First roll of E100 looks like soft focus

[sruddy]

I just got back a roll of Kodak E100 from the lab. I shot it using a Canon EOS 1V with a Canon EF 24-105mm f4 IS II. I use the lens for commerial photography and it's not a stellar performer in the sharpness area. However the images I capture with it are totally usable when shot with a 5D Mark IV digital body. I'm wondering why they are so bad on this film body. I have never heard any complaints about the film being soft so what's causing the issue???

 

[cmacd123]

are you perhaps using a high ISO on the digital camera? thus using a smaller aperture? what Shutter Speed did you have with the E100, as it is a slow film by todays standards.

 

[warden]

Is it just E100 that is soft for you with this camera and lens combination, or other films too?

 

[Kino]

Now you get to see the effect of lens profiles in digital cameras vs uncorrected use with film cameras.

Electronic "enhancements" and corrections on a lens profile in digital get rid of problems film shows without remorse.

https://cpn.canon-europe.com/conten..._camera_features/in_camera_lens_correction.do

 

[Wallendo]

The image has a very narrow depth of field. The part of the image that should be in focus show evidence of edge enhancement, especially with the halo around the woman's cap.

Is the slide itself soft focus? or is this just a poor scan? The image seen here is less than 2 megapixels, it is never going to have the sharpness of a well-done digital image or appropriately scanned transparency.

 

[sruddy]

are you perhaps using a high ISO on the digital camera? thus using a smaller aperture? what Shutter Speed did you have with the E100, as it is a slow film by todays standards.

Shooting at box speed

Is it just E100 that is soft for you with this camera and lens combination, or other films too?

This is the first roll of film shot with this body. I only shot black and white film with my previous 1V. At that time, I had the first version 24-105, which was definitly softer than the new version I'm shooting with now.

Now you get to see the effect of lens profiles in digital cameras vs uncorrected use with film cameras.

Electronic "enhancements" and corrections on a lens profile in digital get rid of problems film shows without remorse.

https://cpn.canon-europe.com/conten..._camera_features/in_camera_lens_correction.do

The digital file above has been post processed and I used the lens I shot for applying lens corrections. Softness was there before the corrections were rendered.

The image has a very narrow depth of field. The part of the image that should be in focus show evidence of edge enhancement, especially with the halo around the woman's cap.

Is the slide itself soft focus? or is this just a poor scan? The image seen here is less than 2 megapixels, it is never going to have the sharpness of a well-done digital image or appropriately scanned transparency.

There is a slight bit of edgeanhancement from my post precessing and export of sceen sharpnes. The slide looks identical to my scan. Here are some 100% crops without any sharpness applied. See the sidwalk focus area looks like mud.

 

[Born2Late]

I noticed the same thing; I've used 2 different labs. I though it was just me; glad to see your post.

 

[Kino]

The digital file above has been post processed and I used the lens I shot for applying lens corrections. Softness was there before the corrections were rendered.

Very confusing.

Your original post seems to ask why the film looks soft when shooting with a lens you use on both a DSLR and a Film camera body, right?

That wouldn't negate the fact that the DSLR uses lens profiles to enhance the image in-camera and that the film camera would not have access to these enhancement options.

What am I missing here?

I am saying, its probably not the film, it's your lens, which is optimized for digital shooting and not for film shooting. I believe you that the film IS soft because the lens is not sharp for film.

 

[Pieter12]

Is the grain sharp?

 

[MattKing]

Is the grain sharp?

+1
Also, is the image sharp when you magnify the slide itself.
The film's grain is very, very fine. Maybe the scanner is having trouble focusing.

 

[DREW WILEY]

As usual, don't blame the film. Look somewhere else. If there was a problem with this film, which is in fact quite saturated and contrasty, then there would be thousands of complaints already, not a random one here and there. Things look out of focus to me, but there might also have been a cold-weather condensation problem on the lens and/or viewfinder.

 

[DF]

Do you use Polarizers ? Have you shot color slide before - because if not they're essential.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Why does anyone need a polarizer? Nonsense. I've never used one on Ektachrome or any other slide film for the past six decades except for cross-polarized copy of glossy artwork.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Your AF system is front focusing. Film AF systems are not quite as good as the newer versions, but in this case you should be able to see F4 focus, so try manually focusing.

 

[koraks]

Your AF system is front focusing.

Exactly. Focus was about a foot in front of the dogs.

 

[ozphoto]

The scan actually looks rather "soft" from the enlargements - I can't make out any crispness in the grain structure at all. Even with an out of focus image, grain structure should be clear and crisp, not soft and "mushy"; add in some front focus and the sharpness of the final image, will obviously deteriorate somewhat.

 

[brbo]

Yes, the scan is very soft. So soft it's hard to say if the focusing was on target.

 

[sruddy]

The scan actually looks rather "soft" from the enlargements - I can't make out any crispness in the grain structure at all. Even with an out of focus image, grain structure should be clear and crisp, not soft and "mushy"; add in some front focus and the sharpness of the final image, will obviously deteriorate somewhat.

