Unsure of how much sharpness I can get out of film.

[kbrede]

Not too long ago I posted a link of my first developed film that I scanned. This is my third roll now. Arista (Tri-X) with D-76 full strength. With the first roll I underexposed a lot of the shots. So this roll I did some testing. I started each new composition with an incident light meter reading, and then bracketed shots. What I found is, one stop extra exposure, over the incident meter reading, seemed to be about right.

My Plustek OpticFilm 7400 had a free SilverFast upgrade, so I scanned with version 8 this time. I worked a few of the best exposures in Lightroom and was pretty disappointed.

The general consensus from the first batch I posted, I had done a decent job with the scanning, developing and processing; even though I thought they were pretty bad. I've done a little better this time around, but still not happy with the results.

I'm starting to wonder if the reason for my dissatisfaction, is, that I'm coming from digital. That's all I personally have to compare to. I have this expectation of sharp, very detailed photos. I'm not getting that. I've shot a few rolls of color film and they seem to come out sharper than what I'm doing in B&W. I'm not sure why that is.

The link below is to a gallery of one of the last test shots I made and worked up. I included two size versions of the original unedited scan and worked version in Lightroom. I've seen beautifully detailed black and whites done in film. Do I need to go to large format to get that? Is there a change in development that I can do? Do I need to start enlarging my negatives in a darkroom? What can I realistically shoot for in terms of sharpness with Tri-X? I'd like to stick with that to learn, because the Arista brand is inexpensive.

I know this post has all been about *sharpness* but I know there's more to photography. I'm just trying to learn this technical aspect ATM.

https://plus.google.com/photos/1166...s/5755196244461811713?authkey=CIjCgpCo-sn_5AE

Thanks for any advice.

 

[pschwart]

Do I need to go to large format to get that?

Assuming your negatives and scans are sharp, you just need to learn how to sharpen digital images.
A Google search should turn up a wealth of info. If you would rather not get involved in the details, there are Photoshop plugins that will do a good job.

 

[kbrede]

Do I need to go to large format to get that?

Assuming your negatives and scans are sharp, you just need to learn how to sharpen digital images.
A Google search should turn up a wealth of info. If you would rather not get involved in the details, there are Photoshop plugins that will do a good job.

I know how to sharpen digital images. I pushed the example I posted as far as I could. I didn't go to the extent of selectively sharpening, since this was just a quick work up. Is my example image what you would consider typical of film sharpness?

I also posted an unresized 100% quality export of the scan. Did it look sharp to you? I don't have any scans to compare it to.

How do I evaluate the negative for sharpness, other than scan or print? This picture was taken with a quality 28mm lens, stopped down a couple times, using a tripod and cable release.
Thanks,

 

[pschwart]

The uploaded images are small and already processed jpg's, but I agree with you, they look soft. I can say that for printed output, you often have to sharpen beyond what looks acceptable on the monitor. I did download wbarrow-orig, but it's only 48 ppi. The negatives do resolve a lot of detail, for example in the siding, bricks and the bottom of the wheelbarrow so maybe you just need to tweak the sharpening workflow.

I know how to sharpen digital images. I pushed the example I posted as far as I could. I didn't go to the extent of selectively sharpening, since this was just a quick work up. Is my example image what you would consider typical of film sharpness?

I also posted an unresized 100% quality export of the scan. Did it look sharp to you? I don't have any scans to compare it to.

How do I evaluate the negative for sharpness, other than scan or print? This picture was taken with a quality 28mm lens, stopped down a couple times, using a tripod and cable release.
Thanks,

 

[pschwart]

Another thought: I'm not familiar with your scanner, but my Nikon 9000 scans improved significantly when I started using a glass carrier.

 

[artobest]

The contrast looks a bit flat to me. Try boosting it with a curves adjustment layer, and maybe a little local contrast boost too using the unsharp-mask method or similar (on a separate layer, of course). If this is just a quick work-up as you say, do a proper work-up and get back to us when you have the best you think you can get.

 

[Les Sarile]

Just so I can provide similar comparisons, what digital are you comparing too and are you using the same lens on your digital and film body?

BTW, I haven't shot much Tri X but understand that it is not known for its sharpness and resolution.

 

[kbrede]

Thanks for the replies all. If I could steer the conversation away from fixing this image, it would be great. I can handle the digital workflow. I can tell from the scan that no amount of sharpening or contrast boost is going to turn this sow's ear into a silk purse.

