Tell Me What I'm Doing Wrong Focusing - Rate These Terrible Photos

[Sirius Glass]

Yeah, that's comforting to hear - and my plans as well. I'm curious if I should include my lenses as well and have them go over them? Would they calibrate a lens to a body or do the lenses just undergo a overall wellness check?

For me, I just walk in and if Mike is available and has the time he does the adjustment on the spot, otherwise I leave it. The body adjustment can take as little as 15 minutes. If you are willing why not have the lenses checked out too. After all you have a large investment in the system. If a lens does not need work, they should not charge you for it. I had one 50mm lens that was operating correctly for years, so I never had it checked. Then I went to Yosemite for a week long photography and darkroom class and I discovered that even though everything sounded right when I fired the shutter, the 50mm lens was not opening to take the photograph. I took the lens in and was told that that it was a heavily used lens and that the shutter shaft was badly worn. He replaced the shaft and the lens has been working perfectly since.

 

[Saganich]

I just had Hasselblad email the form for a proper CLA. Going to take the plunge.

Brace yourself.

 

[Light Capture]

Here is my latest test roll and all info on the pics:

Fomapan 120, 100 ISO film (B&W)
Every shot was using Mirror-Lockup, a cable shutter-release and mounted on a tripod
Scanned on Epson v600
Home Developed in Cinestil Monobath (for 30 EXTRA SECONDS, to see if it would bring out some more contrast)


PHOTO INFO MAP
-------------------------------------
Photo1: 1/4 second | f/16 | Lathe
Photo2: 1/2 second | f/16 | PC Screen
Photo3: 1/4 second | f/16 | Collets
Photo4: (1s) second | f/16 | Mill Machine
Photo5: 1/4 second | f/11 | Cloth
Photo6: (4s) second | f/11 | Tormach CNC
Photo7: 1/30 second | f/2.8 | Clips on desk
Photo8: (1s) second | f/16 | SO Grinder
Photo9: 1/30 second | f/11 | Portrait
Photo10: 1/2 second | f/11 | Wreath
Photo11: 1/4 second | f/11 | Guitar
Photo12: 1/125 second | f/4 | Portrait

80mm ZEISS lens
https://link.shutterfly.com/DvpA3ufiRnb
https://link.shutterfly.com/hfmzbOiiRnb
https://link.shutterfly.com/PBsNekkiRnb
https://link.shutterfly.com/BJeYN7liRnb
https://link.shutterfly.com/SlGAzhoiRnb
https://link.shutterfly.com/ALGJsqpiRnb
https://link.shutterfly.com/YvQqgvriRnb
https://link.shutterfly.com/8Lze87siRnb

150mm ZEISS lens (remaining pics below)
https://link.shutterfly.com/zG55YbviRnb
https://link.shutterfly.com/iLSkoWyiRnb
https://link.shutterfly.com/zKe2V5AiRnb
https://link.shutterfly.com/YpoOKfCiRnb


I know my METERING needs a lot of practice and so much to learn. These pics are all inside, during overcast winter days. Maybe its a combo of all these factors that is making for some really dark and dreary photos. But it's enough to really have me pretty bummed out not know what else I can do to ensure I focused picture. So I'm really excited to see what everyone thinks and their feedback.

Some of the samples look okay at this magnification.
Photo #7 is the only one I would look at for focus accuracy assessment since it's shot wide open. It looks good if that's where you intended to focus.
Focusing target and shooting wide open will provide with much more information. Scanning with flatbed scanner is relatively unpredictable since negatives can buckle slightly and there is no focus on it.

If you direct desk lamp with around 60W bulb at 50-60cm (or equivalent) there should 1/125 to 1/250 exposure at f4 on 150mm lens at 800 ISO. This is usually not correct exposure but will yield images where black letters on white background will be clear enough to assess the accuracy. It's easier to assess out of focus areas when they are slightly underexposed (at least when it's black letters on white).
These are good test conditions for focusing accuracy. Even better is if you can use strobe. It would eliminate any camera shake.
Portraits while using mirror lockup close to minimum focusing distance usually can't be sharp (correctly focused). 2cm of subject movement throws it out of focus.

 

[brbo]

Brace yourself.

Indeed.

OP, just so you know, with V600 scanner you will never get more than about 10MP out of your Hasselblad negative. No matter how much money you throw away at equipment and servicing.

