Manual focus body / lenses : a stupid question

[Yaeli]

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 !

 

[markbau]

What shutter speeds are you using? Are you hand holding your camera or mounting it on a tripod? Can you post an image showing this focus problem?

 

[Yaeli]

What shutter speeds are you using? Are you hand holding your camera or mounting it on a tripod? Can you post an image showing this focus problem?

Thank you for your answer
I can't tell for sure what shutter speed I was using. But my rule is : never below 1/focal length (so never below 1/60th if I shoot with a 50mm lens). I'm never using a tripod, always hand held. And here are examples of 4 pictures from the same roll, shot on the same day : 2 sharp, 2 blurry.

Blur

Explore this photo album by Mister Ash on Flickr!

flic.kr

 

[BrianShaw]

Try using a tripod and see if there is a difference.

 

[xkaes]

The good news is SOME pictures are sharp -- which points to your technique. You might be using too long a shutter speed and/or moving the camera too much.

 

[MattKing]

Check that the removable focus screens are properly seated.

Thank you for your answer
I can't tell for sure what shutter speed I was using. But my rule is : never below 1/focal length (so never below 1/60th if I shoot with a 50mm lens). I'm never using a tripod, always hand held. And here are examples of 4 pictures from the same roll, shot on the same day : 2 sharp, 2 blurry.

Blur

Explore this photo album by Mister Ash on Flickr!

flic.kr

I can only see two apparently sharp photos at that link.

 

[reddesert]

Like Matt, I see two pictures at the flickr link, and both have areas of sharp focus, although in the second one there is some motion blur from the subject people moving.

- Manual focus cameras/lenses don't need micro adjustment
- Small errors in focus will lead to small focus blurs, and usually you'll see that some other part of the image is in focus, like you focused on a person's eyes but the ears are in focus. On the other hand, shaky hands will blur the entire image.
- the 1/focal length rule of thumb isn't always conservative enough to insure sharp pictures, especially depending on your handholding technique. Try bracing the camera against something, gently pressing not jabbing the shutter release, tripod or monopod, etc.
- Replacing the mirror foam is a good idea and not difficult, although probably not the source of your problems.

 

[Yaeli]

Try using a tripod and see if there is a difference.

For 90% of what I do, this is not an option. The subjects are constantly moving. I could use one for a few shots, but I'm not sure this would help me clarify what's wrong exactly, since some of my shots are sharp anyways.

The good news is SOME pictures are sharp -- which points to your technique. You might be using too long a shutter speed and/or moving the camera too much.

The latter is what I consider to be the problem : moving the camera, either for recomposing, or because I "shook" during the shot, or pressed the button too hard and induced movement. I don't think the shutter speed is an issue. On this roll, I was shooting outdoors on a bright day mostly, with a 250 ISO film, so... plenty of speed.

I can only see two apparently sharp photos at that link.

My bad. Two were "not visible by everyone"... I changed it.

 

[Yaeli]

Like Matt, I see two pictures at the flickr link, and both have areas of sharp focus, although in the second one there is some motion blur from the subject people moving.

- Manual focus cameras/lenses don't need micro adjustment
- Small errors in focus will lead to small focus blurs, and usually you'll see that some other part of the image is in focus, like you focused on a person's eyes but the ears are in focus. On the other hand, shaky hands will blur the entire image.
- the 1/focal length rule of thumb isn't always conservative enough to insure sharp pictures, especially depending on your handholding technique. Try bracing the camera against something, gently pressing not jabbing the shutter release, tripod or monopod, etc.
- Replacing the mirror foam is a good idea and not difficult, although probably not the source of your problems.

Sorry, 2 images were with restriced access. I changed it

Thank you for your feedback !!
That's what I thought for micro adjustment. Thank you for confirming it !
As you will see in the other 2 images, everything is blurry (esp on the 2nd one), so that would probably indicate a problem with my technique (jabbing the shutter release might be an issue - I admit I never paid much attention to that, or simply camera shake), and not with the gear (which is great news !).
As for the mirror foam, if there's almost no chance that it's part of the problem, I'm not gonna try and fix it. I'm not very... manually competent ^^.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I SEE one of the pictures was Taken with the 50 mm f/1.4. Was it full Open? That lens is soft wide open. Also was the om2 used in automatic mode? Could it be it is actually using a slower speed that indicated? I had that issue once.

