Sharper pics with 35mm?

[humminboid]

Very little in the processing machines will make for unsharp pixes.

As has been stated and restated, the main things that will cause unsharp pixes are:

1. Insufficient knowledge of the equipment/photographic process. Trying to make the equipment perform beyond its capability. A little study pays great dividends.

2. Shutter speed too low. No lower than the maximum focal length you are shooting . 200mm= at least 1/250sec.

3. No camera support in low-light conditions.

4. Sharpest lens aperture= 2-3 stops down from max. 2.8 lens...sharpest aperture(s)= ~f/5.6-11.

5. No tripod.

6. Vague understanding of how to take pixes. See #1.

7. Pressing the shutter like you are killing an ugly bug!

8. No tripod!

For Color neg. film, it is said that if you underexpose (incease exposure) by 1/2-1 stops, shooting 200 asa film at 100-~150, you get finer grain and more saturation. That's because processing machines are geared toward thinner negatives for more "efficient " printing.

Fwiw, never noticed much difference, myself.

You can "push" CN film to a higher ASA, like 200 to 400, and ask the 17 1/2 year old "expert" photo technician for "push processing"... and take your chances. That's one big advantage of digital, changing sensitivity whenever the need arises. But, noise or grain, it will be there at higher speeds.

Oh, did I mention use a tripod? Something is always better than nothing.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by humminboid

<snipped>

4. Sharpest lens aperture= 2-3 stops down from max. 2.8 lens...sharpest aperture(s)= ~f/5.6-11.

<snipped>

Point 4 is not always true. Many Modern Lens are as sharp a even f/2 (wide open) as they are at f/5.6 and in some cases can degrade at f/11.

See Put's on Leica lenses.

It really pays to know the MTF charts for your lenses.

[venchka]

I don't always agree with John and I never photograph MTF charts, but he does have a point.

However, many of the lenses that we mortals use don't fall into that category. Suffice to say, depending on what the maximum aperture is, closing 2-3 stops from wide open can't hurt.

[kenw]

as an engineer, I can safely say the only absolute is that there are no absolutes......

[venchka]

There you go.

[toverman]

I shoot most of my Canon glass wide open, and it's not made of gold or sprinkled with fairy dust.

[humminboid]

[QUOTE=johnastovall;908602]Point 4 is not always true. Many Modern Lens are as sharp a even f/2 (wide open) as they are at f/5.6 and in some cases can degrade at f/11. QUOTE]

I beg to differ.

Perhaps, not always, but that's the way to bet. With lenses that the great majority of us can buy, a certainty.

Leica glass will make photographers dance and sing! It is possible to design lenses for stachel-sharp performance wide open, whatever that may be, but as you mentioned, the laws of physics take over, and beyond a specific point, in the mentioned case, f/11, diffraction (light being bent around the edges of the diaphragm) takes over and makes the lens slightly less sharp than at optimum aperture.

It is all a trade-off between the laws of physics and a marketable price point.

Years of reading lens tests back up my supposition. They haven't changed noticeably in several decades. All lenses (except, apparently Leicas) are somewhat less sharp at max aperture. Some, more than others, but they all "sharpen up" approaching the optimum aperture, and stay that way for a while after it is reached, before diffraction begins to slightly degrade the image. Each lens acts differently.

Of course, that is moot, because most lenses made in the last 30 years, if not trashed, will shoot very well at both ends of the f/stop range... but better, if only slightly, somewhere in the center of the range. Despite the tests, not enough to worry about in the real world. GO. SHOOT. ENJOY!

[crackhead]

Also, you guys say changing ISO mid-roll is dangerous. I've never tried it and never asked, but what are the limits of change and the risks in changing film speed. To save me some money, it'd be nice to find a way to be able to try a few different ISO's to see the effects on the least amount of film.

It sounds like what you want to do over-rate your slow ISO film (treat it as if it were a faster ISO film) and then push-process it.

It's ill-advised to mix and match ISO settings within the same roll of film because changing the ISO on the camera changes the exposure settings of the camera and this will give you underexposure or overexposure (underexposure in your case) , and you cannot compensate for this in the development process if part of your film roll is shot one way, then shot another way. (Someone feel free to correct me on this if I'm off base).

For instance if I change from ISO 100 to ISO 400 midway through a roll of Fuji Reala 100, the latter half of the roll will be underexposed by 2 stops, and your processing lab's Frontier automated machine can't push-process half a roll of film and normally process the other half. Maybe one of those dip-and-dunk labs like AZ Photo in Houston CAN do it, but I've never brought my film to such a place and I don't know the particulars about how they work.

If you want to experiment with different ISOs, do so with a whole roll of film and tell your lab that you shot the so-and-so ISO film at ____ ISO , and could they push the processing by ____ stop (s). Also, check with the lab beforehand to see if they even do push-processing; places like CVS or Walgreen's I don't think even do it.

Also, if you ever want to UNDER-rate your film and treat it as a slower film, people do this all the time without a compensating step in the development process. It's pretty normal to shoot an ISO 100 film at ISO 50 and just have the lab develop it normally, as film (color negative in particular) has good leeway for overexposure by up to 2-3 stops (anything beyond that and the images do start to look ropey).

ADDENDUM: I did some further reading up and the chromogenic (C41 process) B+W films ARE capable of ISO changes from 100 to 800 without a push or pull in the development. So shoot some Kodak 400CN or Ilford XP2
at any of these ISO settings and see what kind of results you get. I find keeping a log book recording ISO, shutter speed, and aperture for each shot very helpful when shooting film.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by crackhead

Also, you guys say changing ISO mid-roll is dangerous. I've never tried it and never asked, but what are the limits of change and the risks in changing film speed. To save me some money, it'd be nice to find a way to be able to try a few different ISO's to see the effects on the least amount of film.