This is what V600 is capable of (at best):

This is what a very good scanner can pull out:

Are you still sure you are basing your decision (that your equipment needs servicing) on good enough data? I'd say get a proper film developed and scanned properly first...

 

[Huss]

Hi,

So I'm pretty new to manual film cameras. I come from the very automatic world of Digital with autofocus and every other tech feature. I got sick of it and wanted old school. So I bought 2 camera systems: 1. Hasselblad 500/cm and 2. Graflex 4x5.

I sold my Digital gear and spent a lot of money on all TOP MINT gear:
500/cm body
A-2 ll backs
80mm CF, & 150mm CF lenses (looked like they were fresh off the factory floor)
Acute Matte D with split-image focus ring (42170)
PM5 with +1 diopter
Replacement +3 diopter (for prism that was useless to my eyes)

I'm pretty well discouraged at this point because after 5 rolls of film, metering with a Sekonic L508 spot meter and using a tripod and some handheld, I have not gotten one single shot that made me smile. A Lot of my stuff has been shot inside stuck due to snow and super cold temps.

I'm totally open and wanting (no, HOPING) someone will tell me some stupid mistake I'm making because I'm ready to sell it all fearing my eyes are just too bad. I didn't take one image with the prism because the +1 diopter is too blurry. Not super blurry, but nowhere sharp enough to nail focus.

Here's my pics and I'll describe the best of memory the specs around the shots. One other note is that they look even worse using the upload-image utility. I'll need to create a Shuttfly or some other website to share the links.

All pics were shot (with what I thought was fast enough for handheld). All shots were focused to clearly using the split ring until it was FLAWLESS (to my eyes). So with all that high end equipment, and not getting a usable image, my first thought was to blame the equipment which is ludicrous, so I'm obviously screwing up something that I'm hoping someone will be able to point out. Thanks so much for taking the time to look!!
View attachment 298705
1/500 handheld, Tmax 400 film, f/11 (due to how bright it was)




View attachment 298706
Hardinge lathe in my shop: 1/125 handheld, Tmax 400 film, f/8. Dead nuts focused on the middle tool post.





View attachment 298707
Graflex speed graphic in my foyer - lots of mid day sunlight
1/500 handheld, Tmax 400 film, f/8 Focused dead nuts on the front (3rd) bellow



View attachment 298708
Fender strat in my office
1/125 handheld, Tmax 400 film, f/5.6 focus dead-nuts on the 12th fret.

I’d be happy to re-scan one of your problem images if you want. So we can rule out your scanner as the issue.

 

[BrianShaw]

Have I missed something… what do the negs look like on a light table using a loupe?

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. I just read this discussion from the beginning. Two posters suggested that the OP do the standard "check for focusing error" test. Photograph a brick wall (distant subject) or ruler (near subject) at a 45 degree angle. Mark the point focused on. Shoot from tripod to eliminate blur due to camera motion. Use cable release, if possible (SLRs only) lock the mirror up to eliminate vibration/mirror slap. Have the film processed, examine the negative(s) with a magnifier to avoid possible scanning problems. Shoot with the aperture set ~ 2 stops down from wide open to avoid diffraction and keep depth of field from obscuring where best focus is. This is the way to determine where the camera/lens combination is actually focusing.

No evidence that the OP's done this. Instead apparently random shots, many with less information than possible and desirable because of poor exposure. And well-intentioned responses pointing to possible problems (equipment, technique) that don't get at the first question, which is "Equipment problem or operator error?"

FWIW, I've sometimes had focusing problems and had evil thoughts about my equipment. I'm OK, it must be the gear. So far, careful checking, as described above, has exonerated the equipment. Its always been operator error. That's me. Ouch!

 

[Individual One]

I would feel better about sending a camera off for service after looking at the negatives under a microscope, without the intermediate step of scanning them.
Bruce

 

[AKG414]

Hmm. I just read this discussion from the beginning. Two posters suggested that the OP do the standard "check for focusing error" test. Photograph a brick wall (distant subject) or ruler (near subject) at a 45 degree angle. Mark the point focused on. Shoot from tripod to eliminate blur due to camera motion. Use cable release, if possible (SLRs only) lock the mirror up to eliminate vibration/mirror slap. Have the film processed, examine the negative(s) with a magnifier to avoid possible scanning problems. Shoot with the aperture set ~ 2 stops down from wide open to avoid diffraction and keep depth of field from obscuring where best focus is. This is the way to determine where the camera/lens combination is actually focusing.