As I mentioned the picture was taken on a tripod, with cable release. It was taken with a Zeiss Ikon ZI and Zeiss 28mm f/2.8 Biogon. I can't put that lens on my digital camera, but I suspect it should resolve as well as a Pentax Limited lens. I don't think the limiting factor is the camera equipment here.

Last year I did quite well at the local level with photo contests like the state fair, photography symposium, etc. One of the biggest critiquing points for the judges is sharpness. I would like to switch to film, but so far what I'm getting in terms of sharpness wouldn't be competitive.

Here's some examples of what I'm talking about. The prints of course look better:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/116662706018370256071/albums/5646817296617035697

I've uploaded the original tiff scan and a picture from my 'picture a day' project last year, into the album I originally posted here. The picture of the trashcan was handheld with a Fuji X100. I probably spent 5 minutes processing it. Compare the detail in the grass, which isn't great, but much better than my film picture.

https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/116662706018370256071/albums/5646817296617035697

My question is, is it possible to get as good as, or better than, the level of grass detail in the trash can picture, with 35mm film and my equipment? If so, what would be my next steps to practically get there?
Thanks,

 

[Eric Rose]

One thing I found when I started scanning B&W film negs was I created a lot of extra grain and an overall lack of sharpness by using a high DPI. Digital ICE and the like also killed sharpness. I would try using a different film, one known for sharpness if sharpness is your ultimate measure.

 

[L Gebhardt]

I have found that current digital equipment can out resolve most film in the same format size. The fact that you are using Tri-X which has more grain than a 100 speed film. And if you use a tabular grain film like Acros, Delta or TMax you can get even more resolved detail. I would pickup some Acros, expose it at 50 or 64 and try again. You can also increase the apparent sharpness with different developers and agitation methods. Do a search on edge effects.

But if your desired goal for using film is more detail and sharpness then digital you really won't get that without moving to a larger format. I would recommend a Mamiya 7 system if you want something smaller that can be handheld, or better yet a 4x5 field camera if you always can use a tripod and have the time for the setup.

 

[Les Sarile]

BTW, the link you posted is for relatively small files. What is the criteria for submission - prints or files? What sizes?

 

[kbrede]

BTW, the link you posted is for relatively small files. What is the criteria for submission - prints or files? What sizes?

Prints are submitted. Most of them will take an 8x10 or 8x12 but the reality is almost all the winners are 11x14 to 12x18. Other than the state fair, which only excepts up to 8x12, I submitted 12x18s.

 

[Hatchetman]

You might want to send a roll to a good lab for scanning, just to see what they can do with it. I use North Coast Photographic Services The difference between what they can do and what my Canon Flatbed scanner can do is almost laughable. At least then you'd know how your scanning compares.

The level of detail I get from my Canon 5dii is much greater than with 35mm film. It's about the same as my 6x7 medium format camera. I use film for colors, texture, less processing needed, just more fun.

 

[kbrede]

You might want to send a roll to a good lab for scanning, just to see what they can do with it. I use North Coast Photographic Services The difference between what they can do and what my Canon Flatbed scanner can do is almost laughable. At least then you'd know how your scanning compares.

That's a good idea. My first few rolls I had my local camera shop process and scan my B&W. They do a little bit better job scanning than I do, but it's not like night and day. I'm just getting their basic scan. They charge $2.00 per photo for enhanced scanning. Yikes.

The level of detail I get from my Canon 5dii is much greater than with 35mm film. It's about the same as my 6x7 medium format camera. I use film for colors, texture, less processing needed, just more fun.

It seems like a consensus so far that digital 35mm is similar to medium format film. I think I'll work with 35mm film for a few months and see what I can I can do with it, before I think about trying a larger format. I've already spent enough money this month.
Thanks,

 

[Pioneer]

I may be missing something in your posts, at my age that seem to happen far too frequently, but have you had your prints enlarged optically, or are you only trying to scan the negatives? The reason I ask is that there a lot more steps involved here. You are asking whether film is capable of competing with digital and you are using your present experiences as a reason to express doubt. I can certainly assure you that film, even 35mm film, is capable of resolving as much detail as digital is able to, just differently. But unlike digital, where you capture the image digitally from the very beginning, with film there are a few more variables involved. I know you are aware of this but to remind you, first are all the steps involved in creating the negative itself and second are the steps involved in creating the digital image. In each of these workflows there are lots of opportunity for things to go sideways. I do agree that, based on your description, your camera, lens, film and photographic technique should be more then adequate to properly expose the image with good resolution to start with. But stranger things have happened in photography where some type of front of back focusing issue was responsible for robbing the negative of enough sharpness to produce decent prints. And that doesn't even bring up the problems involved in the developing step itself, with all the potential for reducing contrast and sharpness, while increasing the film grain, already a potential issue when working with 35mm and ISO 400 film. Without a good professional scan you might not even be aware that there were any problems at all with the image capture and developing steps. Then, as I myself am learning, the scanner itself can also front or back focus as well, not to mention a whole host of other interesting problems, and this adds an entirely different range of issues that need to be worked out.

