4x5 Newbie. Out of focus pictures, am I doing something wrong?

[apugnumpty]

How close do you need to be before it is considered macro work?

I was 5ft away from this tree trunk using a 150mm lens. Is that too close?

 

[removed account4]

it makes sense to me to contact the seller, tell him/her there might be issues, having trouble focusing &c
take it to a camera shop/ repair shop and have them give it the once over ( lens and body and film holder )
if you don't have an expert user like ian g near you ... and if there is an issue tell the seller what is going on ...
and if the lens, camera &c needs to be "adjusted" have the seller foot the bill ...
the longer you hold on to something that might not be right, and the longer one fiddles around with it,
the less willing a seller might have to say it was sold that way and the buyer didn't fiddle with / and screw things up him/herself
as an unfamilar large format camera user doing all sorts of tests him/herself that people suggest to do on web forum...

YMMVFTMOTS

 

[apugnumpty]

As I am developing film today I am begrudgingly developing the Ektar I now know will be OOF. Ho Hum.

BTW I paid the seller via a bank transfer. I did however illustrate during my 7 days grace you get when an item is delivered that I felt there may be issues.
Not sure that would hold up in court but at this point I feel I can't pass this issue on to someone else which is what I am thinking this seller did to me. :-(

 

[frobozz]

All the potential focusing issues keep me from trying the LF. I mainly do portraits and can't imagine how you get the eyes sharp with the super shallow DOF except with some sort of head support. Are the RF LF cameras any better in this respect? Landscapes seem to make more sense. Then I guess it's another challenge and practice makes perfect, right?
Wonder what's the in focus hit rate is for more experienced shooters?
Cheers, Wojtek.

You can stop down a bunch and get a decent margin of error on focusing, while still getting that "shallow focus look" overall, i.e. background utterly out of focus.

I shot some practice 4x5 portraits with a 210 lens wide open recently, and it is nerve wracking. There is an agonizing amount of time in between when you last check focus and when the shutter goes click! Maybe I just got lucky, but they turned out pretty darn well if I do say so myself. One slightly freaky thing is when a single hair is blown around by the wind, and comes into focus just along an inch or two of its length in a random spot in the picture. I thought it was a scratch on the negative but no, just a razor sharp image of a section of a strand of hair that happened to be in the plane of focus, while the rest of it just utterly disappears into the blurry background. I'm going to shoot a little more stopped down next time...

Duncan

 

[Ian Grant]

Issues can be solved, it's more important to discover if or what issues there are.

I routinely sort out and fix cameras with major issues, like missing or broken parts and my guess is there's very little wrong here, and if there is it's easy to fix.

Ian

 

[RobC]

How close do you need to be before it is considered macro work?

I was 5ft away from this tree trunk using a 150mm lens. Is that too close?

that's debateable but I would suggest you use a minimum of 10meters / 33ft for this test so that the lens extension becomes negligible.

using F22 at 6ft will not give you a CoC of 0.03mm. The lens extension at 6ft is such that your effective aperture becomes 23.78 and that blows the oft quoted desirable minimum CoC of 0.03mm.

At F22 and 10 meters you should just obtain the theoretical 0.03 CoC. Smaller CoC would be better but at least you know its within desarable limits.

At 10meters and F11 the theoretical CoC is 0.015 and that may be a better option for the test if testing only the focus at the center of the lens which is what you are trying prove (ignoring any tilt, swing or camera back misalignement)

Fun this large format stuff isn't it.

 

[Ian Grant]

It is just possible the back was machined for a 2mm fresnel, that could account for the 1mm discrepancy. I have heard of this focus shift before with a couple of MkVIII's.

Ian

 

[Bill Burk]

But if we are talking about the distance milled in metal to the surface of the ground glass... That is engineering problem to solve. I think the toothpick will tell more quickly what the issue is. Ralph Lambrecht really does come up with good ideas.

 

[Bill Burk]

It is just possible the back was machined for a 2mm fresnel, that could account for the 1mm discrepancy. I have heard of this focus shift before with a couple of MkVIII's.

Ian

This is the answer I think makes the most sense. So the best solution would be to get the proper fresnel, because it would make this a better camera. A quick fix might be to shim as needed.

 

[Ian Grant]

I'd use an old film pack holder and a spare GG screen to check the difference if any between the MPP Grfafloc back and a holder visually, as well as measure.

Ian

 

[RobC]

+1

if the fresnel is supposed to be between GG and lens and is designed to sit on same rebate as GG thereby pushing the GG back, then it makes sense. But if the Fresnel was designed to sit outside the GG then it doesn't.

But I don't think the MPP normally had a fresnel so its a moot point.

 

[Ian Grant]

+1

if the fresnel is supposed to be between GG and lens and is designed to sit on same rebate as GG thereby pushing the GG back, then it makes sense. But if the Fresnel was designed to sit outside the GG then it doesn't.

But I don't think the MPP normally had a fresnel so its a moot point.

It appears some did possibly to special order. Somewhere I have photos of an architectural photographers custom MPPmwith half the top cut away to allow rise with a lens shorter than 90mm, I know the photographer ordered itthatbway.

Around the time of the last MPP MkVIII's fresnels were common on competitors cameras.

Ian

 

[RobC]

OK, the standard "Register" depth on an MPPVIII is 4.85 - 4.89 mm. Your darkslide measurements of 4.7mm to the film slot would put the film in the right place. BUT your measurement of only 3mm for the thickness of the MPP back would put your film out of position by 1.7mm.

So Ian may be correct in thinking your back was milled for a fresnel being place on the lens side of the GG. If that's correct then all you need is fresnel of the appropriate thickness (1.87mm I think) or some shims if there is anything to fit them to otherwise they will fall out.

