Manual focus body / lenses : a stupid question

[BrianShaw]

... and just one thought about one aspect of old equipment. A while ago I inherited an old camera that needed the gummy light seals replaced, including the mirror bumper. I used the wrong material, a closed-cell foam, for the bumper and while functionional and not appearing to induce vibration, it really made a racket that tended to make me (and subjects) jump. Replacing that with a proper open-cell foam made a lot of auditory difference a reduced the possibility of a reflexive human reaction. Probably nothign to do with your situation but I thought it might be interesting nonetheless.

 

[xkaes]

@Chan Tran et @xkaes : even the picture of the woman kneeling ? That one seems clearly out of focus to me.

Maybe what you wanted in focus is not in focus, but there is a plane that is in focus. If you look at the foreground, it is clearly (yuk, yuk) out-of-focus. As you move away the focus gets better and better and then in the background gets gradually out of focus. So there is an area that is in focus, but like I said, it might not be what you wanted in focus -- and there might also be blur from movement of the camera, but that's different than out-of-focus.

I'm pointing out that the gear does not appear to be the problem. It appears to me to work as it should.

 

[snusmumriken]

If you don’t want to use a tripod (and I can understand that) get some HP5+ and spend a while taking photos at shutter speeds no slower than 1/125. That will show you whether the problem is you or the camera.

 

[Chan Tran]

Maybe what you wanted in focus is not in focus, but there is a plane that is in focus. If you look at the foreground, it is clearly (yuk, yuk) out-of-focus. As you move away the focus gets better and better and then in the background gets gradually out of focus. So there is an area that is in focus, but like I said, it might not be what you wanted in focus -- and there might also be blur from movement of the camera, but that's different than out-of-focus.

I'm pointing out that the gear does not appear to be the problem. It appears to me to work as it should.

Everything is very low resolution but the woman is clearly sharpest. I just wonder how the OP got the film to be so low in resolution?

 

[grain elevator]

I wonder if some don't understand one can zoom in on flickr.
Here's what I see:
Ah men...: nothing is sharp, but the unsharpness looks like misfocus more than motion blur, could be a bit of both. I suspect the plane of sharpness is behind them, at a depth where there are no objects.
We're alive!: Front focused, his right hand and seams on her right upper arm are in focus. There may be a bit of motion as well, but not of these body parts.
1-1-2: Reasonably sharp.
1-1: Back focused, the flowers behind her right foot are sharpest.

 

[bernard_L]

So it looks like the most likely explanation for your unsharp photos is mis-focus, itself caused by less-than-ideal eyesight. Accepting this as a fact, and assuming you want to continue practicing film photography and you wish to obtain sharp photos, why not consider changing to, e.g. a Nikon F80 with the 28-85 f/3.5-4.5 AF zoom? I hear they are good and not very expensive.

• I'll probably get some flak for answering a question that was not asked
• Disclaimer: I do not own a F80 and am not pushing for "buy like me, I made the wisest choice".
  See that thread: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/i-love-it-the-nikon-n80.196594/

Also, try to find a lab that treats FP4 better than your current one.

 

[xkaes]

Getting an auto-focus camera certainly is a solution. Others would be to recommend Yaeli

-- visit an optometrist (if it's been a while)
-- get a micro-prism/split-image focusing screen (if he doesn't already use one)
-- spend time being more careful when focusing
-- simply be stop-down the lens
-- all of the above

 

[Yaeli]

Thanks again for your answers

@xkaes : You're probably right. Honestly, I find it hard to even call that area "in focus", but it's definitely sharper than the rest. It's also definitely not what I wanted in focus But as long as the gear works, I'm happy. I can deal with having to work on my technique

@snusmumriken : As soon as I move out of here (at the end of the month), I'll start shooting film again, and I have quite a few rolls of HP5 in the fridge so yeah, I'll do that

@Chan Tran : I don't know why it's so low in resolution. It's the same scan from the lab that I always use. The TIFF file they sent me is 18 Mo, and the Jpg out of LR is around 6 Mo, like all the other files. My settings are 100% and 300 dpi for export. And the pictures from the same roll are mostly fine. I checked on the latest roll I shot with the EOS Elan and the 85mm, and the scans are 20 Mo and the export files 4 Mo...