 

[BrianShaw]

For 90% of what I do, this is not an option. The subjects are constantly moving. I could use one for a few shots, but I'm not sure this would help me clarify what's wrong exactly, since some of my shots are sharp

If you were to shoot a roll using a tripod, as a test, it will help clarify if the issue is the camera or something else. It often pays to try something different in a consistent way to find a “fault". If you do no testing you’ll just be left with guesses.

 

[Yaeli]

I SEE one of the pictures was Taken with the 50 mm f/1.4. Was it full Open? That lens is soft wide open. Also was the om2 used in automatic mode? Could it be it is actually using a slower speed that indicated? I had that issue once.

I don't think it was shot wide open, no. I rarely use it at 1.4 unless I really don't have enough light. It's good to know that it's soft wide open though, I'll keep that in mind (most lenses are, of course, but some more than others).
I don't recall either whether or not I shot in aperture priority or not. I often do with the OM2, but sometimes (for example, outside in unchanging light), I take a reading with my lightmeter and stick to it. I didn't know that problem existed. Thanks for pointing it out !

If you were to shoot a roll using a tripod, as a test, it will help clarify if the issue is the camera or something else. It often pays to try something different in a consistent way to find a “fault". If you do no testing you’ll just be left with guesses.

You're right. It's just that I hate using tripods, and that I also avoid shooting "test rolls" unless it's a new camera and I want to see if it works properly. I've had this one for a long time, with rather good results overall. It's rather recently that I noticed this issue appearing regularly.

 

[reddesert]

I see all four photos now. Here are some thoughts:

- You're shooting 35mm FP4 at ISO 250 developed in Adonal. That's likely why everything's so grainy. It's underexposing and (lab) developing in a developer known for enhancing grain. (Are you having the lab push-process the film? That would make it even more grainy.) I suggest exposing at box speed and trying a different developer if the lab offers it. If you need faster speed, use a 400 speed film rather than pushing. I'm not opposed to grain, but here I think you are finding it obtrusive.

- The photos seem to be mostly outside in fairly decent light, and esp. at ISO 250, I might expect a reasonably fast shutter and small aperture (maybe 1/125 and f/8 or so, even if not in direct sunlight). Yet the DOF seems pretty shallow in some of them. Check your lens to make sure it's stopping down as intended. Just a speculation.

- In the photo of the two jumpers embracing, it looks like you're focused a little in front; his right hand is in good focus but his face is a little out. At a moderate aperture, DOF might cover this so that's one reason I wonder if your aperture is too wide open.

- The fourth photo of the woman kneeling is where the softness is really obtrusive, but even there it seems like maybe her foot and the plants/fabric behind it are in focus. I can't really figure this out as it seems like only that part of the photo is in focus.

- We often advise to check whether scanning is part of the problem, but here the grain is generally sharp so I don't think that's it.

 

[Yaeli]

I see all four photos now. Here are some thoughts:

- You're shooting 35mm FP4 at ISO 250 developed in Adonal. That's likely why everything's so grainy. It's underexposing and (lab) developing in a developer known for enhancing grain. (Are you having the lab push-process the film? That would make it even more grainy.) I suggest exposing at box speed and trying a different developer if the lab offers it. If you need faster speed, use a 400 speed film rather than pushing. I'm not opposed to grain, but here I think you are finding it obtrusive.

- The photos seem to be mostly outside in fairly decent light, and esp. at ISO 250, I might expect a reasonably fast shutter and small aperture (maybe 1/125 and f/8 or so, even if not in direct sunlight). Yet the DOF seems pretty shallow in some of them. Check your lens to make sure it's stopping down as intended. Just a speculation.

- In the photo of the two jumpers embracing, it looks like you're focused a little in front; his right hand is in good focus but his face is a little out. At a moderate aperture, DOF might cover this so that's one reason I wonder if your aperture is too wide open.

- The fourth photo of the woman kneeling is where the softness is really obtrusive, but even there it seems like maybe her foot and the plants/fabric behind it are in focus. I can't really figure this out as it seems like only that part of the photo is in focus.

