Gl690 No sharp images.

[Sirius Glass]

That's a waste of time.

Get the camera sorted out at a repair shop.

It's not.
Loose film will not affect the spring load of the pressure plate. It may affect things like frame spacing.
And fog will not show up as lack of sharpness.
It's bogus, as AI dribble often is.

One this topic we are in violent agreement. I have designed and developed very successful large scale AI projects and what is seen by most of AI has not been developed with guard rails and little thought to the ramifications of the suit of "learning examples".

 

[John Wiegerink]

Then everything in-between will be OK, too. Assuming that you can definitively state at this junction that infinity and close focus really are OK. Only you are in a position to verify this.

+1. I can't believe close focus and infinity are good and everything in-between is out of focus. I'm really scratching my head on this one cuz it just doesn't add up.

 

[GregY]

+1. I can't believe close focus and infinity are good and everything in-between is out of focus. I'm really scratching my head on this one cuz it just doesn't add up.

I'm with you. BTW no one has mentioned that the rangefinder patch on the Fuji's is substantially less contrasty than a Leica M.... which may or may not have any bearing in this case.

 

[Antaras]

I developed the roll i shot yesterday on a tripod focussing on a birthday card on my fridge with flash on f22 ss 125. and with cable release.
Then i put my macro lens on 1:1 and scanned 12 frames and stitched them together in lightroom.
I believe its in focus..?

 

[GregY]

I developed the roll i shot yesterday on a tripod focussing on a birthday card on my fridge with flash on f22 ss 125. and with cable release.
Then i put my macro lens on 1:1 and scanned 12 frames and stitched them together in lightroom.
I believe its in focus..?

Would you show a backlit image of a some negatives?

 

[Antaras]

Would you show a backlit image of a some negatives?

you mean the negative when its scanned in lightroom without converting?

 

[koraks]

I believe its in focus..?

Impossible to tell. You shot at f/22. Tests like these should be done at the maximum aperture (f/3.5 in your case I think). Otherwise it's too easy to overlook focus issues due to the larger depth of field.

 

[Antaras]

Impossible to tell. You shot at f/22. Tests like these should be done at the maximum aperture (f/3.5 in your case I think). Otherwise it's too easy to overlook focus issues due to the larger depth of field.

i did also shot at f3.5

 

[koraks]

So let's have a look at that one.

 

[GregY]

you mean the negative when its scanned in lightroom without converting?

Put it on a

you mean the negative when its scanned in lightroom without converting?

place it on a computer screen (with a blank white page on it) and take an iphone foto.
a stitched photo isn't a good example.

 

[Antaras]

Put it on a


place it on a computer screen (with a blank white page on it) and take an iphone foto.
a stitched photo isn't a good example.

here it is..

 

[Antaras]

here it is..

This is a f3.5 image focused in the middle i think on the grain..

 

[koraks]

As you can see you have a bit of front focus.

 

[Antaras]

As you can see you have a bit of front focus.

can i fix it myself? cold shoe off turn the big screw i think it is?
as in:

Fuji GL690 Rangefinder Calibration Issue

Hey everyone! I've been enjoying using my GL690, but there have been a couple bumps in the road. What I'm attempting to do currently is calibrate the rangefinder-- it's drifted just enough to make subjects just slightly out of focus. I was thrilled to find out that I only needed to remove the...

www.photrio.com

 

[koraks]

can i fix it myself? cold shoe off turn the big screw i think it is?

You'll first have to determine whether the focus on the film plane agrees with the rangefinder or not. If not, then you could indeed try to adjust the rangefinder.

 

[Antaras]

You'll first have to determine whether the focus on the film plane agrees with the rangefinder or not. If not, then you could indeed try to adjust the rangefinder.

i checked it .. the focus on the film plane is sharp and rangefinder agrees with same distance
Parallax Correction Problem?

 

[koraks]

Parallax Correction Problem?

No, that is a framing issue. Not a focus issue.

If the film plane image and the rangefinder setting agree perfectly, then the only explanation is human error: i.e. you thought you focused on the cards on the fridge, but in reality you focused a little in front of that. You misread the rangefinder. Assuming that the film plane image and the rangefinder really do match, that is. And I am beginning to have some doubts whether you're in a position to accurately verify this, so my suggestion would be to take the camera to a repair shop and let them inspect it.

 

[Antaras]

No, that is a framing issue. Not a focus issue.

