Iam sure i didnt miss focus
On the scan you probably did miss the focus, especially on the first one. The second one also doesn't look particularly sharp. As said, FP4+ will render pretty sharp grain on a scan, even a flatbed scan. Your DSLR scan should be a little crisper still if everything goes well.
Still, I believe that the scan is part of the problem and not the whole story.
This is a photo with the G690 + 100/3.5 lens, taken with Ilford Pan F+ film, and scanned on Epson V700 at 2400 dpi.
I just did a flatbad scan 4800 dpi 300mb file and turns out like this.
At that sort of magnification I'd expect to see some sharp grain, and there isn't any. So irrespective of theories about the camera being faulty the basic problem is scanning, the negative isn't in focus on the scanner, so if it's a flatbed are you using the correct film holder that you've calibrated to be at the correct height from the glass, and if you are using a camera for scanning are you using a good macro lens and getting focus confirmation in the viewfinder?
canon 9000f mark II
If you scan at e.g. 2400dpi and then downsample to about 70%, you'll get a reasonably clean image that captures about as much detail as the scanner is capable of, without storing redundant data. Apply sharpening to taste, which will affect apparent sharpness but of course not real resolving power.The resolution test using the USAF-testchart yields an actual avarage resolution of approximately 1700 ppi according to our resolution chart, the same value as the predecessor CanoScan 9000F.
I'd shoot that at f/5.6-f/8; at smaller apertures diffraction erodes resolving power. This won't be very bad at f/11 which you used for your initial sample, so there, a focus problem is likely to be part of the problem.ttartisans macro 40mm f2.8
If you scan at e.g. 2400dpi and then downsample to about 70%, you'll get a reasonably clean image that captures about as much detail as the scanner is capable of, without storing redundant data. Apply sharpening to taste, which will affect apparent sharpness but of course not real resolving power.
I'd shoot that at f/5.6-f/8; at smaller apertures diffraction erodes resolving power. This won't be very bad at f/11 which you used for your initial sample, so there, a focus problem is likely to be part of the problem.
Either the flatbed or the dSLR should be capable of producing quite crisp image files at least at reasonable viewing sizes/magnifications. 'Pixel peeping' scans of any sort is usually a disappointing enterprise; native digital captures just look quite different from scans if you zoom in to 100%.
That looks like it's focused more or less correctly, although there's a chance of a tiny bit of front focus. It's unclear at this point what the remaining causes of unsharpness are. It is evident that the flatbed scan you just posted by far outresolves the initial scan in #1:
View attachment 399014View attachment 399015
So in the original post, scanning was indeed a major factor. Further optimization would involve some more rigorous testing. Given the few specs of dust in your scans, the scan allows for a sharper result than what you've got. Obvious factors at this point would be focus errors either due to misalignment, losing focus as the subject-camera distance varies slightly (you or the model moved a tiny bit) or simply not achieving proper focus in the first place (failure to accurately match the rangefinder patch overlap). There may also be a bit of motion blur in there, but it's not a major factor as it usually has a more definitive signature.
PS: this is a 100% crop from the recent scan with some USM applied as I'd do on a flatbed scan like this:
View attachment 399016
Looks reasonably sharp; not perfectly so (see above), but close.
Here a other picture i took with tri-x 400.
I really was spot on with rangefinder focus iam sure of that.
This is a scan with canon 9000f mark ii with vuescan.
I must say i used f5.6 on this one.
Here a other picture i took with tri-x 400.
I really was spot on with rangefinder focus iam sure of that.
This is a scan with canon 9000f mark ii with vuescan.
I must say i used f5.6 on this one.
You have slight back focus; focus point is on the hair and behind the eyes. Verify rangefinder alignment as you've done before, then shoot some tests on a tripod with static subjects at various distances to confirm proper alignment.
Yes!
how do i perform this test? static object for example 2 meters away with different focus like a bit in front and bit further away ?
The backdoor sometimes doenst close perfectly in 1 time. and it looks a bit i would say bend in the middle is this normal?
Maybe pressureplate doenst hold film flat?
I don't see anything abnormal in those photos. Just signs of heavy use.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?