Really? Your first move would be to overhaul a camera before looking at the negs without them being scanned? Has nothing to do with format…
Really? Your first move would be to overhaul a camera before looking at the negs without them being scanned? Has nothing to do with format…Handheld says it all. Until that is rectified, nothing else matters. MF is a different ballgame, with its own learning curve.
Have you been reading and understanding this thread? The “fuzzy pictures “ are scans. And from that it has been deduced that the camera is out of focus.Why would I scan anything if I wanted to evaluate the actual quality of a neg itself? That's just introduces another variable. A good magnifying loupe and light box will tell you far more. And nothing to do with format? Who are you kidding? Is weight related to format? Duuuh. Does extra focal length relative to angle of view introduce a greater torque vector or fulcrum? Duuh.
Got it. Sidestep.Some things a person just has to do for themselves. Trying to adjudicate anything visually precise or nuanced is hopeless over the web. Makes little difference fuzzy, fuzzier, or fuzziest.
The notion of examining negs rather than scans is what has nothing to do with format. I hope we can agree on that. And that’s been unaddressed from post 1 onward. It seems that all but me, Matt and you know that. How sad that so few are so uniquely inspired!Well, I had my own learning curve. We all earned our scrapes and bruises learning to ride a bicycle or whatever. Rite of passage it seems.
Nor have I and I’m befuddled why this concept seems so foreign to so many.Agree? I've never done it otherwise than visually. If I need a scan, it's certainly not for a case of critical comparison, but only for some commercial application. Gosh knows how many people I've pissed off on this forum for pointing out how pitiful the web is visually if anything critical is involved. I've likened it to trying to cut down a large diameter tree with a fingernail file.
Take your "super sharp" handheld exposure and enlarge it in a glass carrier to a couple feet across, put your nose up to it with reading glasses on, and then tell me if it still looks sharp.
It does.
Must be a Rolleiflex thing.
Take your "super sharp" handheld exposure and enlarge it in a glass carrier to a couple feet across, put your nose up to it with reading glasses on, and then tell me if it still looks sharp. Mr McGoo would call it sharp at 2X magnification over the web ...
Guys - it's been a long time since I posted to this thread. I wound up getting my camera and lenses CLA'ed by David Odess.
But wanted to let everyone know that he passed away this summer. I only spoke with him a few times over the phone as we ironed out the details of my camera. He was a really nice guy and sounded like her REALLY knew his craft. My camera came out great and he (and his work) will be missed.
Did the CLA correct the problem?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?