Sharper pics with 35mm?

[PhillipT]

I've been using my x-mas present, a Minolta Maxxum 4 rather lightly. Typically I stick with digital cameras and only occasionally broke out the Minolta. Recently, after loosing the Canon, I used the Minolta once more. Out in the Texas country in the sunset. It's a Minolta Maxxum 4 with a Quantaray 28-90mm lense on it. Thing is, the pitures aren't that sharp, not as I was expecting. And I've had this problem before on pics I've developed. Either leaving the ISO with what ever the film came, or in the case with shooting my '69 CST10 (used 80 or 100, to get clear pics in the low light with slow shutter speeds), it seems like the pics just aren't as sharp as I'd expect out of the thing

Several months ago at ISO 640:



And these are from a few weeks ago. Tried at ISO 100 or so, if I recall right. Used it since that's typically what I set my digital to in low light areas if I wanted cleaner shots.





These were scanned from pics instead of having the store develop them throw them on a CD. Seems like the last time I did that, all they did was scan them and burn it on a CD, so I didn't waste my money on that. But even on the prints it isn't sharp.

[cooltouch]

Need more info.

What film did you use? What scanner did you use? Resolution? How much, if any, post processing did you do? Did you actually have prints made at all, or did you just have the negs processed?

Your first photo appears to be acceptably sharp, but the others are lacking. It might be your scanner. I have an Epson Perfection 3170 that I've used for scanning slides and negs, and it does a decent job. But more recently, I've tried duping some of my old slides using a slide duplicator attached to my DSLR, and the difference between the two digitization methods was very noticeable. Images from the slides duped using the duplicator were much sharper than those from my scanner.

So, before you condemn the camera or lens (although that Quantary might possibly be a bit suspect, but I'll not pass judgment because I've owned cheapo lenses that actually took sharp photos), I'd have some 4x6 prints made from the negs and compare detail. Even at 4x6 you should be able to see quite a bit of detail that the above scans don't seem to have captured. If the prints are sharper, then that shows that your scanner is the problem. If they aren't, then the lens is most likely the culprit.

[PhillipT]

FujiFilm rolls on both pics. Walgreens developed (I'm far out, it's the closest place besides walmart).

My scanner is a Lexmark, I'm away from home so I can't give you the model, but it's 2 years old with a flat bed scanner. These photo were scanned in at 700 or so DPI if I recall right. But, the scanner is good enough to be able to look at the intricate details of a dollar bill, and it's grain in the paper up close. It can scan over 1000 dpi as well.

Did very little processing, just quickly used Photofiltre to crop the pics and messed with the color/bright/contrast settings a slight bit. Sharpened them too, but made little difference, if any.

How do you go about scanning the negs? When I get home tomorrow, I'll scan a print at the max amount that scanner can to see if it appears to help on screen. But, even the prints don't look all that grand up close, which is why I think it's in the camera's setup.


On the flip side, it does give the pictures an older, more "vintage" look I guess. Works with my old truck.

[kenw]

"(used 80 or 100, to get clear pics in the low light with slow shutter speeds), "

so in this case I assume you used a tripod? you normally use the higher ISO (400, 800, etc) in this situation so that the shutter speed stays fast enough to prevent hand-shake blur. Or you use a tripod.

Using ISO 100 (or worse, 80) is usually limited to brightly lit shots.

[PhillipT]

Milk crates (young and broke all the time) and such with the lower angle shots, hand held at the higher angles. None are blurred from hand motion though, just this out of focus look on every one.



2 examples of sitting on milk crates, with a delayed timer so I wouldn't rock the camera when taking pics.

I'm gonna retake these when it's cloudy again and see whats up. :)

[kenw]

how can you say no hand shake? If your shutter was slower than 1/(the mm of the lens*), I will almost guarantee that's the issue. or at least a big part of it.

Since these were film, having the data is something we'll never know, so we have to play detective here:

Your camera has moved to a larger aperture from the looks of the background. (the backgound is well out of focus in the truck shots, a sign of small # apertures). small # apertures will happen automatically (if you let the camera select it) in low light, as will slow shutters. My guess is that the camera was on automatic, it selected the max aperture (probably f3.5 with that lens) and a very, very slow shutter like 1/25 or 1/50 maybe....and there's no way normal breathing people can hold a camera still enough at 1/25s shutter.

