Extreme 35mm B&W Push - Weird Softness?

[nwayne]

Hi everyone,

I'm a long-time lurker, but just made an account to ask about this problem I'm having.

I recently developed a roll of bulk-rolled 35mm Arista EDU 200 (which I've been lead to believe is the same as Fomapan 200) that I rated at 1600 EI. I know - a 3 stop push. I understand that pushing film that far doesn't recover much shadow detail, but I was still happy with the results. Unfortunately, they seem to have a weird softness/bleed - in these photos, I may have missed focus slightly (or a lot?), but that doesn't explain the weird artifacting going on (I don't believe this is just bokkeh):

Random crops highlighting the issue:

Notes:
- Shot on a Yashica FX-3 Super w/ (mostly) a Sigma Mini Wide II 28mm F2.8
- Developed in ID-11 for 28 minutes at 20°C (4 inversions every minute + hard tap against table)
- Fixed using Flic Allergen Free Fixer for 5 minutes (4 inversions every minute + hard tap against table)
- Scanned using a Rebel t2i against a cheap walmart LED lamp
- Inverted in lightroom using Negative Lab Pro ("Cinematic - Rich" preset)

I'm pretty new to film development overall, so any advice would be much appreciated. Definitely looking to improve!

Thanks,
Noah

 

[koraks]

Welcome to Photrio, Noah!

My first thought is that this has something to do with the scanning. Maybe you just missed the focus when photographing the negatives?

You can verify if the problem is present in the actual negatives by taking a powerful loupe and having a look at the actual images on the film itself.

 

[nwayne]

Welcome to Photrio, Noah!

My first thought is that this has something to do with the scanning. Maybe you just missed the focus when photographing the negatives?

You can verify if the problem is present in the actual negatives by taking a powerful loupe and having a look at the actual images on the film itself.

Hi koraks,

I don't believe I missed focus in scanning. Unfortunately I don't have a loupe (I'm a student, and most of the stuff I'm doing is very DIY). Here are some of the full negatives if those are helpful in solving this puzzle:

Here are some results I've gotten with proper development in ID-11 (and my current odd scanning setup) for reference:

Thanks again,
Noah

 

[koraks]

Unfortunately I don't have a loupe (I'm a student, and most of the stuff I'm doing is very DIY).

I understand. My most-used loupe is the rear element of the 50mm lens from a broken cheap rangefinder camera...

I see what you mean; the focus problem does indeed seem to be associated with the negatives, i.e. it must have happened when the photos were taken.

I'm not familiar with your Yashica, but I know that the mirror or ground glass in a reflex camera can occasionally become misaligned.

 

[albada]

Such misfocus could occur if the pressure plate is not positioned correctly. Check the springs and attachment of the plate. As the camera's back is closed, the pressure plate should slip smoothly between any outer metal ridges, and rest on two inner ridges. If it snags on an outer ridge, the film would bow backwards a little, creating misfocus. You can check by examining the plate as the back is closed, and by removing the lens and opening the shutter on B.

Mark

 

[MattKing]

The negatives look like there is camera or motion blur in them.

 

[pentaxuser]

OP, have all previous scans from negatives taken with this camera been in complete focus?

pentaxuser

 

[martinola]

This may not be your whole issue, but on your displayed negatives, your top perforations look sharp, but the bottom ones look soft. I think your camera/scanning might not have the film frame completely parallel to the sensor.. Good luck, hang in there - you'll get it nailed down.

Martin

 

[nwayne]

This may not be your whole issue, but on your displayed negatives, your top perforations look sharp, but the bottom ones look soft. I think your camera/scanning might not have the film frame completely parallel to the sensor.. Good luck, hang in there - you'll get it nailed down.

Martin

Wow - I did not even notice! Some of the softness is my scan may come down to the slight warping (I don't know how else to explain it) of the +2 magnifier on my t2i kit lens. I don't think that explains the whole issue though :/

 

[nwayne]

OP, have all previous scans from negatives taken with this camera been in complete focus?

pentaxuser

I believe so - tomorrow I'll hopefully shoot a test roll and see if I get similar results (while trying to control for the scanning and other factors)

 

[nwayne]

Such misfocus could occur if the pressure plate is not positioned correctly. Check the springs and attachment of the plate. As the camera's back is closed, the pressure plate should slip smoothly between any outer metal ridges, and rest on two inner ridges. If it snags on an outer ridge, the film would bow backwards a little, creating misfocus. You can check by examining the plate as the back is closed, and by removing the lens and opening the shutter on B.

Mark

Hi Mark,

I checked the plate, it seems to be fine. Prior rolls and rolls after haven't had similar softness. Maybe I messed up the loading for this roll though! Shooting a test roll soon to get to the bottom of this.

 

[dokko]

Wow - I did not even notice! Some of the softness is my scan may come down to the slight warping (I don't know how else to explain it) of the +2 magnifier on my t2i kit lens. I don't think that explains the whole issue though :/

I guess you mean that you're using a +2 front diopter as a screw in filter on a kit zoom lens to allow for close focusing?

this will always result in some softness at the edges, and in your case also some chromatic aberration. you can try to stop down a bit more, but you're likely running into softness by diffraction pretty soon, so the biggest improvement would be to get a dedicated macro lens.

apart from the miss alignment and the diopter, it looks like part of the scan is at least somewhat in focus since we can see what I assume must be a soft grain structure, like here:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/attachments/img_3630111-jpg.360268/

hard to pin point the problem exactly with those soft scans. my guess is that it's a focus problem or that the lens got a bump, but that's something you should be able to see by simply looking through the viewfinder on the matte screen.

very unlikely that it's a developing problem though.
do you have another

 

[250swb]

Probably nothing a tripod, a cable release, and f/8 wouldn't solve.

