Canon P - Photo Scans Keep Coming Back Blurry/Out-of-focus

[Don_ih]

If you're happy with it. I clicked on it to enlarge, and there isn't enough detail for me to make a large print from it.

p.s. love the image.

The largest prints I make from scans are 8x10 - in a calendar. All other prints I make are using an enlarger and this will print quite big.

Also, I'm looking at it on a 60" television and there's plenty of detail. What kind of detail do you want in prints? I make prints to view, not to examine.

 

[Grephenson]

Is there a possibility you've mounted the lenses incorrectly?

I would take 3 cameras (your 2 plus a 3rd that's "known good". Run one single roll through the 3 of them. Take at least 5 exposures with each camera (infinity, 25 ft focused, 25 ft measured, 10 ft focused, 10 feet measured). Use a good tripod, fast shutter, and wide aperture. Use an inanimate object as your subject. If all 3 sets are "off", it's most likely the scanning.

I took in a different role from a different camera (Olympus OM-2n) and scans came back perfect so we can rule out scanning. I thought too maybe I was mounting these lenses wrong and watched a few YouTube videos to confirm I wasn't missing something. Thank you for your reply/help!

Set the lens to infinity and check the rangefinder for accuracy by looking at something in the distance (I check rangefinders by looking at a light post at the end of my street). If the double-image is off, adjust the rangefinder.
The screw next to the viewfinder on the front of the camera hides the rangefinder adjustment.
All of your photos look like they are focused perhaps a bit too close (which could be the result of moving after focusing). Otherwise, though, they seem about as sharp as they should be for the apertures selected.

This is the first test I did after my first batch came back blurry and all was fine with focus at infinity! I think you're right about the focus being a tiny bit too close. Thank you for your reply/help!

That metal chair in mid distance seems to be in focus. I checked by using the magnifier option on your image.

I'm starting to wonder if all of this is just in my head or maybe MY EYES are getting blurry lol. Thank you for your reply/help!

If you want you can mail me one of your negatives and I can scan it with my Z7 set up. Your V600 is not going to yield great scans, and perhaps your lab has become sloppy.

This is an insanely nice offer! I sent the lab a different roll shot on a different camera and the scans came back perfect. I think I can rule out scanning. Thank you for your reply/help!



I really appreciate everyone's help in this thread! Starting to wonder if it's all just user error lol.

 

[MattKing]

I took in a different role from a different camera (Olympus OM-2n) and scans came back perfect so we can rule out scanning.

This just means that they can scan things properly, not that they always scan things properly.

 

[Huss]

I took in a different role from a different camera (Olympus OM-2n) and scans came back perfect so we can rule out scanning. I thought too maybe I was mounting these lenses wrong and watched a few YouTube videos to confirm I wasn't missing something. Thank you for your reply/help!


This is the first test I did after my first batch came back blurry and all was fine with focus at infinity! I think you're right about the focus being a tiny bit too close. Thank you for your reply/help!


I'm starting to wonder if all of this is just in my head or maybe MY EYES are getting blurry lol. Thank you for your reply/help!


This is an insanely nice offer! I sent the lab a different roll shot on a different camera and the scans came back perfect. I think I can rule out scanning. Thank you for your reply/help!



I really appreciate everyone's help in this thread! Starting to wonder if it's all just user error lol.

Offer still holds. You need to get the images in question scanned again to rule out if it was those scans.

 

[Huss]

The largest prints I make from scans are 8x10 - in a calendar. All other prints I make are using an enlarger and this will print quite big.

Also, I'm looking at it on a 60" television and there's plenty of detail. What kind of detail do you want in prints? I make prints to view, not to examine.

I make 24x36 inch prints from 35mm and my customers like to examine as well as view. They can decide how they want to see them!

 

[Don_ih]

I make 24x36 inch prints from 35mm

If using a printer, it's fairly obvious you'd want a file size bigger than 300k for that - which is how big the scan is of the picture I posted. I think it's a 2400 dpi scan.
I did once get a 24x36 inch print printed from a 35mm scan (used the v600). That, in my opinion, exceeds the capability of that scanner. Yet the print looks pretty good.
At any rate, the point I was making is the v600 scanner is more than adequate for scanning negatives to be printed normally. Actually, it'd be fine for printing a billboard, too, since that gets printed at maybe 30 dpi....

 

[guangong]

If you're happy with it. I clicked on it to enlarge, and there isn't enough detail for me to make a large print from it.

p.s. love the image.