- We often advise to check whether scanning is part of the problem, but here the grain is generally sharp so I don't think that's it.

- About FP4 pushed in Adonal : yeah, that was my mistake. I asked the lab to use this developper (they offer 2-3 others), and yeah, I asked them to push it one stop. I haven't done that since, and I've let them "do their job" in terms of choosing the chemicals.

- I'll check the lens. Thanks for the info That being said, I might have used a wider aperture, thinking that the film would "endure" it without any issue. I don't think I shot wide open, but it might have been F/5.6 or even F/4 at 1/1000.

- Just like you, I wonder if there is not a tiny part of the 4th photo that is "in focus", exactly where you noticed it. It's less blurry than the rest, but still quite blurry in my opinion.

As a side note, I went back to look at my older threads, and basically, the gist is : I make a lot of mistakes I think I know what I'm doing, but I clearly am not Being a crazy old man, I have decided recently to shoot only film for at least a year. Maybe I'll improve a little with more practice ! I hope so, at least, because digital leaves me systematically unsatisfied (even if it's a lot more practical, and even if the results are usually "better" in terms of raw image quality and usability). Anyway, I'm rambling again.

 

[neilt3]

Just a few observations.
Before blaming the camera or lenses , you have to rule out user error .
So wether you like tripods and test rolls or not , you need to use one here , including using a cable release .
That way you'll know if the focus is off ( on the test , focus , do not move the camera , and then take the shot with the cable release) .
Now check the images .

If their still out of focus , check the screen is installed correctly . How's your eyesight ?
I used to wear the same glasses for everything since childhood.
No I use either varifocals which are a pain for photography as depending on which part you look threw it's different.
Bifocals are consistent but awkward or best off , I put a corrective diopter on the cameras viewfinder and do without glasses .
With my large format camera I had some special glasses made .
The left eye has a distant lens in it and the right eye has a lens that allows me to see the screen from five inches away .
A lot easier than keep swapping .

If the images are just soft , check the foam mirror damper and lenses .
Though if the camera is on a solid tripod , degraded foam shouldn't cause camera shake .

All lenses are sharper stopped down a bit , so do a few tests .
Make notes when you do this on lens and aperture used .

You've an issue with grain on FP4 developed by someone else , exposed at an higher ISO?

Use a different film if you need faster film .
I've never let anyone else develop my B&W film .
Maybe if you want less grainy film shot at ISO 250 try Ilford XP2 super .
It's a C41 film developed in regular C41 chemistry , so can be developed anywhere.
No doubt much cheaper processing, and give nice results .
This might suit you better .
You can treat the same roll as different ISO's as you shoot and develop as standard C41 .

It might be worth you trying it next time .
But do a test roll first to make sure your cameras o.k .

Personally I think the issue might be either how your holding the camera and pressing the shutter causing camera movement, or your shutter speeds not high enough.
I typically try to keep the shutter speed above 1/125" with a 50mm lens , though with care , and leaning against something I can go slower .
But shooting at 1/60" might be your problem.

 

[bernard_L]

It's just that I hate using tripods, and that I also avoid shooting "test rolls"

So whether you like tripods and test rolls , you need to use one here , including using a cable release .
That way you'll know if the focus is off ( on the test , focus , do not move the camera , and take the shot with the cable release) .

+1
You have to experiment changes in your procedure; forum members will not solve your issues by telepathy. Only then you can sort out between possible causes:

• Camera problem: focus screen misalignment or mirror improperly positioned; having two cameras you can find out (barring the unlikely case where both cameras have a similar problem).
• Motion blur: make notes about whether subject was still or in motion.
• Operator shake. Use tripod for experiments. If the outcome of tests is that you experience unusually high operator shake, you can mitigate that with (a) a monopod; (b) a table tripod held against your chest or nudged against you collarbones. Teach yourself how to balance the pressure on the shutter release with opposite effort on the camera body by the same hand.

