Focus problem with Seagull

[Thijs]

Hi everyone,

I started shooting medium format film with a Seagull 4a camera. After development the images didn't quite come out as sharp as I expected. For instance, my girlfriends Lubitel shoots a lot sharper.
It doesnt seem to be setting related, wether the focus is close or infinity its still not quite crisp.

Since this is my first experience with a TLR I hope someone can tell me wether something is wrong with my camera or that this is just the quality of the Seagull lens.

Here are some scans:

 

[shutterfinger]

Well, since your camera is a 6cm X 6cm TLR which is considered medium format and your in the large format section I wonder what else you're doing incorrectly.
Did/are you using the built in magnifier to fine focus with? If no, use it.
If yes its possible the taking lens and viewing lens are not in sync.
I suspect you're not using the magnifier which results in soft images 99.99% of the time.
Another possibility is a dirty/dim view screen.
The instruction manual: http://www.cameramanuals.org/pdf_files/seagull_4.pdf
(its what you read when all else fails)

 

[voceumana]

Both mountain regions and seaside environments have a lot of ultraviolet light and this can cause loss of sharpness. Interesting that your middle photo of the rock striations seems to be the sharpest.

 

[Dan Fromm]

OP, what aperture did you use? What aperture(s) did you shoot at?

The usual way to check out focusing problems is to shoot something with a regular pattern -- picket fence, brick wall, ... -- at a 45 degree angle. Mount the camera on a sturdy tripod. Mark the subject at the intended point of best focus. Focus. Use a long cable release. Take a shot with the taking lens wide open, then stop it down a stop, take a shot, ... Do the process twice, once focusing using the ground glass and magnifier (focus once and for all, don't refocus between shots), once using a tape measure to measure the focused distance and focusing by scale. I b'lieve all versions of the Seagull 4 have focusing scales.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Good suggestions in the posts above.

First photo looks blurry due to camera shake - with TLRs, some people pull the camera down and use the tension of the strap around their neck to steady the camera.

Which shutter speeds and apertures were you using?

Until you gain more experience with that camera, perhaps use speeds 1/125 and faster, and apertures f/5.6 to f/11.

Or use a tripod.

Welcome to the forums.

 

[JPD]

Maybe the shutter lens retaining ring is loose? If it isn't screwed in properly the lens and shutter assembly would be free to tilt, causing the result you see in these photos.

 

[tezzasmall]

Hi everyone,

I started shooting medium format film with a Seagull 4a camera. After development the images didn't quite come out as sharp as I expected. For instance, my girlfriends Lubitel shoots a lot sharper.
It doesnt seem to be setting related, wether the focus is close or infinity its still not quite crisp.

Since this is my first experience with a TLR I hope someone can tell me wether something is wrong with my camera or that this is just the quality of the Seagull lens.

As someone who has tried both (two) new Seagull cameras and a Lubitel (with the latter being used many moons ago in the 70's so have little memory of that period), I can tell you that neither are known for their lens sharpness.

My two seagull cameras, both focused on different areas of the frame but NEVER the whole frame at once, what ever the aperature. You either have to accept this fact and work with it or pay a bit more and get a more decent and respected tlr camera. I'm sure with the sometimes high prices quoted for Seagulls, you could probably get a better second hand tlr for the price easily.

On the other hand, there are people out there who like things to be slightly blurry etc and pay good money for various lenses to add out of focus areas eg Lensbaby. And the Lomography site is well known for offering cameras that do what yours does, and complete the sale with out of date film etc. As said there's someone out there that would love to have a camera do what yours does.

Bottom line is, that is not you but the camera.

Terry S

 

[Jim Jones]

I never got an unsharp photo with my new Seagull TLR, because before getting around to putting film in it, it had stopped working.

 

[Thijs]

Thanks everyone for the replies!

I am going to shoot a roll of film with a higher aperture, most of the pics I took were taken at 3.5.

If the results are still not great, I shall learn to accept that this is just the quality of my camera.
Any recommendations what would be a good step up from a Seagull camera?

 

[JPD]

Any recommendations what would be a good step up from a Seagull camera?

You can't go wrong with these if they are fully functioning:
Cheap: Any Yashica with Yashikor. The Yashikor is a triplet that is wonderfully soft at large apertures and very sharp stopped down.
Middle priced: Rolleicord! The four element Xenar lens is excellent, but the Triotar isn't bad either.
Middle to higher price: Rolleiflex with Tessar (or Xenar) Yashica with Yashinon. Excellent, sharp cameras.
Higher price: Rolleiflex with Planar or Xenotar. A little sharper at full aperture than the rest.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Also Yashica 124G, Mamiya C330.

 

[R.Gould]

Also the British Microcord 2 , not the first generation of \microcord, they were rubbish but the second generation is well on a par with Rolleicord/flex with tesser

 

[Dan Fromm]

I am going to shoot a roll of film with a higher aperture, most of the pics I took were taken at 3.5.

Shooting with the taking lens wide open guarantees softness off-axis and away from the plane of best focus. Before you waste more money on film or equipment, learn the basics, i.e., what the camera's controls do.

Forums like this are poor places to learn much. The medium discourages long responses and many posters, although filled with the desire to help, don't know very much. The best place to learn what you need to know is from a book. I recommend A. A. Blaker's Field Photography, available used at reasonable prices from sellers on abebooks.com, alibris.com, amazon.com, bn.com, ...

 

[Jim Jones]

We should see less detail on any ground glass viewed without high magnification than a large print. This makes focusing the camera quite critical.

 

[JPD]

I am going to shoot a roll of film with a higher aperture, most of the pics I took were taken at 3.5.

Since it's a triplet lens, the best aperture should be 11. If you don't like the results from that aperture, get a better camera and use the Seagull as a paperweight.