I just mounted the whole roll last night and viewed it by projection. The images projected well and I didn’t see any focus issues. I suspect that this film is a bit softer than I anticipated and the girl in the image I posted was slightly moving. Couple this with a shallow DOF, and a possible front focus issue with the camera and possible scan issue. I’m going to rescan the whole slide and do a 2x macro shot so I can try and see some grain. FWIW I shot this at f5.6 around 30-50 shutter speed. I used single point focus on the girls face. I was laying on the ground using my arms as a tripod. It was around 45 degrees out and I came from a heated vehicle so there could have been some very slight condensation. The only other slide film I have shot so far has been Fuji 100f with a Rolleiflex and the images were so sharp they looked 3D. I definitely need a better standard zoom for the Canon. The 24-105 is an awesome focal range but not as sharp as their 24-70 or other available lenses. Maybe film is showing it’s weakness? I think I’ll put a roll of Black and white film and shoot my focus target. This will tell me if there are any issues related to the camera.

 

[sruddy]

Yes, the scan is very soft. So soft it's hard to say if the focusing was on target.

I know, I'm going to rescan. I'm very familiar with the lens and I was expecting dof to be about 3-4'. Looking at the sidewalk on the left, it looks like the black dog is in far focus and about a foot in front of all dogs for near focus. This should have made all dogs in the first row nice and sharp. The other thing hurting this image was the available light. Bad light, equal bad detai, and bad detail can be looked at like bad focus. I'm going to do some AF tests using black and white film and shoot the same E100 film in a 35mm Contax and Leica cameras to compare sharpness results.

 

[warden]

The only other slide film I have shot so far has been Fuji 100f with a Rolleiflex and the images were so sharp they looked 3D.

It's likely a combination of the better lens and larger format that's giving you the pleasing results, but I'm sure you know that already. Medium format forgives many sins!

I think I’ll put a roll of Black and white film and shoot my focus target. This will tell me if there are any issues related to the camera.

Good idea, especially if you duplicate the scenario from the shot you shared. It seems unlikely to me that Ektachrome is the culprit here. The images I've seen online and on the light table have been plenty sharp. Let us know how the test goes!

 

[Toasty]

Soft lenses and missed focus will be VERY apparent with slide film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Shooting at box speed



This is the first roll of film shot with this body. I only shot black and white film with my previous 1V. At that time, I had the first version 24-105, which was definitly softer than the new version I'm shooting with now.



The digital file above has been post processed and I used the lens I shot for applying lens corrections. Softness was there before the corrections were rendered.



There is a slight bit of edgeanhancement from my post precessing and export of sceen sharpnes. The slide looks identical to my scan. Here are some 100% crops without any sharpness applied. See the sidwalk focus area looks like mud.

The last photograph shows a very narrow depth of field. Use a slower shutter speed and a wider [lower aperture number] f/stop.

 

[sruddy]

Is the grain sharp?

Looks like mud, I can't make out ant grain at all. I have determined it was due to a bad scan.

+1
Also, is the image sharp when you magnify the slide itself.
The film's grain is very, very fine. Maybe the scanner is having trouble focusing.

I use a DSLR for scanning and my set up needs to be changed as the room for error is great. I have determined this slide didn't get focused properly. In addition to improving my set up I'm going to start to use the live shooting feature of C1 pro, which I'm currently using for tethered capture. It has a great focusing feature. I quit using it for film scans as it takes longer and I thought I had my method dialed in.

As usual, don't blame the film. Look somewhere else. If there was a problem with this film, which is in fact quite saturated and contrasty, then there would be thousands of complaints already, not a random one here and there. Things look out of focus to me, but there might also have been a cold-weather condensation problem on the lens and/or viewfinder.

Agreed, I have searched and can't find anyone mentioning issues with the films resolution.

The scan actually looks rather "soft" from the enlargements - I can't make out any crispness in the grain structure at all. Even with an out of focus image, grain structure should be clear and crisp, not soft and "mushy"; add in some front focus and the sharpness of the final image, will obviously deteriorate somewhat.

On closer look I can't see any grain either! When I discovered this frame had scan focus issues I did a quick test using my iPhone as a light source. I laid the now mounted slide on my DIY diffused film holder , then on the phone and took a shot. Then I removed the diffused film holder and took a shot without. I can see the grain in both shots, and the shot without the diffuser had slightly sharper grain. The difference is most likely similar the grain sharpness of a condenser enlarger vs a diffuser. My current method shown below needs to be changed for easier more consistent results. If I went to a vertical set up it would be easier to advance the frames, and less likely to have this type of problem. For kicks I threw a neg in my Durst enlarger and laid my camera on the easel. I took off the enlarger lens and turned on the enlargers white light. The result was impressive but not quite as good as my current method. I think if I laser aligned my camera to the negative stage, it would be very good, and the vertical setup would allow me to achieve the flattest film with the least amount of hassle.

Yes, the scan is very soft. So soft it's hard to say if the focusing was on target.

I haven't tested for focus accuracy, however looking at all my other frames of this subject shows pretty much perfect focus point. Yay!

Soft lenses and missed focus will be VERY apparent with slide film.

I'm learning!

 

[jtk]

Just to keep this honest, need to point out that Ektachrome doesn't have grain...and dye clouds aren't the same thing.

I see camera movement.

 

[warden]

I use a DSLR for scanning and my set up needs to be changed as the room for error is great. I have determined this slide didn't get focused properly.

Ah, I hadn't thought about the possibility of the film camera and DSLR both being slightly out of focus but that could be a contributing factor as you say.

Having said that I have seen elsewhere people speculating a difference in sharpness between E100 and Provia, so that could be a factor as well. I haven't noticed a lack of sharpness in either.