How sharp should I expect film to be?

[TheEyesHaveIt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all - I've been trying to use my MP more (also have an M11 which is my main camera) and I want to make sure my expectations are set appropriately when it comes to resolution and sharpness. Or if I'm doing some wrong when it comes to scanning (I scan using the Valoi Easy35 system using a Sony A7RIV with the 90mm macro). At 75-100% zoom of the scans, the image resolution and sharpness drops off significantly. While images look fine on my iPhone, the details just aren't there at full resolution. It's all a bit fuzzy.

Attaching a recent image shot on Kodak Gold 200 - unfortunately, can't attach full res here, but maybe it'll illustrate what I'm saying.

But just wondering if this is expected sharpness and resolution from 35mm or if I'm doing something wrong?

Thanks all.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[frame-it]

12 minutes ago, TheEyesHaveIt said:

Hi all - I've been trying to use my MP more (also have an M11 which is my main camera) and I want to make sure my expectations are set appropriately when it comes to resolution and sharpness. Or if I'm doing some wrong when it comes to scanning (I scan using the Valoi Easy35 system using a Sony A7RIV with the 90mm macro). At 75-100% zoom of the scans, the image resolution and sharpness drops off significantly. While images look fine on my iPhone, the details just aren't there at full resolution. It's all a bit fuzzy.

Attaching a recent image shot on Kodak Gold 200 - unfortunately, can't attach full res here, but maybe it'll illustrate what I'm saying.

But just wondering if this is expected sharpness and resolution from 35mm or if I'm doing something wrong?

Thanks all.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

whats your focus ability with an unnamed lens got to do with film sharpness and or scanning?

 

 

[Einst_Stein]

This is a 1 mp picture

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Einst_Stein]

Another 1 mp picture.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Einst_Stein]

800x800 pixel.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Einst_Stein]

I have scan Velvia and Kodachrome slides using the 2mp Leica Digikux 4.3 (with Leica dedicate slide copier for Digilux 4.3j, the print out on 8.5x11 paper is stunning. 

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Before digital, my expectations with film depended on the film, and we had different ways of viewing. For color I was happy with Kodachrome projected to a 10 ft. screen, but viewed as "sharp" from normal viewing distance (where you could see the whole image). Shooting a fine grain B&W film (Panatomic-X ASA64) optical enlargements (prints) to 20x30 inches looked sharp. Grainier film (Tri-X pushed to 1200) still looked sharp, but the prominent grain lowered fine detail, We considered B&W 8x10 inch prints the standard for normal evaluation.

We certainly didn't pixel-peep, as a film image is quite different than a digital image.

[Pieter12]

Is the grain sharp? If it isn't, there is a problem with your scanning. If it is, and the image isn't sharp then it could be camera shake, subject movement at a lower shutter speed or just not in focus. I assume you are using sharp lenses. 35mm will almost never be as detailed as a larger format with the same film. On the other hand, look at some of Lewis Baltz's photos. Shot with a Leica on a tripod and Kodak 6040 film. Incredibly sharp.

Edited October 31, 2024 by Pieter12

[Michael Geschlecht]

2 hours ago, TheEyesHaveIt said:

Hi all - I've been trying to use my MP more (also have an M11 which is my main camera) and I want to make sure my expectations are set appropriately when it comes to resolution and sharpness. Or if I'm doing some wrong when it comes to scanning (I scan using the Valoi Easy35 system using a Sony A7RIV with the 90mm macro). At 75-100% zoom of the scans, the image resolution and sharpness drops off significantly. While images look fine on my iPhone, the details just aren't there at full resolution. It's all a bit fuzzy.

Attaching a recent image shot on Kodak Gold 200 - unfortunately, can't attach full res here, but maybe it'll illustrate what I'm saying.

But just wondering if this is expected sharpness and resolution from 35mm or if I'm doing something wrong?