 

[Bibeibu]

If yes its possible the taking lens and viewing lens are not in sync.

How would you sync the taking lens and the viewing lens?

 

[henryvk]

How would you sync the taking lens and the viewing lens?

This repair manual has instructions on how to adjust the focus:

https://learncamerarepair.com/downloads/pdf/Seagull-4-TLR-restoration-punzalan.pdf

 

[Dan Daniel]

Thanks everyone for the replies!

I am going to shoot a roll of film with a higher aperture, most of the pics I took were taken at 3.5.

Looking at images on the internet for sharpness is always a gamble, but it looks to me as if the rock image is fine in the center. Typical wide-open lens with limited depth of field even at long distances. As others have said, shooting at f/3.5 is not a good idea. It's a rare lens that is sharp across the frame wide open, and the Seagull lens is not one of these.

Stop down, put camera on table (or tripod or another solid base). Shoot a flat surface at an angle- wall or fence or bookshelf. Note where you have focused on the screen. Look at final negative to see if this is the sharpest area or if focus is front or back. Or is focus is simply not there.

Every image has three variables under your control- film speed, shutter speed, and aperture. Learn how these three interact. Well, two, shutter and aperture, are what you deal with in the field since film speed is locked in once you load the camera.

Every camera has strengths and limitations. Seagulls are known for a variety of limitations, some designed in and some variable based on condition. If you work with it for a while, learn things about medium format film and about this particular camera, you'll be in a good position to decide if you keep using it or if you move to another camera.

 

[neilt3]

Thanks everyone for the replies!

I am going to shoot a roll of film with a higher aperture, most of the pics I took were taken at 3.5.

If the results are still not great, I shall learn to accept that this is just the quality of my camera.
Any recommendations what would be a good step up from a Seagull camera?

Regardless of what format size of film your using is , or if your shooting film or digital , you need to read up on "Depth of field control " .

Then understand that any lens has an optimum aperture where the lens is at its sharpest .

The aperture you then shoot at will take both things into consideration so the what you want to take a picture off is getting what you want in focus to be as sharp as you lens can be .

Shooting wide open gives you the shallowest DOF , and is getting the worst from the lens regarding sharpness as well as other flaws .

Shooting a portrait us where you might want to a wide aperture , landscape shots like these would use a small aperture.
If the shutter speed drops to slow , then a tripod is certainly needed .

 

[GRHazelton]

In addition to the suggested "upgrades" from a Seagull or Lubitel, let me add the Minolta Autocord. I have one, in addition to a YashicaMat; I far prefer the Autocord. Of course, YMMV.

 

[afriman]

In addition to the suggested "upgrades" from a Seagull or Lubitel, let me add the Minolta Autocord. I have one, in addition to a YashicaMat; I far prefer the Autocord. Of course, YMMV.

The Autocords are superb cameras with lenses second to none. Until recently they were still one of the best kept secrets, but unfortunately they have been "discovered" and prices have skyrocketed.

 

[foc]

Regardless of what format size of film your using is , or if your shooting film or digital , you need to read up on "Depth of field control " .

Then understand that any lens has an optimum aperture where the lens is at its sharpest .

The aperture you then shoot at will take both things into consideration so the what you want to take a picture off is getting what you want in focus to be as sharp as you lens can be .

Shooting wide open gives you the shallowest DOF , and is getting the worst from the lens regarding sharpness as well as other flaws .

Shooting a portrait us where you might want to a wide aperture , landscape shots like these would use a small aperture.
If the shutter speed drops to slow , then a tripod is certainly needed .

+1
It's not a camera problem (really) it a photographic knowledge problem.

 

[zanxion72]

I think that he was not shooting wide open, else the 1st shot would had been completely bloomed by the sun in the frame.
Besides what many boast about its lens, it is a mediocre one with lots of flare, soft wide open and a bit soft even down to f/11. It is has a poorly made 3 element lens with average coatings. These are the best you can take out of it. And Lubitel, yes, that bakelite made thingie when properly maintained, it can surprise everyone.

 

[foc]

I think that he was not shooting wide open

My understanding that the widest aperture on this camera is f3.5 and the OP said this:

most of the pics I took were taken at 3.5.

So that's why I agreed that it was a depth of field problem. I don't think it is a soft lens problem.

The first shot shown in the thread has the foreground out of focus (not camera shake IMO). If the OP focused at infinity in this shot, then the depth of field at f3.5 is really limited to 25 or 30 meters this side of infinity as opposed to hyperfocal distance. See the photo below as an example.

 

[reddesert]

The OP posted in 2019, so theirs may be a done issue.

Bibeibu revived the thread by asking:

How would you sync the taking lens and the viewing lens?

The first thing you have to do is check if there is a problem. Choose a target effectively at infinity (like 100 meters away) and focus on it. Choose a target at some measured shorter distance (like 5 or 10 meters) and focus on that. If the best focus on the groundglass and the focusing scale agree, then you can be fairly sure that the viewing lens and the focus scale are in sync. Next, check on film, following the procedure suggested by Dan Fromm in post #4. Take photos of something angled to the camera, like a fence, focusing on some far away point, and then some nearer point, noting what you focused on. Develop the film and examine with a magnifier to see where the point of best focus was on film.

If it agrees with where you focused, then you're good. If not, then you have to adjust the viewing system - ideally you want the viewing, the focusing scale, and the taking lens to all agree. Sometimes on TLRs the viewing lens can be screwed in and out of its mount by loosening a setscrew. I don't see something like that on the Seagull and it may be necessary to remove the front plate to make the adjustment.

I've found TLRs where the viewing lens didn't seem to be in the right place because it was screwed in or out from the ideal position, and I suspect this is one reason why people say "such and such TLR has a terrible lens," because it was out of adjustment.