@grain elevator : Your analysis is right, in my opinion. The "ah, men" and "we're alive" pictures are definitely not super sharp, and I most certainly missed the focus a little bit, but they're sharp enough for my taste, compared to the other 2 at least. I added one taken with the EOS Elan and the 85mm F/1.8 for comparison (autofocus, of course), on a subject that was posing : it's clearly sharper. Not nearly as much as what I get with digital files, but I really don't mind.

@bernard_L : yes, it's probably a combination of eyesight, misfocus, and wrong settings for the situation. All of which I can work on. No, you won't get some flak for suggesting an AF camera I actually own 2 (EOS 300 and EOS Elan 7), which have given me good results. I just don't enjoy shooting on those two as much as I do on older cameras... Finally, it's not really the lab's fault if the results are poor. I decided to push the FP4, and I asked for Adonal... So, it's on me mostly

@xkaes :
- I see just fine with my glasses, I'm just not used to wearing them when I take pictures. For quite some time, I was using an EOS R, and I probably got spoiled because the AF is so good that you really don't have to check anything... I just have to accept my old age and wear my glasses
- Both my OM cameras have split focusing screen
- The other 2 advice I definitely need to pay attention to

 

[xkaes]

- I see just fine with my glasses, I'm just not used to wearing them when I take pictures.

If you take off your glasses to view through the viewfinder, that might be the problem. It would be for me anyway!!!

 

[kl122002]

Speaking of micro adjustment in manual focusing cameras, here are some real technical faulty points:

1. The mirrors is not at 45 degree, which makes the focusing slightly off from the real image on film

2. The focusing screen position, which usually has screws inside to adjust it's height from mirror , is loosen or off. And so the fault is like you got the right image in screen but blur on film.

3. If your camera has been opened an serviced before, some spacing rings might not placed well on the mount, the body, or the film rail at the back.

For all these 3 points, if you could have an extra focusing screen, put it at the back of the camera, open the shutter curtains at B , check & compare the images from camera and on that extra screen at the back with magnifier.

 

[Yaeli]

If you take off your glasses to view through the viewfinder, that might be the problem. It would be for me anyway!!!

Until now, I thought that I could see well enough to use the split screen, but maybe I was wrong It always felt uncomfortable to use glasses when looking through the viewfinder. I'm used to having my eye "glued" to it...

Speaking of micro adjustment in manual focusing cameras, here are some real technical faulty points:

1. The mirrors is not at 45 degree, which makes the focusing slightly off from the real image on film

2. The focusing screen position, which usually has screws inside to adjust it's height from mirror , is loosen or off. And so the fault is like you got the right image in screen but blur on film.

3. If your camera has been opened an serviced before, some spacing rings might not placed well on the mount, the body, or the film rail at the back.

For all these 3 points, if you could have an extra focusing screen, put it at the back of the camera, open the shutter curtains at B , check & compare the images from camera and on that extra screen at the back with magnifier.

Since I'm not savvy enough to try and look for those technical points, I will first try what has been suggested : using a tripod, choosing a non moving subject, focusing precisely (with my glasses on ), taking notes and then see what happens. If the images are sharp, then it was either camera shake, or missed focus, or motion blur (or a combination of that). If not, then... I don't know what I'll do... I'm not sure there are places that offer repairs for old cameras in France, and if there are, it would probably cost as much as buying a new OM body...

 

[MattKing]

You could always go for an OM-4T, with adjustable diopter.
Or look for the appropriate diopter add-on for your cameras' viewing system.

 

[Two23]

You can't tell anything about sharpness unless you're using a solid tripod and photo'ing something stationary.


Kent in SD

 

[Yaeli]

You could always go for an OM-4T, with adjustable diopter.

That's an interesting option, yes. But I should probably simply get used to shooting with my glasses on. It's probably not that hard to get used to it.

You can't tell anything about sharpness unless you're using a solid tripod and photo'ing something stationary.

