Gl690 No sharp images.

[koraks]

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.

 

[Antaras]

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.

I just did a flatbad scan 4800 dpi 300mb file and turns out like this.

 

[koraks]

That shows some minor motion blur in the original photo. Whatever focus problem there may be, is at a comparable level to the softness of the flatbed scan.

PS: 4800 dpi for a flatbed is really too much to ask. There's no real benefit to scanning beyond 2400dpi on a machine like that. Then apply some USM and you'll get a decent file.

 

[blee1996]

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. You can see the very fine grain, as well as in focus sharpness. I was focusing on the boat name "Zelda Fitz". You will be able to see the full resolution image on flickr.

Calm before the storm - Fuji690_100f35_PanF2_004 by Zheng, on Flickr

 

[blee1996]

If you have a high power magnifier, can you check your negative on the light table to see if the negatives are sharp?

If the negatives are sharp, then the scanning is the problem. One thing I find most important is to have film flatness when scanning. Some film will have curling and cupping after drying, and might not stay flat on the film carrier while scanning.

 

[koraks]

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.

That's a good illustration!

 

[250swb]

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?

 

[Antaras]

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?

Iam using a canon 9000f mark II and for dslr scanning i use a ttartisans macro 40mm f2.8 lens.
Iam going to try out different way to scan the negative soon.

 

[koraks]

canon 9000f mark II

Detailed test report flat bed scanner Canon CanoScan 9000F Mark II; evaluation of the image quality of the scanner

filmscanner.info

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.

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.

ttartisans macro 40mm f2.8

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%.

 

[Antaras]

Detailed test report flat bed scanner Canon CanoScan 9000F Mark II; evaluation of the image quality of the scanner

filmscanner.info

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%.

I managed to upload now a flatbed result export in lightroom to lower size.

 

[koraks]

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:

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:

Looks reasonably sharp; not perfectly so (see above), but close.

 

[Antaras]

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 399014 View 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.

 

[250swb]

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.

Using a very shallow DOF is compounding whatever the problem is. If f5.6 is what you shot this at (given it can't be the flatbed scanner) there should be more DOF, but it appears the hair resting on the left shoulder is sharper than the face/eyes. I think you should concentrate on camera scanning and solve the problem by sticking to one thing, but the Canon 9000f doesn't have a very high resolution and it could be that which isn't even getting the grain sharp.

 

[koraks]

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.

 

[GregY]

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!

 

[Antaras]

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 ?

 

[GregY]

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 ?

In your opening post, you said the rangefinder patch alignment looks good. This leads me to suggest taking the camera to a tech, and telling them that although the rangefinder patch looks aligned, the resulting photos indicate back focus.
After the rangefinder is adjusted..... then you do some tests to verify. Use a tripod & a tape measure for set-up.... then process the film & check.

 

[MattKing]

If you are checking focus, use a test subject that makes it easy to discern in the negative where the focus plane actually is.
A fence with many small vertical bars works well.
Here is a quick example test I did several years ago with a TLR.

 

[loccdor]

Regarding the film camera, you can also try shooting a tape measure. But, how sure are you that you focused on the eyes in the rangefinder? I see people focusing on the hair outline pretty often with rangefinders just because it has higher contrast and is easier. It takes a conscious effort to avoid that at first.

Does your digitalizing camera have a focus peaking option or any other focus assist like a 16x zoom? I focus manually pretty painstakingly, also use a level to make sure the camera and film are on the same plane. The 16x zoom can also be used to see how much the table is shaking. If film flatness is an issue and you can't get the whole picture in focus at once, focus on the most important part. Try testing several different apertures too.

 

[Antaras]

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?

 

[koraks]

The pressure plate is usually on a spring-loaded mount. A slight deformation of the back will likely not affect this. Maybe post some pics of the camera.

 

[GregY]

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?

As i mentioned before.... time to take the camera to a professional technician..... it is after all, a 50+ yr old instrument.

 

[Antaras]

this is the one i bought

Fujica GL690 Professional Texas Leica 120 6x9 Kamera Film camera rangefinder | eBay

Fujica GL690 Professional Texas Leica 120 6x9 Kamera Film camera rangefinder | Foto & Camcorder, Photographica, Alte Kameras | eBay!

www.ebay.nl

 

[koraks]

I don't see anything abnormal in those photos. Just signs of heavy use.

 

[Antaras]

I don't see anything abnormal in those photos. Just signs of heavy use.

technician? or try out some more maybe without the skylight filter ?