It sounds like what you want to do over-rate your slow ISO film (treat it as if it were a faster ISO film) and then push-process it.

It's ill-advised to mix and match ISO settings within the same roll of film because changing the ISO on the camera changes the exposure settings of the camera and this will give you underexposure or overexposure (underexposure in your case) , and you cannot compensate for this in the development process if part of your film roll is shot one way, then shot another way. (Someone feel free to correct me on this if I'm off base).

For instance if I change from ISO 100 to ISO 400 midway through a roll of Fuji Reala 100, the latter half of the roll will be underexposed by 2 stops, and your processing lab's Frontier automated machine can't push-process half a roll of film and normally process the other half. Maybe one of those dip-and-dunk labs like AZ Photo in Houston CAN do it, but I've never brought my film to such a place and I don't know the particulars about how they work.

If you want to experiment with different ISOs, do so with a whole roll of film and tell your lab that you shot the so-and-so ISO film at ____ ISO , and could they push the processing by ____ stop (s). Also, check with the lab beforehand to see if they even do push-processing; places like CVS or Walgreen's I don't think even do it.

Also, if you ever want to UNDER-rate your film and treat it as a slower film, people do this all the time without a compensating step in the development process. It's pretty normal to shoot an ISO 100 film at ISO 50 and just have the lab develop it normally, as film (color negative in particular) has good leeway for overexposure by up to 2-3 stops (anything beyond that and the images do start to look ropey).

The best way to change ISO in mid-role is shoot a Zeiss Contarex with interchangable backs. Just change out the film. Oh, processing your self helps...

[humminboid]

Originally Posted by crackhead

... but what are the limits of change and the risks in changing film speed. To save me some money, it'd be nice to find a way to be able to try a few different ISO's to see the effects on the least amount of film.

It sounds like what you want to do over-rate your slow ISO film (treat it as if it were a faster ISO film) and then push-process it.


Also, if you ever want to UNDER-rate your film and treat it as a slower film, people do this all the time without a compensating step in the development process. It's pretty normal to shoot an ISO 100 film at ISO 50 and just have the lab develop it normally, as film (color negative in particular) has good leeway for overexposure by up to 2-3 stops (anything beyond that and the images do start to look ropey).

The problems associated with changing ASA, (ISO, film speed) in the middle of a roll can be disastrous. Particularly if you forget to change it back after the roll is finished. Orrr...if you can't get push processing at your local photo hacker's.

I had a buddy in the Air Force that misunderstood the basic reasoning to change film speed.

He shot Panatomic-X, which at that time was rated at 25. Kodak had built a 1 stop overexposure into all their films, due to the poor metering equipment/skills/understanding of exposure existing before the '50s. Use Kodak film, and you would always come back with an image!

We all shot that film at 50, which gave brilliant negatives when developed in D-76 diluted 1:1 with water, as a one-shot. We rated Plus-X at 100-125, and Tri-X at ~400, which was ~twice the manufacturer's posted rating.

My friend misunderstood what he had read, and halved the speed, shooting at an effective 12-13, then developed it normally. His negatives were dense, and hard to print, and he didn't know why! Of course, he was too much of a putz to ask advice, and got upset when I mentioned. it.

At one time, color neg. film was said to be manufactured to give consistently thin negatives for the convenience of machine processing and printing, and maybe it was true... Rate it at ~half the advertised speed for finer grain and better color saturation, it was said. I tried it, and didn't see a lot of difference, really.

That's what is great about digital! You can change ISO, and the high ISOs will give you noise that is no worse than the grain sometimes assocaited with high speed film is/was.

[johnastovall]

[quote=humminboid;908962]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

Point 4 is not always true. Many Modern Lens are as sharp a even f/2 (wide open) as they are at f/5.6 and in some cases can degrade at f/11. QUOTE]

I beg to differ.

Perhaps, not always, but that's the way to bet. With lenses that the great majority of us can buy, a certainty.

Leica glass will make photographers dance and sing! It is possible to design lenses for stachel-sharp performance wide open, whatever that may be, but as you mentioned, the laws of physics take over, and beyond a specific point, in the mentioned case, f/11, diffraction (light being bent around the edges of the diaphragm) takes over and makes the lens slightly less sharp than at optimum aperture.

It is all a trade-off between the laws of physics and a marketable price point.

Years of reading lens tests back up my supposition. They haven't changed noticeably in several decades. All lenses (except, apparently Leicas) are somewhat less sharp at max aperture. Some, more than others, but they all "sharpen up" approaching the optimum aperture, and stay that way for a while after it is reached, before diffraction begins to slightly degrade the image. Each lens acts differently.

Of course, that is moot, because most lenses made in the last 30 years, if not trashed, will shoot very well at both ends of the f/stop range... but better, if only slightly, somewhere in the center of the range. Despite the tests, not enough to worry about in the real world. GO. SHOOT. ENJOY!

You can differ all you wish but that's not the way Leica designs some of it's lenses. You have not read Puts obviously....

As for a marketable price point, that's not been high on Leica's design list.

[crackhead]

I find different types of film have different exposure behaviors. Portra 160 benefits from a +2/3 or so overage, wherea s Reala 100 starts to look really chalky and blocked up, with a really pink looking pallor to the colors that's really unpleasant. A part of it is all down to individual taste, subject matter and one's equipment of course

[johnastovall]

Try using Gigabitfilm.