 

[dokko]

Probably nothing a tripod, a cable release, and f/8 wouldn't solve.

Looking at the detail, the blur seems more like a gaussian blur rather that motion blur, so it seems unlikely to me that it's camera shake.

since it's a 28mm F2.8 lens, even wide open, the focus would have to be set very close for the photos to come out this blurry (like around 1m).

one test to make is on the next film, take one picture of a far away object with the focus near infinity on the lens.
this should rule out user error and viewfinder problems, and basically only leaves lens problems.

 

[Don_ih]

You should check for mirror slip on the FX3. That's a constant problem with Yashica and Contax cameras from that time period (although later FX3 cameras are probably not prone to it). I had an FX7 that the mirror had slipped bad enough, it got wedged against the back of the lens when firing the shutter.

 

[nwayne]

I guess you mean that you're using a +2 front diopter as a screw in filter on a kit zoom lens to allow for close focusing?

this will always result in some softness at the edges, and in your case also some chromatic aberration. you can try to stop down a bit more, but you're likely running into softness by diffraction pretty soon, so the biggest improvement would be to get a dedicated macro lens.

apart from the miss alignment and the diopter, it looks like part of the scan is at least somewhat in focus since we can see what I assume must be a soft grain structure, like here:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/attachments/img_3630111-jpg.360268/

hard to pin point the problem exactly with those soft scans. my guess is that it's a focus problem or that the lens got a bump, but that's something you should be able to see by simply looking through the viewfinder on the matte screen.

very unlikely that it's a developing problem though.
do you have another

Hi dokko,

I just shot a test roll and developed using similar methodology (even the same lens, the 28mm f/2.8)

These were shot around f/11, then scanned at f/10 on my 28-55 Canon kit lens. I removed the diopter and punched in in post to remove as much CA as possible. I also verified that both the camera and light were level. I believe most of the softness I was seeing earlier is gone.

The other shots turned out pretty terribly. Here's one of them:

Picture of my scanning setup:

Picture of a full negative:

As is visible, I have a new issue: Heavy bromide drag (I believe, I'm still very new to this). My agitation method was 4 inversions + a hard tap every minute or so. I'm not sure if bromide drag is avoidable when developing upwards of 27 minutes though. I also don't think I'm going to be pushing Arista EDU 200 to 1600 again anytime soon. Most shadow detail is completely lost (as can be seen in that image of my coat against the door).

I unfortunately didn't test it at infinity but I believe the camera and lens to be fully functional. I've shot quite a few rolls of film with this specific combo. The only knew development is... my development.

Thanks,
Noah

 

[nwayne]

You should check for mirror slip on the FX3. That's a constant problem with Yashica and Contax cameras from that time period (although later FX3 cameras are probably not prone to it). I had an FX7 that the mirror had slipped bad enough, it got wedged against the back of the lens when firing the shutter.

Hi Don,

I have a Yashica FX-3 Super 2000, to be specific. I luckily got it in almost brand new condition, and the mirror seems to be fine. Thanks for the tip, though.

 

[nwayne]

You should check for mirror slip on the FX3. That's a constant problem with Yashica and Contax cameras from that time period (although later FX3 cameras are probably not prone to it). I had an FX7 that the mirror had slipped bad enough, it got wedged against the back of the lens when firing the shutter.

Actually, after double checking, I seem to have some mirror slip? I don't know exactly what to look for, and it's hard to photograph properly (I put the FX-3 Super 2000 in bulb mode and fired the shutter to show the possible "misalignment" better).

Is this actually mirror slip? If it is, is there a simple fix?

- Noah

Edit: Does mirror slip affect focus? Or is it just an annoyance when it starts to interfere with the lens.

 

[Don_ih]

Mirror slip can impact focus if the mirror also starts to lift off. It doesn't need to lift much. I'm not entirely sure if that small amount is actual mirror slip. At any rate, the best way to check focus is with a bit of ground glass. Focus on something well-defined and close through the lens with the back open and the aperture wide open, fire the shutter on bulb, check at the image plane with ground glass. (This is all easy to say but it's very difficult to assess anything on a small bit of ground glass without a good magnifier - you can use a lens, though.)

 

[koraks]

Heavy bromide drag

If you mean the black areas on the negative: that's massive fogging caused by a light leak somewhere along the line.

 

[dokko]

It's rather difficult to pin down the problem you're because it seems to me there are several.

the obvious ones:
- severe underexpose and overdevelopment
- light leak (as mentioned by koraks)

the less obvious ones:
- stopping down to F11 on the sigma will lead to a slight softening due to diffraction
- the kit zoom will lead to softening on the scanning. it's a rather poor lens to start with, and a diopter or cropping in will only make it worse. also F11 is probably again in the diffraction territory (but it probably doesn't make a huge difference since I expect the lens to be soft to start with)

the ones we don't know because of all of the problems above:
- sigma lens working to specs?
- viewfinder/mirror up to specs?

I would advise to shoot a roll at normal 200ASA speed, get it developed and scanned at a lab, so you know your camera is in order and then you scan it with your setup to see if the quality you are getting is good enough for you.

 

[grain elevator]

The massive unsharpness is probably not cause by the scanning process, even though it may not be optimal, as in the pictures of the while strips, the perforations are reasonably sharp and the images aren't. At least the desk lamp pic looks that way, with the other it's harder to tell.