Thanks all.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Hello TheEyesHaveIt,

It would appear that the photo you included is focused on the sidewalk in front of the camera. Which appears to be sharp & clear.

Is it possible for you to provide another photo with a subject at some distance which is specifically focused on?

It would be good if the lens was set at a medium aperture & the camera/lens were on a tripod.

It would also be good if the lens type, lens opening used & shutter speed used were included.

Such as: 50mm f2 Summicron - f5.6 at 1/125 second.

When Leitz (Who, at that time owned Leica.) introduced the S1 digital camera in the late 1990's they said that the resolution of the square image was a little over 5,000 pixels by 5,000 pixels.  Which is 25 million pixels. They said that this was the equal of Kodachrome transparency film. Which was a regularly available slide film. Which is no longer produced today.

Kodak Gold 200 does not have the resolution of Kodachrome. But a properly focused exposure using Kodak Gold 200 should produce a high quality print with a high level of detail & perfectly good colors, etc.

Looking forward to seeing another photo.

Best Regards,

Michael

 

[TheEyesHaveIt]

1 hour ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

Hello TheEyesHaveIt,

It would appear that the photo you included is focused on the sidewalk in front of the camera. Which appears to be sharp & clear.

Is it possible for you to provide another photo with a subject at some distance which is specifically focused on?

It would be good if the lens was set at a medium aperture & the camera/lens were on a tripod.

It would also be good if the lens type, lens opening used & shutter speed used were included.

Such as: 50mm f2 Summicron - f5.6 at 1/125 second.

When Leitz (Who, at that time owned Leica.) introduced the S1 digital camera in the late 1990's they said that the resolution of the square image was a little over 5,000 pixels by 5,000 pixels.  Which is 25 million pixels. They said that this was the equal of Kodachrome transparency film. Which was a regularly available slide film. Which is no longer produced today.

Kodak Gold 200 does not have the resolution of Kodachrome. But a properly focused exposure using Kodak Gold 200 should produce a high quality print with a high level of detail & perfectly good colors, etc.

Looking forward to seeing another photo.

Best Regards,

Michael

 

Hi - thank you for asking. I believe I did nail focus in the first shot as I was shooting with a 28mm lens at f8 or f11 and focused in the mid-field. Shutter speed was likely at least 1/500th. A 100% crop of the sidewalk (or anywhere in the image) still looks grainy / fuzzy to me. But as was mentioned above, perhaps that is to the expected when "pixel peeping".

Here is another image - shot either with a 28 or a 35 at f8+ at 1/500+. Focused on the area the cyclist is in (she was moving so I believe I did nail focus properly). I'm also including a 100% crop in my next post.

Appreciate the insights.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited October 31, 2024 by TheEyesHaveIt

[TheEyesHaveIt]

100% crop from scan of cyclist.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[ktmrider2]

That image looks fine to me.  What am I missing or what do you expect?

[fotomas]

Compared to a digital camera like the M 11 35 mm film will always look not as sharp (maybe except high resolution films like CMS 20 II)). The scan looks fine. Kodak Gold 200 isn't the sharpest film. BW film mostly is sharper then color film.

[250swb]

@TheEyesHaveIt The girl on the bicycle looks fine for sharpness and grain and the trick to make it sharp to the eye is to stand further away. Yes, stand further away because pixel peeping doesn't work with 35mm unless you are using a more specialist film and technique. All the classic photographs you've seen reproduced in books or on the internet kind of look like the girl on the bicycle if you see them in an exhibition. 

At the beach you could use a slower finer grain and sharper film like CineStill 50D, you should have plenty of light. And over exposing colour negative film has the effect of reducing grain, 1 stop or maybe 1.5 stops more and you'll still get perfect negatives.

I agree the first photo you showed doesn't look like you nailed the focus for the main part of the scene at all, so if you were using zone focusing just don't, it's for emergencies.