*the 1/mm rule: at 28mm, your slowest handheld shutter should be no slower than 1/28 seconds; at 90mm not slower than 1/90 seconds. and many folks consider those too for handheld slow regardless of the mm of the lens. I try to stay above 1/125 in any and all situtions requiring hand held shots.

and btw, that's a good looking truck regardless. She's a good model!

[toverman]

Even a cheap tripod ($25 or so) might do a better job at keeping the camera still than milk crates. If there is even a hint of wind, it could affect the camera, as can simply the camera's mirror flipping up so the photo can be taken. You might see if you're able to lock the mirror up for time exposures to prevent that bit of possible shake.

[venchka]

Several things going on here.

Camera movement already explained.
You are so many generations away from the negative we'll never know the exact fault. Asking the lab to scan your negatives is 1,000% better than using a no name (sorry-but true) scanner on the prints.

Another culprit: Quantaray. Probably wide open and shaky. Recipe for disaster.

Correct exposure never hurts either. Most C-41 (color negative machine processed film) likes some ocerexposure. Set the ISO at box speed. Bracket 1/2 stop to 1 stop overexposed. Never ever underexpose C-41 film.

Get your hands on a real Minolta lens. They are very good. Wide open to stopped down to f/8.0. Load the camera with Kodachrome, Ektar 100, Portra 400 any flavor, BW400CN, Fuji 160 or 400 or 800 Pro film. Be amazed.

[PhillipT]

Originally Posted by kenw

how can you say no hand shake? If your shutter was slower than 1/(the mm of the lens*), I will almost guarantee that's the issue. or at least a big part of it.

What I meant was when blown up, I don't see any signs of the details being motion blurred... Like image trials. Everything just had the general lack of sharpness. Now, I'm used to point and shoot cameras where there is less limits to consider, so your info below is what I need.

Originally Posted by kenw

Since these were film, having the data is something we'll never know, so we have to play detective here:

Your camera has moved to a larger aperture from the looks of the background. (the backgound is well out of focus in the truck shots, a sign of small # apertures). small # apertures will happen automatically (if you let the camera select it) in low light, as will slow shutters. My guess is that the camera was on automatic, it selected the max aperture (probably f3.5 with that lens) and a very, very slow shutter like 1/25 or 1/50 maybe....

Yes, besides the ISO, I left the rest to Auto. Don't know enough to waste film playing with settings. Not like digital where I can play with things and see the live preview (oh how I miss digital...).

For the darker shots (large field with white fence), I think the slowest it hit was 1/10th, and a few times I had it hand held. Most the higher up angles were taken with more light (earlier), but I do not recall what the shutter speed was.

Originally Posted by kenw

and there's no way normal breathing people can hold a camera still enough at 1/25s shutter.

I've always been told I wasn't normal...

Originally Posted by kenw

*the 1/mm rule: at 28mm, your slowest handheld shutter should be no slower than 1/28 seconds; at 90mm not slower than 1/90 seconds. and many folks consider those too for handheld slow regardless of the mm of the lens. I try to stay above 1/125 in any and all situtions requiring hand held shots.

This maybe the problem. Didn't know this rule, so I just let the auto-mode do as it pleased. I'll keep this in mind!

The blurry look is consistent in all the pics. They were taken in the 7 o'clock hour a few weeks ago at sunset. I'll try a higher ISO so the shutter speeds need not to be so long and see how they come out.

Originally Posted by kenw

and btw, that's a good looking truck regardless. She's a good model!

Thanks! 1969 Chevrolet CST10, been building it for 2 years. It was just a shell when I started.

Also, is there a trick to scan negatives? I was thinking about that today, back lighting them some how while on the scanner and see if the prints were to blame or if the actual shots on film had this effect.

PhillipT added 7 Minutes and 40 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

Originally Posted by toverman

Even a cheap tripod ($25 or so) might do a better job at keeping the camera still than milk crates. If there is even a hint of wind, it could affect the camera, as can simply the camera's mirror flipping up so the photo can be taken. You might see if you're able to lock the mirror up for time exposures to prevent that bit of possible shake.

I had a bean-bag to help cancel out any vibrations. As summer comes and prom is done with, I'll be able to expand some cash back to cameras.

Originally Posted by venchka

Several things going on here.

Camera movement already explained.
You are so many generations away from the negative we'll never know the exact fault. Asking the lab to scan your negatives is 1,000% better than using a no name (sorry-but true) scanner on the prints.