I will

 

[kl122002]

Since I'm not savvy enough to try and look for those technical points, I will first try what has been suggested : using a tripod, choosing a non moving subject, focusing precisely (with my glasses on ), taking notes and then see what happens. If the images are sharp, then it was either camera shake, or missed focus, or motion blur (or a combination of that). If not, then... I don't know what I'll do... I'm not sure there are places that offer repairs for old cameras in France, and if there are, it would probably cost as much as buying a new OM body...

I understand. Since you are going to get a tripod, you can just simply test and check like what I have mentioned.
An alternative to extra focusing screen is using a thin tracing paper. Cut one and stick it at the back on the film rails straight .

Camera repair works is not a cheap, and mostly would cost just like getting another one. However one is better to understand that getting another one doesn't mean the new one could work better. It is an independent randomness of faults among the old cameras.

 

[neilt3]

That's an interesting option, yes. But I should probably simply get used to shooting with my glasses on. It's probably not that hard to get used to it.



I will

Have you thought about getting contact lenses ?
You'll be able to use your camera as normal without wearing glasses , but will then be able to see clearly .

I've worn glasses all my life and have never fancied contacts as I don't like the idea of putting something on my eyeballs !
But you might want to consider it .
Also , when was the last time you got your eyes checked ?
If it's been a while it might be best to get a check up to make sure your still using the right prescription.

If you go down the route of getting a corrective diopter for the eyepiece, if you can't get the correct strength off eBay or wherever, buy any that fits and get your optician to make the diopter and fit it in the frame of the incorrect strength one .

 

[brbo]

@Chan Tran et @xkaes : even the picture of the woman kneeling ? That one seems clearly out of focus to me.

That one has such weird 'plane' of focus that I can't help to think that film was not flat when it was scanned. I mean, not even a tilt-shift lens will give you that. Can you rescan the negative?

Then again, 'grain' in the out of focus areas would look different if it was out of focus of the scanner lens... Odd...

 

[squarrosus]

You might want to quickly check the lens aperture actually stops down when you fire the shutter

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Greetings everyone,

I have a stupid question concerning my 2 OM bodies and lenses. I have an OM1 and an OM2n, with the 28mm F/2.8, the 50mm F/1.4 (and 1.8), and the 135mm F/2.8. What bothers me is that I get inconsistent results in terms of sharpness, despite giving much attention to focusing before I take the shot. I know that autofocusing SLRs sometimes needed a micro adjustment of focus between the lens and the body, and I was wondering if something similar existed with manual bodies and lenses. I highly doubt it, considering it's manual focus, but I just want to eliminate it. I also have 2 additional questions :
1) could a tiny misfocus lead to a heavily blurred image, even at "not wide open" apertures like 2.8 or 4 ?
2) could the blur come from old, worn out mirror seals that do not attenuate the "slap" enough ?

If neither of these things are possible, then I can be sure that : 1) my stuff works properly, and I don't need to change it or have it repaired 2) there's something I'm doing wrong : either I focus / recompose at too wide an aperture, or too close to the subject, or there was some camera shake or motion blur, or I simply missed the focus. And these are all things I can work on.

Thank you beforehand for your feedback !

this is unlikely to be aperture related, The DOF is way too small to make up for focusing errors. I'd also rile problems with the mirror out and blame it all on poor focusing.

 

[Yaeli]

An alternative to extra focusing screen is using a thin tracing paper. Cut one and stick it at the back on the film rails straight .

That's a technique I had heard about for checking the focus on the Holga Good to know it works with any camera !

However one is better to understand that getting another one doesn't mean the new one could work better.

Depends on where you buy, I guess. There are stores like Keh or Kamerastore that offer warranty.

Have you thought about getting contact lenses ?

No, because I have OCD and it would be a nightmare for me to use contact lenses...

Also , when was the last time you got your eyes checked ?

About a year ago. It had not changed since the previous visit, so I suppose it hasn't changed since.

If you go down the route of getting a corrective diopter for the eyepiece, if you can't get the correct strength off eBay or wherever, buy any that fits and get your optician to make the diopter and fit it in the frame of the incorrect strength one .

That's good to know, thank you

That one has such weird 'plane' of focus that I can't help to think that film was not flat when it was scanned. I mean, not even a tilt-shift lens will give you that. Can you rescan the negative?

