Some day I might be as good as an amateur from 1910

[digital_archivist]

Just a general observation: I have a Hasemi 4x5 field camera, a Crown Graphic and a very old Omega monorail. I have a nice stable Bogen (Manfrotto) tripod, a Schneider Symmar-S 210/5.6, a Symmar 150/5.6 Symmar Convertible and a later Fujinon W 125/5.6. I usually shoot FP4+ at f/16 or f/22. i use a Toyo 3.6 loupe to focus.

All this and the best I can get is negatives that are sharp-ish.

I also have a small collection of glass plate negatives circa 1910. Some were professionally shot, some are obviously amateur efforts. But all of the pro negatives (and several of the amateur ones) are razor sharp.

Has anyone else noticed this?

 

[ic-racer]

All this and the best I can get is negatives that are sharp-ish.

Ground glass not in correct position with respect to the film plane?

 

[Light Capture]

If the same happens with all 3 cameras, it's likely not the cameras.
Those lenses should produce sharp results at f16 and f22. At those apertures small focusing errors probably wouldn't consistently produce subpar results.

What kinds of holders are used? Are there any old wooden ones?
Or it could be possible that your holders or film exhibit to much film curvature.

Focusing is very personal experience. I personally find loupes in 4x range useless.
Not enough to achieve critical focus. Basically if 4x enlargement is what you're after it's likely to get it focused properly.
If enlargement is 10x or more, it's not likely to be critically sharp at those magnifications.

Combination of tripod, head and camera needs to be very stable for sharp results. Wind influences sharpness quite a bit. Bellows act as a sail.
I always try to knock on tripod and see how vibration spreads and dampens and how camera balance influences vibration. Can't be quantified in description but good damping is readily visible and some experience and testing is needed to be able judge it.
My heaviest tripod isn't the most stable in this regard. Tripod could be excellent but some of the heads I tried even though they were heavy and specified for the intended purpose, they didn't work that well.

 

[madNbad]

Film is flexible and even in the best holders won't have the flatness and stability of glass.

 

[koraks]

Has anyone else noticed this?

Not really. But it may help if you post some examples of your images that illustrate the sharpness problem. It's not really clear to me how bad the problem is, what your criteria are etc.

Film is flexible and even in the best holders won't have the flatness and stability of glass.

Sure, but let's be honest - even on rather flappy 8x10" film it's possible to get decently sharp results. This is a snippet from an 8x10" Fomapan 200 negative scanned at 2400dpi with some sharpening applied in post:

It's a little grainy because it's developed for carbon transfer, so massive contrast

 

[Kino]

Just a general observation: I have a Hasemi 4x5 field camera, a Crown Graphic and a very old Omega monorail. I have a nice stable Bogen (Manfrotto) tripod, a Schneider Symmar-S 210/5.6, a Symmar 150/5.6 Symmar Convertible and a later Fujinon W 125/5.6. I usually shoot FP4+ at f/16 or f/22. i use a Toyo 3.6 loupe to focus.

All this and the best I can get is negatives that are sharp-ish.

I also have a small collection of glass plate negatives circa 1910. Some were professionally shot, some are obviously amateur efforts. But all of the pro negatives (and several of the amateur ones) are razor sharp.

Has anyone else noticed this?

Here's my theory:

It's hard to generalize, but most early emulsions were blue or orthochromatic only AND lenses were optimized for "actinic" (blue, 420nm "ish") light.

That coupled with slower emulsion speeds and the willingness to use a tripod to get a generous exposure, probably explains a lot as well.

Just the fact that our lenses are "optimized" for color doesn't mean all focused spectra the film is sensitive to is actually in razor sharp focus on the emulsion and panchromatic film records those "just slightly out of focus" wavelengths.

So, while your systems are optimized for color work by default, they are not optimized for the ultimate sharpness in monochrome work, but for both color and b&w in general.

 

[digital_archivist]

Interesting thoughts from all of you. Thanks!

I was wondering about the film holders as well, so I just ordered two new Toyos from B.S. Kumar. We shall see.

Just for fun, here's a scan from a pre-1910 glass plate. It's hard to appreciate how sharp the original is from the resized version. But I like it.

(Please pardon the HDR - it's the only copy I have handy at the office).

 

[digital_archivist]

While I’m waiting, I thought I’d take a look at my Crown Graphics. The one I use all the time is a side rangefinder model; I removed the focusing frame, Ektalite screen and ground glass, the thickness of the frame is about 2.6 mm.

The other model has a top rangefinder: its focus frame thickness is about 2.4 mm.

Both cameras have Ektalite screens and groundglasses installed in the same way.

If there really is a significance to the 0.4mm difference, would that explain my focus issue with the side rangefinder camera?

BTW: the reason I don’t just swap frames and shoot duplicate images is that the one from the top rangefinder is that the chrome railed are twisted; I’m afraid it might not hold the film back securely.

 

[GLS]

Has anyone else noticed this?

No. I consistently achieve very sharp 4x5 images, including on FP4+. As mentioned above, I would suspect the position of the GG may not be properly calibrated on your cameras. The holders also may be an issue; see how you get on with the Toyos (they're all I use).

 

[_T_]

Even if your T-distance was off by a significant amount, something is going to appear in perfect focus.

If it is off, the plane or wedge of focus will be slightly closer or further than where you expect it to be based on where you set the focus, but it’s very difficult to find a real world subject that is so thin that you see no areas of perfect focus.

I would normally suspect the lens in a situation like that. Maybe the distance between the front and rear element is not correct, or maybe there has been some damage to the lens and an internal element has shifted out of its optimal position. But you say that you are getting these results with 3 different lenses. I can’t imagine how multiple cameras with multiple different lenses can all show results which do not achieve sharp focus on some areas of some frames.

Edit: Maybe if a case containing all 3 lenses had been subjected to significant shock from a bad fall or hard impact and some damage had been done to all 3 lenses in the event, some shifting of internal elements in all 3. It sounds unlikely that you would not be able to see some evidence of such an event but it is possible.

 

[grain elevator]

While I can't speak to large format technique, I want to bring up that the OP is made under a under a false rhetorical premise. Amateurs in 1910 should not be expected to be any worse than amateurs today (I just assume you're one, OP), quite the opposite, back then photography wasn't super exclusive but not as widespread as today. And bad photographs people back then might also have made were likely thrown out at some point.

 

[Pioneer]

While I can't speak to large format technique, I want to bring up that the OP is made under a under a false rhetorical premise. Amateurs in 1910 should not be expected to be any worse than amateurs today (I just assume you're one, OP), quite the opposite, back then photography wasn't super exclusive but not as widespread as today. And bad photographs people back then might also have made were likely thrown out at some point.

I agree with this. I have always assumed that, by now, all we are seeing in most cases are the "best of the best." Besides, IMHO the referenced photograph would have made ole Ansel proud...or jealous.