How large is large? My friend the late Bob Conover made etchings at least a yard on the long side. Beautiful work, but I feel that etchings have a more intimate character, so mine were usually much smaller than 8x10 inches. Another friend owned an etching by Rembrandt that was about 2”x2”. Bigger is not always better. Of course, there are some subjects and themes that show better in a very large format.

 

[Huss]

If using a printer, it's fairly obvious you'd want a file size bigger than 300k for that - which is how big the scan is of the picture I posted. I think it's a 2400 dpi scan.
I did once get a 24x36 inch print printed from a 35mm scan (used the v600). That, in my opinion, exceeds the capability of that scanner. Yet the print looks pretty good.
At any rate, the point I was making is the v600 scanner is more than adequate for scanning negatives to be printed normally. Actually, it'd be fine for printing a billboard, too, since that gets printed at maybe 30 dpi....

i’ve seen the work from those Epson V series scanners which is why I don’t use them. They cannot resolve fine detail from 35mm film as your example has shown. It doesn’t matter what setting you use.
but don’t take it from me

Detailed test report flat bed scanner Epson Perfection V600 Photo with integrated transparency unit for the scanning of slides, negatives and medium formats

www.filmscanner.info

The Epson Perfection V600 Photo is a flatbed scanner, intended mainly for scanning paper originals. The ability to scan photographic prints, slides and negatives should be considered a mere add-on feature for occasionally scanning the one or other item. The image quality is completely adequate for scanning documents. As for scanning photographic prints, it is to be considered rather modest, and for digitizing slides and negatives, it's simply insufficient.

 

[Huss]

How large is large? My friend the late Bob Conover made etchings at least a yard on the long side. Beautiful work, but I feel that etchings have a more intimate character, so mine were usually much smaller than 8x10 inches. Another friend owned an etching by Rembrandt that was about 2”x2”. Bigger is not always better. Of course, there are some subjects and themes that show better in a very large format.

Not sure what etching has to do with photography. I like to quilt. Some people like large quilts, some like small quilts. So…..

 

[flavio81]

TL;DR - Tested 2 Canon P bodies, tested 2 Canon 50mm lenses, photo scans come back blurry/out-of-focus.

The mystery is easy to solve.

1. First examine the negatives themselves with a good loupe (forget about the scans). Are they critically sharp? If they are, then the problem is at the scanning stage.

2. If they are not, this means the camera isn't focusing well. This is easy to check: get a ground glass, or a camera focusing screen, press it against the film rails, put the camera on B, open the shutter, focus at infinity on a really distant object, and examine the image on the focusing screen with a good, high power loupe. It should be sharp at the center.

These two steps will immediately point you to the fault, no need to speculate more.

 

[Don_ih]

i’ve seen the work from those Epson V series scanners which is why I don’t use them. They cannot resolve fine detail from 35mm film as your example has shown. It doesn’t matter what setting you use.
but don’t take it from me

Detailed test report flat bed scanner Epson Perfection V600 Photo with integrated transparency unit for the scanning of slides, negatives and medium formats

www.filmscanner.info

The Epson Perfection V600 Photo is a flatbed scanner, intended mainly for scanning paper originals. The ability to scan photographic prints, slides and negatives should be considered a mere add-on feature for occasionally scanning the one or other item. The image quality is completely adequate for scanning documents. As for scanning photographic prints, it is to be considered rather modest, and for digitizing slides and negatives, it's simply insufficient.

I'm familiar with the limitations of the scanner. I didn't say it was as good or better than real dedicated film scanners. I said it was fine. And it is. Most people don't need poster prints from 35mm. Ultra sharpening minute detail isn't going to make a photo a better photo - it will just make it sharper.

 

[Huss]

Ultra sharpening minute detail isn't going to make a photo a better photo - it will just make it sharper.

Why use a good camera? why use decent lenses? Why take care developing film? None of that is going to make a photo a better photo.

 

[Don_ih]

Why use a good camera? why use decent lenses? Why take care developing film? None of that is going to make a photo a better photo.

A good camera can be trusted to expose the film the way you want it to be exposed. Taking care developing film can ensure it is developed to the proper density and not overdeveloped. Both of those definitely will make a photo better.

You told the original poster that his scanner could be responsible for incorrect focus (where things at a certain distance were in focus but not what he wanted to be in focus). That was plainly incorrect. The scanner he used - the scanner the lab used - a cell phone photo of the negative over a piece of wax paper on a window, for that matter - will all show what's in focus. Minute detail will differ - that is a separate issue.

 

[Huss]

A good camera can be trusted to expose the film the way you want it to be exposed. Taking care developing film can ensure it is developed to the proper density and not overdeveloped. Both of those definitely will make a photo better.