I don't know, it was scanned by the lab, so... I certainly can scan it again, but I doubt I will get better results with my V600...

You might want to quickly check the lens aperture actually stops down when you fire the shutter

I will do that, indeed. Thanks for the tip ! All my cameras are in boxes right now since I'm moving in 10 days, but I'll do that when I'm settled

this is unlikely to be aperture related, The DOF is way too small to make up for focusing errors. I'd also rile problems with the mirror out and blame it all on poor focusing.

That is the most likely explanation, yes I need to work on that.

 

[kl122002]

That's a technique I had heard about for checking the focus on the Holga Good to know it works with any camera !

It works in every camera. It is just a simple technique from basic optical physics.

Depends on where you buy, I guess. There are stores like Keh or Kamerastore that offer warranty.

Been in both. Em... Well , they are still a considerable option to source gears
Perhaps if you look into this forum and you will find out more discussion about these 2 stores.

 

[bernard_L]

An alternative to extra focusing screen is using a thin tracing paper. Cut one and stick it at the back on the film rails straight .

Sorry but I don't agree with that advice. Internet word-of-mouth?

A commonly agreed value for the circle of confusion (COC, the diameter of the illuminated spot from a point source, our-of-focus, excluding diffraction and geometrical aberrations) is: 0.03mm=30µm for a 24x36 film. Presumably you will be checking focus of your f/1.4 lenses at maximum aperture; then the depth of focus (not to be confused with depth of field) is 0.03mmx1.4=0.042mm (less than two mils for users of antique systems).

Do you think that a piece of "thin tracing paper" that you "stick it at the back on the film rails" will be planar to that tolerance to a fraction of that tolerance (the control setup must be an order of magnitude more accurate than the defect one wants to exclude)??

1. You expect ideally, to have that 0.042mm depth of focus (translating to TBD depth of field) available to be shared between the distance spread of the scene and your focusing error;
2. Part of that error budget is eaten by the intrinsic focus error of your camera (what you would like to check)
3. And the control of the camera's focus error itself is impacted by the deviation from perfect plane of whatever you stick in the film gate; so the allowance for that deviation is not the full depth of focus (0.042mm) but a small fraction of that, more like 0.01mm (1/5 the diameter of a typical human hair).

An extra focusing screen is ideal, especially with a split-image prism. Next is a piece of ground glass, cut to 35x40mm dimension. Next, is to cut a piece from a CD jewel box and dull one side with very fine abrasive paper; not "optical flat" quality but definitely better than thin paper.

By the way: my avatar is me when performing checks on the optical mirror train of the European VLT (Very Large Telescope) in Chile. Safety goggles to protect from 600mW infrared laser. And no, I'm not stupidly applying to cameras accuracy criteria from astronomical optics; in that case we'd be talking 0.0001mm or less planarity.

 

[koraks]

Next is a piece of ground glass, cut to 35x40mm dimension

Indeed; this can be matted on one side quite easily and works well in practice. I've also used polycarbonate etc. in this application, but it needs to be sufficiently rigid.

I agree that the suggestion to use tracing paper is very unfortunate and I would not recommend it either. I don't see how that would work at all, and I've tried quite a few things!

 

[kl122002]

Initially , if you looked back earlier, I said to check with focusing screen. But as I noticed the op is not familiar with it, so I suggested tracing paper as a much easier tool to get the first rough check.

I don't know how today's internet works but sometimes seeing the reactions puzzle me a lot.

 

[BrianShaw]

The internet is easy to understand: lots of people with lots of opinions and/or experiences.

Sometimes the objections can be so detailed or emphatically stated that the can come off more hostile than really intended. Or, sometimes they are intentionally hostile. It’s difficult to discern at times.

Tracing paper or cellophane tape actually can work for a rough estimate. My experience, not “internet word-of-mouth”. But it does take some effort to get either to lay flat and it seems like that aspect is a major hurdle for some folks who are just learning the concept of ground glass viewing (or it’s rough approximation).

In this situation, it might be near impossible to use an approximation technique to really figure out why the OP can’t seem to focus reliably.