I would suggest that you have a roll of your film professionally scanned and then printed. Hopefully this will at least resolve any possible issues with your camera, lens, film or developing, not too mention that it will also show you what is really possible with your own negatives. Once that is settled then you can use those same negatives to begin working out any potential scanning issues that may be causing you problems. Film and digital are different animals in more then one way, but each can provide great learning experiences. But it does take awhile to master either of them. Try to work it out so you are only working out one variable at a time and you will be getting film results to challenge your digital ones in no time.

 

[Herzeleid]

I am curious why use D76 which is a solvent developer which smooths out the silver particles and therefore certain lack of sharpness and you use it undiluted. Go for Xtol 1+1 for starters if sharpness is your aim.
If you are aiming for better scanning option I think you have to look for optimizing your workflow for particular scanner and software. I believe too, 35mm negatives hold as much detail as DSLR cameras but in film too many variables (eg film, developer, scanner). And each variable introduces a certain amount of modulation to the image.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If you really want sharp negatives, try Rodinal 1:50 or even 1:100. You may see an increase in grain, but you will for certain see an increase in sharpness.

 

[kbrede]

I may be missing something in your posts, at my age that seem to happen far too frequently, but have you had your prints enlarged optically, or are you only trying to scan the negatives?

<snip>

I have not had any prints enlarged optically. That's a good point. I'll try to find someone that can do that.
Thanks,

 

[kbrede]

Thanks for the comments regarding different developers. I started with D-76 because I kept reading it's a good developer to start with, and they had it in stock at my local camera store.

 

[tkamiya]

I do both fully analog and digital.

If I scan my 35mm negatives, even 645 ones at full resolution of 3200DPI and look at it at 100% magnification, it does look less sharp than digital ones. It looks worse if I go beyond 100%. Edges are "fuzzy". It was very apparent in test shots I've done in the past.

I think there are two things going on here.

In film and in analog processes, no one looks at images at 100% magnification. That's a HUGE print! Depending on your neg size, scan rate, and monitor size, it approaches 24x36 (inches) or larger. So it looks worse because of expectation.

In digital, when you get down to pixel level, the changes are abrupt - that's a nature of digital. That doesn't really mean the image they represent is sharp. I realize, if I go 100% on both, I am exceeding the capability of lens (resolution). So anything I see at this level is artificial.

I've used Arista Premium 400 and blown it up to 11x14 - with cropping probably 20% larger than that. Sure, if I get right up to it, it's not crisp but I have no complaints.

Here's something else I noticed. I shoot a lot of portraits so obviously hair is part of my subject. In both media, at typical portrait distance and typical lens, I can see strands of hair clearly. That's enough resolution in my standard.

 

[Les Sarile]

Example #1
24.6Megapixel Sony A900 @ISO400 vs Fuji Sensia 400 scanned with Coolscan, 100% crop with low compression - 10Meg file.
Sony A900 is pixel size is larger then a 4000dpi scan from the Coolscan.

Click for large file -> Fuji Sensia 400_01-33 vs Sony A900 @ISO400

 

[kbrede]

Example #1
24.6Megapixel Sony A900 @ISO400 vs Fuji Sensia 400 scanned with Coolscan, 100% crop with low compression - 10Meg file.
Sony A900 is pixel size is larger then a 4000dpi scan from the Coolscan.

Click for large file -> Fuji Sensia 400_01-33 vs Sony A900 @ISO400

Wow, that's impressive. Was the film picture taken on 35mm?

 

[tkamiya]

This is obviously a flawed comparison. The image on the right, scanner missed the eyes....

 

[Les Sarile]

Well I took that photo more then 4 years before the A900 was released. The nerve that DPREVIEW would not consult with me
Close enough as there are plenty of resolved detail to compare 1:1 pixel of an equally large digifile with scanned 35mm film.

This next one is cheap 35mm Fuji100 negative film scanned on the Coolscan. Just to be sure, this is a highly compressed file so you will likely encounter JPEG artifacting (squarish patterns) when you expand the view past 100%.

Link to 100% scanned file -> Fuji 100

 

[kbrede]

I'm sorry, I have to take umbrage. I see no "squarish patterns" here. Just beautiful curvaceous ones. This resolves quite well.