sharp

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/fe/b9/68/feb968b6d3ee340cae6f45522f528294.jpg

 

[______]

Someone else has said why dont i just focus, I would if I knew where to focus. What area would keep the foreground and background in reasonable focus?

I would focus on whatever is most important to be in focus, and then rely on depth of field from closing down the aperture to get as much else in focus as possible. For example, in the pink house photo, you could focus on the gate in front of the house. Since the house isn't at infinity, that would give you a little extra depth of field for the wall in the foreground to the left.

 

[froyd]

I don't think your problem is with the hyperfocal technique, though if the smaller f-stops are forcing you to use slow shutter speeds, that could be an issue. At least some of the elements in your pictures should be in really sharp focus, but the frames all seem equally soft (though only slightly, to my eye).

I think the "issue" is mostly with the scans. I see the same on my scans from the Coolscan. They are sharp but not bleeding-eyeball sharp even with lenses that re quite good. I know because I checked a few frames on my lightbox with a good loupe and I saw sharper lines along high-contrast edges than I would see on screen. Post-scan sharpening ameliorated the situation.

If you don't have a lightbox and loupe, you could try have a photo printed by a good lab (one that prints from the negative) and see what they get out of it.