 

[Ian Grant]

The fresnel thickness isn't the same as the distance you need to move the screen, it's roughly half the fresnel thickness. This is because a fresnel screen is a lens.

I've added a lot of fresnel screens in the past few years and had to double check the focus, I also make adapter backs to use modern film holders and roll film backs with early British wood & brass plate cameras and it's not particularly difficult to get it right.

ian

 

[apugnumpty]

Film developing almost done. Just three rolls left so am taking a break. I come back to this thread and oh my there has been a lot of activity.

Thank you all so much for your replies.

I have had a chat with the previous owner and now dropped off the camera to Luton camera repairs.
I'll know in a week what the hell is going on here.

For the time being I'll stick with my 120 film and my Medium format kit.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I have Toyo Holders, which I thought were supposed to be the best?

As a quick down a dirty test I took off the shade and the GG mount and put my digital camera (without lens) in the hole and took a picture the picture was sharp with a lack of contrast which to me is indicative of a lens without a coating, which I have no problem with. I'm assuming is the either the position of the holders, the GG position or the scanning position of the film which is incorrect.

Under a my makeshift Hasselblad viewfinder/loupe the film actually looks sharper than from my scans.

Somethings afoot here.

Another thing. I bought some extra Toyo holders which arrived yesterday afternoon. These ones have some paper put in the backing where the film would go and I am concerned that this may present another issue when I come to attempt to use them - which I have not as yet.

Has anyone heard of putting black paper in the holder underneath where the film would go?

sounds like someone tried to shim the film into placeas can be done with holders that are too deep.I think all your holders should be measured and the ones with incorrect depth should be weeded out. Do you know how to do that? if not,send me an email and I can send you instructionsrlambrec@ymail.com

 

[apugnumpty]

Hi all,

As an update to my last post which was in June 2015 I took the camera to Luton camera Repairs. They normally get back to me within the week with a repair/cleaning estimate.
Sadly the camera languished with them for over 4 months while they waited for the MIA large format repair expert to return.
It was November 2015 when I got my camera back untouched and undiagnosed.
The camera has also been untouched since.
Mostly due to apathy with my problem and other film developing related malaise in which I ended up sending off 40 Rolls of medium format film to get developed as I never got round to devving it myself.

I'm going to retry to use it and see if I can fix this issue with the suggestions here. Given that I've totally forgotten how to load film and use the camera if I can't work out what the problem is I fear I will be selling it in the near future.
Holders, film and all.

 

[Ian Grant]

I've offered to have a look at the camera for the OP

Ian

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi,

I'm used to Medium format and thought I'd take a look at Large format so got myself a graflocked back 4x5 field camera.

The first shots I put through it where to see if the bellows were ok so I was not bothered about sharpness so I played with the tilt and shift to see what it would do, this was with out of date Ilford FP4. The detail was ok not great. I was using f11 which I thought would be reasonable.
The developed film came out OK and quite contrasty so assumed that the bellows were ok but as I tilted and shifted the focus was a bit iffy any way.

I then ran through some new Kodak Ektar, I kept the camera straight put it on f16 did some straight on DOF tests and tilted slightly and did some more.

Now I've used a whole box of Ektar and the first two I've developed are very soft, compared to what I would get from MF.

I would focus with either the knobs or by pulling the rack until the foreground was what I would think was sharp, then I would check the rest of ground glass to check the focus in the rest of it. Assuming that this was the correct procedure I then put in the holder and take the shot with the desired f stop and shutter speed being care not to jog the tripod or camera with a remote shutter trigger.

Is there something I'm missing to get critical sharpness or are there tricks and tips to nail focus?
Or is there something I should check or test to help nailing the focus issue?

Cheers in advance.

Inorder to get good focus groundglass and film have to be at the same plane;Your film holders may not do that;also, are you using a fresnel lens?

 

[Ian Grant]

Inorder to get good focus groundglass and film have to be at the same plane;Your film holders may not do that;also, are you using a fresnel lens?

All that will be checked this weekend Ralph, as well as the lens

Ian

 

[RobC]

I suspect its a lens problem. DoF means something should be sharp in the subject and if it isn't then it could be a dodgy lens.

 

[apugnumpty]

I didn't get chance to see Ian Grant last weekend but hope to, if your still willing, to let me come to see you this weekend please?

 

[apugnumpty]

It's now Bluebell season and would love to take some shots of them with the 5x4, I would like a slightly longer lens though as 150mm is not really long enough to get the compression of colour I'm after.
Anyone have a telephoto lens for sale or suggestions for a tele lens for the MPPVIII?

 

[Ian Grant]

I didn't get chance to see Ian Grant last weekend but hope to, if your still willing, to let me come to see you this weekend please?

No problem

You can try my 360mm f5,5 Tele Xenar, a 240mmNikon W and also some 210mm lenses

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

Today's update is the lens is fine, sharp and as it should be for a Xenar. The camera back has correct registration tested against a a screen in a Graflex Film Pack adapter however the MPP screen was noticeably less bright. A couple of test shots indicated the the focus was indeed correct and a portion printed to check - (would have been more than a 20x24 enlargement).. However it was difficult to focus using just the viewfinder hood in reasonably bright sunlight.

apugnumpty now has a very much brighter focus screen (I re-ground it) and the difference is substantial, it's now very easy to use with no dark-cloth just the finder hood. it's probably around the equivalent of 2 stops brighter and the consequence is it's far easier to focus accurately. Poor screens are common to many other cameras, Graflex in particular, and all pre-WWII cameras.

The second set of test shots with the improved screen indicate there's no issues with the camera or lens. all very sharp where they were supposed to be

Ian