Your images have grain that would be excessive for Tri-X or HP5! With FP4, in 24-36mm format, viewed on-screen there should be no discernible grain. And yes, that is relevant because the grain in your images is obtrusive enough to interfere with evaluation of sharpness/focus. (even though moderate, well-defined grain enhances subjective sharpness)

 

[grain elevator]

Your samples clearly look like missed focus, not motion blur. Why are we sending the OP on a wild goose chase to evaluate all factors that could possibly lead to less than ideal sharpness?!
In all but one of them I can see areas in better focus than the faces. It's both to the front and the back, which points to technique or vision rather than a technical issue (like focus screen or mirror position). I'll second the person who said to check your glasses or find the correct diopter for your viewfinder and otherwise look into how you're using the focus aids in the focusing screen.

 

[koraks]

1) could a tiny misfocus lead to a heavily blurred image, even at "not wide open" apertures like 2.8 or 4 ?

Depends on what you mean by 'heavily blurred'. It can be annoying and visible.

2) could the blur come from old, worn out mirror seals that do not attenuate the "slap" enough ?

With specific (very long) lenses and under specific circumstances. But generally this is not a problem and especially not when photographing hand-held.

On the shot of the couple holding each other, you simply missed the focus. Depth of field was inadequate to mask the small focus error.
On the shot with the man holding the parachute-woman, motion blur of the subject is the main cause of blurriness, although the focus seems to be a little in front of their faces too.
The photo with the woman standing looking at the parachute on the ground is sharp with good focus. The lack of detail is due to grain.
The final photo with the woman kneeling seems to be mostly another case of motion blur, but I suspect the negative was overexposed very dramatically, resulting in excessive density and that created a truckload of grain after scanning. Scanners often don't deel particularly well with high negative densities.

 

[Chan Tran]

Your shots are so grainy. Focus is OK.

 

[John Wiegerink]

First thing I would do is to make sure it's not one camera body or the other. If it's both then you know it's your technique and not the equipment. I have hand tremors and always look for something to rest my camera in hand against if I'm not using a tripod. Like a tree, door frame, car or anything nearby what I'm shooting.

 

[xkaes]

Now that I can see all the photos, none of them look "blurry" to me. All of them have a plane that is in focus -- and sharp. If you want more "in-focus" stop down.

 

[Chan Tran]

Now that I can see all the photos, none of them look "blurry" to me. All of them have a plane that is in focus -- and sharp. If you want more "in-focus" stop down.

Yes I see the focus was OK but why it's so grainy that there is little details.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I used to have a Summilux 35mm and often had that issue when I use it wide open and development when less that optimal. Obviously, on the Leica lingo it is called "Leica glow"

 

[BrianShaw]

Between film choice/usage, processing, and narrow DoF... there is little way to reliably succeed in that kind of application. I'm amazed, though, at the spunk of that older lady who appears to still be solo skydiving!

 

[Yaeli]

Thank you all for your answers and advice, I really appreciate it I won't answer everything in detail but :

@neilt3 : 1) I'll try and do a test with a tripod, and also using different apertures and taking notes (not my strong suit).
2) My eyesight is not great. I have variofocals glasses, just like you. Usually, I don't use them when I take pictures, because I'm not used to it and I find it really unpractical. But I probably should just get used to it.
3) The FP4 pushed was a "one shot". I had used a roll years ago with good results (not pushed. See the wedding picture I added in my gallery). I usually use HP5.
4) Yes, it's most definitely a user error, and not a problem with the camera. I just wanted to rule it out first.

@bernard_L : Yes, the grain is really, really strong. I've developped HP5 pushed to 3200 in Rodinal with less grain than that... And yes, I'll try and rule out issues with the camera by doing tests on my tripod.

@grain elevator : yes, it's probably a combination of vision and bad technique.

@koraks : 1) by "blurry", I mean like in the picture of the woman kneeling.
2) Thank you so much for your analysis of each picture ! It's helping me a lot !

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

@John Wiegerink : I have tremors too, sometimes (lack of sleep, hunger...). I honestly don't recall if it happened on that day.

@Marcelo Paniagua : I really don't think I was shooting wide open. But too "open" for the lighting conditions, that's definitely possible.

@BrianShaw : yeah, I have that misconception that film can "endure" almost anything, but I have to start treating it with more respect And yes, this woman is 75 years old and still jumping ! She's a legend here in France : 37 French Championship Titles in accuracy landing and style, 2nd French woman to become tandem instructor... She's also a wonderfully kind and funny person