If the film plane image and the rangefinder setting agree perfectly, then the only explanation is human error: i.e. you thought you focused on the cards on the fridge, but in reality you focused a little in front of that. You misread the rangefinder. Assuming that the film plane image and the rangefinder really do match, that is. And I am beginning to have some doubts whether you're in a position to accurately verify this, so my suggestion would be to take the camera to a repair shop and let them inspect it.

mm seems like no other choice..
I do think i focused right .. about the film plane check.. its hard to see but i did see it was sharp enough.. on the back

 

[Antaras]

mm seems like no other choice..
I do think i focused right .. about the film plane check.. its hard to see but i did see it was sharp enough.. on the back

Found some tape used for this kind of messurements of the film plane.. now i see better whats in focus i must say, so from what i can see now 1 meter object is not in focus at 1 meter film plane.. but in stead 2 meters .. but then again 3 meters to 5 looks sharp too

 

[jeffreyg]

I don’t know how or if you print but why not print or have printed one of the open f stop and one of the closed down f stop negatives of the same subject having focused both the same way you normally focus and compare perhaps with a
magnifying glass If you have more than one lens do the same for each one. Don’t edit if you’re printing digitally from scanned negatives. Do the same for each. Every monitor is different. You might have prints made professionally as well to compare against your setup. It seems that your testing is with too many variables.

 

[Antaras]

I found the problem! .. the 100mm lens is defect .. the other lens 180mm does correctly focus with film plane and rangefinder but the 100mm doenst

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Just to establish a baseline, here's a very quick 100% crop from a 1000ppi scan of a GW690 neg ('well used' would describe the 690 in question). If the forum software doesn't do anything too weird to the file, it should show what a decent scan (old high end CCD, but competent camera scans should get more than close) without any added sharpening should look like in terms of granularity, sharpness representation etc.

Film was Kentmere 400 pushed a bit in Ilfosol 3.

Winding problems/ dropping frames in a 690 are usually an indicator that it desperately needs a service. They were often used pretty hard.

this looks perfectly sharp to me

 

[250swb]

It linked light leaks to focus problems. How would that work? The only logical mediating variable would be fog.



I admit - and for the record, I have nothing against Holgaoinists (?) I just don't have that experience. Even so, I don't see how in the camera OP uses, loosely rolled film or a light leak would result in apparent focus issues, especially because no other problems are reported. It's just a very odd line of reasoning and in that sense it's just consistent with what AI does: collect data based on statistical likelihood of co-occurrence. I contend that this is only marginal helpful in solving problems and generally far inferior to old-fashioned reasoning and elimination.

I think my reasoning is that a loosely rolled film acts like a spring and can push against the pressure plate especially if there is enough time between shots for the film to relax.

As for your 'fog' and focus issue the Ai suggested that a light leak may cause an otherwise sharply focused image to 'appear' less sharp and I don't understand your problem with that. We know that scattered light running through the film is why anti-halation layers are added to film, and that the lack of an anti-halation layer can make the image look less sharp or have a glow? Given the first contact of leaking light is usually the film base and not the emulsion the theory seems perfectly logical that a light leak can make the image look less sharp, whether the resulting image is usable is another matter. Light leaks don't have to be dense streaks of over exposure, they can also be small increases in base density.

But this is irrelevant to the OP, the Ai he invoked offered misleading suggestions for the problem at hand in this thread, notwithstanding those suggestions having some merit universally. Recognising the merit of an Ai answer doesn't mean you have to take it verbatim. Which is why I explained in my reply (#68) to his Ai search the reasons why Ai answers may fit, but that this wasn't likely to be the answer in this case. As I said I think it is poor scanning or copying technique, based on there being no sharp or even vaguely defined grain in any of the examples.

 

[koraks]

I think my reasoning is that a loosely rolled film acts like a spring and can push against the pressure plate especially if there is enough time between shots for the film to relax.

Ok, I see your point. I don't think that'll happen though, given the pressure of a typical pressure plate which AFAIK far exceeds the spring of a partially uncurled piece of 120 roll film.

As for your 'fog' and focus issue the Ai suggested that a light leak may cause an otherwise sharply focused image to 'appear' less sharp and I don't understand your problem with that.

In principle I have no 'problem' with that; I just (1) see not evidence for it here and (2) to me, a fogged image doesn't look less sharp. It'll look less contrasty and I can see how people might mistake that for less sharp. I just think it's a sloppy wording and therefore somewhat misleading.

Halation is a different effect from overall fog, but my concerns about projecting that onto sharpness would be similar.

the Ai he invoked offered misleading suggestions for the problem at hand in this thread

Yeah, that's my main qualm, I guess. I don't deny the potential usefulness of AI - I just keep getting the feeling that proper use of AI still relies on understanding a lot about what we're asking of it. And that sort of defies the purpose - we can only use it well if we already understand, but then we don't really need to use it in the first place. Of course, that's a little facetious of me, but even if you're more optimistic, it leaves the problem of using AI without sufficient domain knowledge bringing the risk of not being aware of the ways it may lead one astray.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Well, now that I've scratched almost all the hair off my head I'm just going to give up on this one. The OP says it's the lens and I guess that since I can't examine the lens in question I'll just take his word for it. Still puzzled by the, "sharp at close-up and infinity, but not in the middle range" statement??????