You told the original poster that his scanner could be responsible for incorrect focus (where things at a certain distance were in focus but not what he wanted to be in focus). That was plainly incorrect. The scanner he used - the scanner the lab used - a cell phone photo of the negative over a piece of wax paper on a window, for that matter - will all show what's in focus. Minute detail will differ - that is a separate issue.

And a good scan can be trusted to take advantage of the heavy lifting that a good camera/lens/developing did.


Anyway, the OP asked about the quality of his scans. I pointed out the V600 that he used cannot produce decent scans - as proven. You show a pic that it does for your purposes. Your purposes and mine are different. I'm looking for maximum quality from my images which is not for pixel peeping, but reflects in the final printed image no matter what size is used. You're looking for good enough to show on the internet or small non-critical prints.

 

[Grephenson]

Pretty rookie question, but when I'm focusing at infinity f/1.4 should I have my lens indicator pointing at the infinity symbol or at 1.4?

 

[MattKing]

At the infinity symbol, if you want to have the best focus at infinity.
If you wanted to maximize the range of distances where the focus is acceptable, you could put the infinity symbol at 1.4, which would mean the lens is set to the f/1.4 hyperfocal distance, but that doesn't give you anything of any meaningful benefit.
If you are working at a smaller aperture - say f/16 - setting the infinity at the f/16 mark, means that the lens is focused at the hyperfocal distance for f/16, and the range of distances where the focus is acceptable is much more useful.

Pretty rookie question, but when I'm focusing at infinity f/1.4 should I have my lens indicator pointing at the infinity symbol or at 1.4?

 

[Grephenson]

At the infinity symbol, if you want to have the best focus at infinity.
If you wanted to maximize the range of distances where the focus is acceptable, you could put the infinity symbol at 1.4, which would mean the lens is set to the f/1.4 hyperfocal distance, but that doesn't give you anything of any meaningful benefit.
If you are working at a smaller aperture - say f/16 - setting the infinity at the f/16 mark, means that the lens is focused at the hyperfocal distance for f/16, and the range of distances where the focus is acceptable is much more useful.

Thank you!

 

[Grephenson]

Guys I am absolutely stumped.

I bought a nice digital microscope to view the image on the piece of tape over the film rails. I set the camera to wide open. I focused on a focus calibration chart about a meter away. I set camera to bulb, opened the shutter. I used the digital microscope to view the image on the piece of tape and got it so sharp. I then looked through the viewfinder and adjusted the rangefinder until the images lined up. Took the camera outside to test infinity and it was wayyyyyyy off. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?!

 

[MattKing]

The rangefinder is either damaged or needs adjustment. Not an uncommon situation.

 

[btaylor]

I used the digital microscope to view the image on the piece of tape and got it so sharp. I then looked through the viewfinder and adjusted the rangefinder until the images lined up. Took the camera outside to test infinity and it was wayyyyyyy off.

The key here (I think) is “adjusted the rangefinder.” Do you mean you turned the focus ring on the lens? Or made an mechanical internal adjustment to the rangefinder itself? If the sharp image on the tape and the rangefinder patch were not in perfect agreement then the rangefinder adjustment is off and should be adjusted or repaired.

 

[Grephenson]

The key here (I think) is “adjusted the rangefinder.” Do you mean you turned the focus ring on the lens? Or made an mechanical internal adjustment to the rangefinder itself? If the sharp image on the tape and the rangefinder patch were not in perfect agreement then the rangefinder adjustment is off and should be adjusted or repaired.

Adjusted the horizontal and vertical rangefinder screws.

 

[Huss]

Adjust the rangefinder so it is spot on at infinity.

 

[btaylor]

Bingo

 

[Don_ih]

I then looked through the viewfinder and adjusted the rangefinder until the images lined up. Took the camera outside to test infinity and it was wayyyyyyy off. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?!

Do it the other way. Set the lens at infinity, point it at something far away and look at how it looks on the piece of tape. If that looks good, the lens should be fine. Adjust the rangefinder so the double image lines up at infinity. Then go check it at one meter focusing with the rangefinder. One meter is from the chart you're using to the film plane of the camera - not the front of the lens (in case you got that wrong). If that shows up sharp on your piece of tape, then everything is fine. If not, then your rangefinder may be gunked up in some way.

 

[grain elevator]

Calibrating at 1m should also work, if you're working by a ground glass image. Is your tape perfectly flat? I suspect actual ground glass would be better. Make sure it rests on the film rails, not on the rails for the pressure plate.