Edited October 31, 2024 by 250swb

[Borna]

I think your photos look just fine. Perhaps you have to have much slower color film with exceptional sharpness to it to make you satisfied? Ektar 100/Velvia or any similar perhaps will do just fine. But I don't see any problems. Try a Plustek scanner and see if you get different results than your camera scanning. 

[250swb]

5 hours ago, Borna said:

I think your photos look just fine. Perhaps you have to have much slower color film with exceptional sharpness to it to make you satisfied? Ektar 100/Velvia or any similar perhaps will do just fine. But I don't see any problems. Try a Plustek scanner and see if you get different results than your camera scanning. 

I don't think a Plustek scanner will come close to the OP's Sony 60mp camera for resolution and DR alone, and it has the possibility of using pixel shift. 60mp is probably all that's needed anyway but if 16-shot pixel shift was used to scan the negative it would produce a 240mp file within a second compared with the only alternative for the Plustek of hours spent multi-sampling each image.

[TheEyesHaveIt]

Thank you all for taking a look and confirming / clarifying for me. Good to know I’m not doing anything incorrect on my end and am getting the expected results. I will check out a film with lower speed and just saw a video yesterday showing the how some films have a reduction of grain when over exposing 1 stop (I think the video was about Portra 400). I’ve been meaning to try B&W as well so will maybe shoot that next.

Appreciate all the feedback and advice!

[costa43]

15 hours ago, TheEyesHaveIt said:

Hi - thank you for asking. I believe I did nail focus in the first shot as I was shooting with a 28mm lens at f8 or f11 and focused in the mid-field. Shutter speed was likely at least 1/500th. A 100% crop of the sidewalk (or anywhere in the image) still looks grainy / fuzzy to me. But as was mentioned above, perhaps that is to the expected when "pixel peeping".

Here is another image - shot either with a 28 or a 35 at f8+ at 1/500+. Focused on the area the cyclist is in (she was moving so I believe I did nail focus properly). I'm also including a 100% crop in my next post.

Appreciate the insights.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

This looks like a solid scan to me. In my experience, 35mm film has a comparable resolution to a 10mp digital image, like my m8. This is a really rough comparison but it definitely won’t be anywhere near as detailed as a 60mp digital file from the m11. It’s more about the aesthetic. 
 

[250swb]

1 hour ago, TheEyesHaveIt said:

Thank you all for taking a look and confirming / clarifying for me. Good to know I’m not doing anything incorrect on my end and am getting the expected results. I will check out a film with lower speed and just saw a video yesterday showing the how some films have a reduction of grain when over exposing 1 stop (I think the video was about Portra 400). I’ve been meaning to try B&W as well so will maybe shoot that next.

Appreciate all the feedback and advice!

It’s not all a straight line though! You’ll find Portra 400 or even 800 has less grain that Gold 200, but the principle for colour negative film is good. Lower grain for lower ISO is more a universal thing with B&W, but grain can be very attractive and photographers go after it, just use the film you think matches your photographs, mood, or subject and you can’t go wrong.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello TheEyesHaveIt,

It appears to me that the lens is focused between the cyclist's left foot & the bottom of the frame.

I like to use Kodak Portra 160. For me I find that it has the best combination of fine grain, speed, color accuracy, etc. And it does its best at an ISO of 160/23.

Sometimes the box speed of some films is not the speed that gives a user the best combination, at the highest speed, to do this.

If you could put a photo of a CARTRIDGE of Kodak Gold 200 you are using in this Thread. Showing the 12 little boxes on the side of the cartridge. And please make sure that the little "nubbin" that sticks out is on the LEFT side of the photo:

I will write what that individual cartridge displays as the best ISO setting, as per fine grain, speed, color accuracy, etc.

Sometimes the box speed & the optimal speed for certain circumstances are different.

When adjusting the film speed as per above: It is important to develop the film the way the manufacturer suggests for film exposed at the speed written on the box.

Best Regards,

Michael

Edited November 1, 2024 by Michael Geschlecht