Another culprit: Quantaray. Probably wide open and shaky. Recipe for disaster.

Get your hands on a real Minolta lens. They are very good. Wide open to stopped down to f/8.0. Load the camera with Kodachrome, Ektar 100, Portra 400 any flavor, BW400CN, Fuji 160 or 400 or 800 Pro film. Be amazed.

Walgreens (for example) would scan the negs onto disk after the fact?

Yes, the cheap lense. It was a x-mas present from my mom, so she had nothing to run on with lense types. It's a good all around lense as far as it's zoom and such, but I thought quality might be an issue.. Their next on my list of when I can afford it.

What stores typically carry those films?

Thanks everyone for the help, I'd love to get this Camera up to it's potential. I hit the limits of my old Canon and want to get better, but I've got to relearn it all for this one.

[venchka]

Walgreens, CVS, Walmart, Sam's Club, Costco, Wolf, etc. will develop, scan & print all at the same time. I ask for develop & scan & CD. No prints.

Third photo down: Is that the water tower at 290 & Huffmeister? I can see it from my apartment. We must be neighbors.

Wolf Camera on Hwy 6, Camera Co-op, Houston Camera Exchange & Humble Camera are your best bets. Call ahead. Find out what they stock. Freestyle Photographic online is a great source of all things undigital.

Both Kodak and Fuji have great web pages explaining all of their film. Today's film is better than a few years ago. It can make great images.

I didn't mean to dis your lens. It just may not be real sharp wide open. Most lenses are fine at f/8 or f/11. Besides, lenes don't make photos, people do.

Good luck!

[midlight21]

Yes, Walgreens should be able to scan your negatives and put them on cd for you. I don't know how the walgreens in your area is with pics but mine sucks. They can't even print out good pics from digital that I've uploaded. I've had better luck with Walmart for "pics i need now." I'd run the negs over to Walmart and print a few just to see how they compare...

If you still want to take pics of your truck at sunset, try a higher iso film. Ditto what Wayne said about the film. And check Ebay for Minolta lenses. I bet you could find a good deal.

[PhillipT]

Originally Posted by venchka

Walgreens, CVS, Walmart, Sam's Club, Costco, Wolf, etc. will develop, scan & print all at the same time. I ask for develop & scan & CD. No prints.

Third photo down: Is that the water tower at 290 & Huffmeister? I can see it from my apartment. We must be neighbors.

Wolf Camera on Hwy 6, Camera Co-op, Houston Camera Exchange & Humble Camera are your best bets. Call ahead. Find out what they stock. Freestyle Photographic online is a great source of all things undigital.

Both Kodak and Fuji have great web pages explaining all of their film. Today's film is better than a few years ago. It can make great images.

I didn't mean to dis your lens. It just may not be real sharp wide open. Most lenses are fine at f/8 or f/11. Besides, lenes don't make photos, people do.

Good luck!

Yup, these were taken around Mason Rd and Schiel. On the North side of Mason.

Is there any physical difference between the different rated film speed? If I read one article right, if you could set the film speed on the camera, what the film was marked as was irrelevant, it was just setup to tell a normal camera what speed to shoot. But, I read that some where long ago, and I'm probably wrong.

[venchka]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Modern film cassetes have a bar code that sets the ISO in the camera's meter system. Most cameras allow you to override this setting. Or the camera lets you bracket exposures. All meters, shutters and users are different. You need to do some personal testing to find your personal film speed. It's easy. Expose at normal ISO (box speed) and then +1/2 stop, +1 stop and maybe +1 1/2 stop. Do that for a roll or two and take notes and pick the photos that look best. That will be your personal film speed for that film in that camera.

Here's a tip based on a lot of testing: Use +2/3 to +1 stop for your speed with color negative film. For 100 film, use 64 or 50. For 400, 250 or 200. It always works for me.

Here you go:

http://www.texasphotoforum.com/forum...ad.php?t=97598

[PhillipT]

As in, does the speed on the box of the film really mater, since my camera can over-ride it the film's preset speed (the barcode).

I'll shoot at 200 next time and see how it goes. I'll run the negs monday and have them put on a disk to see if that clears them up too.

edit: As far as lenses, out of my reach for a month or so, until prom and such is up.

[venchka]

Box speed is a starting point. YMMV.

Learning how to use the meter in your camera is another starting point.