No evidence that the OP's done this. Instead apparently random shots, many with less information than possible and desirable because of poor exposure. And well-intentioned responses pointing to possible problems (equipment, technique) that don't get at the first question, which is "Equipment problem or operator error?"

FWIW, I've sometimes had focusing problems and had evil thoughts about my equipment. I'm OK, it must be the gear. So far, careful checking, as described above, has exonerated the equipment. Its always been operator error. That's me. Ouch!

To be fair, this is a LOT of info to take in and make sense of.

Now, If you read my (LATEST) post showing my test shots - you'll have noticed that I did in fact use a tripod, mirror lockup & shutter release. Let me state this - My scanner is NOT NOT NOT (yes, said 3 times) the reason for my focus issues. I've seen so many other great photopapers on Youtube show off their work with this scanner - and the results are beautiful. Is it the best, no, but is it NOT the source of my focal problems.

I'm doing my best as I learn the "proper technique" of a focus test so please bare with me and be patient as I learn - which btw, I'm open and honestly admitting the need to learn from everyone. I take no pride or strut my stuff without the skills first.

The camera is being sent in for a proper CLA with Hasselblad - because a focused picture should NOT be this hard/difficult to get, especially after using all the crutches (release, tripod, mirror lock). One SHOULD be able to pull focus fairly well, handheld.

The CLA will be very telling. And yes, I'm prepared for the cost. I've spend quite a bit on a a mint-body, 2 lenses, Accute-Matte D and PM5 prism, so the cost will be nothing in comparision.

 

[faberryman]

Just keep us posted when you hear back from Hasselblad.

 

[AKG414]

Just keep us posted when you hear back from Hasselblad.

I will, for sure.

 

[MattKing]

I've seen so many other great photopapers on Youtube show off their work with this scanner - and the results are beautiful. Is it the best, no, but is it NOT the source of my focal problems.

Just so you know, the capabilities of scanners are rarely achieved without effort and experience.
I use a Canon scanner that is similar in capability to your Epson V600, and I can assure you that I can make scans using it that show results far worse than the problems you are having, even when the negatives themselves are sharp and well focused.
With care and attention, I can then turn around and make scans that, after appropriate post-processing steps are taken, result in images that are sharp and appear to be well focused.
I regularly refer to scanning as being the work of the devil , because the potential for frustration can be great.
And of course there always is the chance that your particular copy of the V600 is in need of repair.
I'm not saying this because I'm convinced that your scanning is the source of the problem. I am saying this because the scanning step is, like any part of the process, just as capable of being the source of your problems as any other part.
When I first started using my scanner, the results were at best mediocre. The results I obtain now are definitely better, but each scan needs at least some work before iit is good enough for presentation to the world.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Just so you know, the capabilities of scanners are rarely achieved without effort and experience.
I use a Canon scanner that is similar in capability to your Epson V600, and I can assure you that I can make scans using it that show results far worse than the problems you are having, even when the negatives themselves are sharp and well focused.
With care and attention, I can then turn around and make scans that, after appropriate post-processing steps are taken, result in images that are sharp and appear to be well focused.
I regularly refer to scanning as being the work of the devil , because the potential for frustration can be great.
And of course there always is the chance that your particular copy of the V600 is in need of repair.
I'm not saying this because I'm convinced that your scanning is the source of the problem. I am saying this because the scanning step is, like any part of the process, just as capable of being the source of your problems as any other part.
When I first started using my scanner, the results were at best mediocre. The results I obtain now are definitely better, but each scan needs at least some work before iit is good enough for presentation to the world.

Over the years we have had people come to us with problems that turned out to be caused by scanners, made worse by scanners, or at least notably impacted by scanners. That is not to say that scanners are the root of all problems. In fact many times scanners have been quite useful, but one should keep an eye out for scanner caused problems.

 

[BrianShaw]

Have I missed something… what do the negs look like on a light table using a loupe?

?

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

This is what V600 is capable of (at best):

This is what a very good scanner can pull out:

Maybe in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use it.

Jeremy

 

[Craig]

T. I've seen so many other great photopapers on Youtube show off their work with this scanner - and the results are beautiful. Is it the best, no, but is it NOT the source of my focal problems.

