ElectroWNED
Well-known
Details:
CL + Nokton 40
Ilford XP2
developed by Walgreens (ehh...)
scanned with (my new to me) Epson 4490
These two shots were at f1.4 and 1/30. I handheld other shots, such as these:
Have I just been shooting digital too long? Can I not shoot small apertures with objects farther in the distance?
SamStewart
Established
its a combination of your scanner being bad and you not being still enough.
ElectroWNED
Well-known
Does anybody else think the scanner has anything to do with it?
Brian Legge
Veteran
Try googling 'depth of field calculator' and putting in the sensor type (35mm film), the aperture and distance to see how much in focus area you'd expect best case. Then try the same thing with the digital setup you are accustomed to using.
If you're use to a smaller sensor digital camera the dof difference may be surprising.
If you're use to a smaller sensor digital camera the dof difference may be surprising.
Dylan Hope
Established
I think it's more to do with moving too fast for the shutter. The scanner may be an issue when it comes to fine detail, but not the blur that's present in the first two images
k__43
Registered Film User
the first two definitely look like motion blur, what was your shutter speed?
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Even using the same shutter speed, sometimes we move more, and get more motion blur...
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
ElectroWNED
Well-known
either 1/15 or 1/30... difficult to hold steady, but... I thought... doable. maybe I had too much coffee that day.
konicaman
konicaman
Yup - slight motion blur. The 4490 is one of the better flatbed negative scanners. It might not render a leaf of grass on a picture of a lawn completely sharp - but this is only visible if you make a really large scan and start pixel peeping.
taskoni
Well-known
Wide open on 1/30... It's you, not the scanner. On the second picture you missed completely the focus to my eyes it looks the focus is just behind the first statue, it's not only motion blur. On the first one is a bit in front the object. I might be wrong. Looks to me you found shoot both pictures on f/2 and 1/30 sec.
nobbylon
Veteran
If you are using epson software to scan then I recommend having the unsharp filter set at medium.
ElectroWNED
Well-known
okay, good advice as always. I didn't think it was the scanner's fault here.
I'm scanning: 16 bit greyscale, 800 DPI (just posting on Flickr, RFF, TumblR, etc...), Digital ICE, no sharpening-- I might just do that in Photoshop.
and in my defense on the focus: it was dark in there
I probably could have adjusted the ISO though...
I'm scanning: 16 bit greyscale, 800 DPI (just posting on Flickr, RFF, TumblR, etc...), Digital ICE, no sharpening-- I might just do that in Photoshop.
and in my defense on the focus: it was dark in there
I probably could have adjusted the ISO though...
taskoni
Well-known
Well, I have a lot of OOF shots too, rather often, seems tricky to stand still and get the focus on spot in the same time in low light and wide open, and I don't push film more than 800 ASA so a stop is helpful, but not so much. Must be normal for some people
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
It could be the film holder, though. The holders Epson includes are crap. If your film is the least bit curled, try if another holder gives more flatness. I'm using one from my previous scanner but I should really bite the bullet and get those betterscanning.com units.
happy
Established
focus is off, camera shake. 1/15 is a crazy slow shutter speed for hand held, you can get away with it with a leaf shutter but you can't expect good results every time.
newspaperguy
Well-known
I'm with Happy... 1/15th is asking too much hand-held, especially at unforgiving wide-open settings.
Let's face it, the 40mm on a CL is more of a normal than a wide-angle lens and it has been proven time and again to show no mercy.
Maybe try a mini-pod or a beanbag next time?
FWIW - Here's hand-held at 1/6th, solidly braced against a wall - and it's fuzzy as hell.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=156141&ppuser=20714
.
Let's face it, the 40mm on a CL is more of a normal than a wide-angle lens and it has been proven time and again to show no mercy.
Maybe try a mini-pod or a beanbag next time?
FWIW - Here's hand-held at 1/6th, solidly braced against a wall - and it's fuzzy as hell.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=156141&ppuser=20714
.
Last edited:
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Happens to all men occasionally. Not to worry.
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
the variables discussed here:
* camera shake due to slow shutter speed
* focusing issue
* scanner
* scanner sw
* oof look
perhaps to eliminate camera shake, shoot it outdoors at various aperture ?
* camera shake due to slow shutter speed
* focusing issue
* scanner
* scanner sw
* oof look
perhaps to eliminate camera shake, shoot it outdoors at various aperture ?
ElectroWNED
Well-known
kbg32
neo-romanticist
It could also do with the CL's short rangefinder base length. It is not meant to focus lenses with apertures wider then 2.0.
From our leader's website;
"CL Weak Points:
Slow speed shutter reliability
Meter reliability
Claimed incompatibility of CL Lenses to M
Lower focusing accuracy for fast lenses
Inability to use some M Lenses/accessories
Dead meter cells which seemingly have no replacements
In other terms, the CL has 38% of the M6's focusing accuracy."
From our leader's website;
"CL Weak Points:
Slow speed shutter reliability
Meter reliability
Claimed incompatibility of CL Lenses to M
Lower focusing accuracy for fast lenses
Inability to use some M Lenses/accessories
Dead meter cells which seemingly have no replacements
In other terms, the CL has 38% of the M6's focusing accuracy."