I could say that I have seen much good work out of a Hasselblad too, but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem with your particular example, or your technique. For the purposes, of this discussion, until something can be proven to be working to proper specification, it is suspect.

That was the reason for asking about what the negatives themselves looked like under a loupe, and also for doing the diagonal ruler test. Then it either excludes or includes something from the list of things that need to be looked at.

 

[Luckless]

Indeed.

OP, just so you know, with V600 scanner you will never get more than about 10MP out of your Hasselblad negative. No matter how much money you throw away at equipment and servicing.

This is what V600 is capable of (at best):

This is what a very good scanner can pull out:

Are you still sure you are basing your decision (that your equipment needs servicing) on good enough data? I'd say get a proper film developed and scanned properly first...

I don't see a 1951 USAF resolution test chart shipping from within Canada for a price I feel like paying, and I didn't find a clear dimensional spec to put together a comparable reference. What are the outer dimensions of the visible target in your photos?

 

[pbromaghin]

View attachment 298757
Here is an (poor) example of a focus test on a Hasselblad 2.8/80, you can see the focus plane in the carpet cuts just in front of the target box - this is about as good as I can optically focus a Hasselblad camera, getting it bang on is very difficult.

This a great test. Add a ruler to show the distance in front and back of the target. Shoot it wide open. Try it with both of your lenses.

My Mamiya tlr had rotted foam under the ground glass and the difference between the film and viewing screens was 1 mm. It ruined any pics taken closer than 30 feet or so.

 

[brbo]

Maybe in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use it.

Maybe. BTW, it's a result of V600 test on ScanDig.

Maybe you can show us how much you are able to get out of your V600?

 

[brbo]

I don't see a 1951 USAF resolution test chart shipping from within Canada for a price I feel like paying, and I didn't find a clear dimensional spec to put together a comparable reference. What are the outer dimensions of the visible target in your photos?

1.5mm (if my math is correct).

 

[itsdoable]

Here is an (poor) example of a focus test on a Hasselblad 2.8/80, you can see the focus plane in the carpet cuts just in front of the target box - this is about as good as I can optically focus a Hasselblad camera, getting it bang on is very difficult.

This a great test. Add a ruler to show the distance in front and back of the target. Shoot it wide open. Try it with both of your lenses....

I never found adding a ruler was very useful for analog film equipment, there is no easy way to determine and apply the correction for that measured focus shift.

 

[shutterfinger]

https://jimdoty.com/learn/lenses/usaf_test/usaf_test.html
Print the high resolution chart at 2 x 2 inch / 50.8 mm, the same size as those purchasable on line at your printers highest resolution. You should be able to print it on transparency film for inkjet printers. I created a 8x10 page of the target with 4 across and 5 down on glossy photo paper by creating it in PhotoShop using the hr target download.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_USAF_resolution_test_chart

 

[AgX]

I never found adding a ruler was very useful for analog film equipment, there is no easy way to determine and apply the correction for that measured focus shift.

The idea is not to correct something at focusing, but just to establish whether there is a deviation between focus aid and the focus position at the film, that you would not tolerate, and then get the camera adjusted again.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

Maybe. BTW, it's a result of V600 test on ScanDig.

Maybe you can show us how much you are able to get out of your V600?

Sure. On a low-res image on a forum. Why do I feel like you are close-minded and trying to argue? Anything I show you won't be good enough.

If I haven't spent time with something and learning how to the use the tool myself to the best of the ability, I don't comment on it. Might be worth considering in the future.

Jeremy

 

[grat]

Maybe. BTW, it's a result of V600 test on ScanDig.

Maybe you can show us how much you are able to get out of your V600?

Scandig also claims that they can only get 2300 DPI out of an Epson V800/850. My personal experience runs counter to that.

The Epsons do suffer from a lack of adjustable focus-- this means the target has to be scanned at the precise focus-height of the scanner, which on the 700/800 series, is either touching the glass of the bed, or approximately 3mm above the bed. As the 600 doesn't have dual-lens (to my knowledge), the focus height should be at the glass bed height.

There are also many options on the scanning software that can affect the resulting image. I turn most of them off when scanning, which leaves a slightly "flat", mildly unsharp image. But the image can easily be resharpened, and contrast is just a slider.