How sharp should I expect film to be?

[bdjackson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think they look fine. Why not print a few pictures out, pin them on your wall and review at a realistic viewing distance and see how you feel about them then. 

[JoshuaR]

18 hours ago, bdjackson said:

I think they look fine. Why not print a few pictures out, pin them on your wall and review at a realistic viewing distance and see how you feel about them then. 

For me, this was a big secret to enjoying film again after many years of digital. Print it! Then you start to interact with the image at the right scale and to understand what the look of film really does (and doesn't do) for an image.

[adan]

On 10/30/2024 at 5:24 PM, 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

Short version: Your sample pictures look normal to me, at least for an ISO 200 color negative film, enlarged significantly from an image that is only 24 x 36mm originally.

Longer version:

Keep in mind what photographic film actually is. It is a plastic base material, coated with a layer of gelatin (for color films, three or more layers of gelatin, to differentiate the three primary colors of light - red, green and blue). All permeated with microscopic silver-halide crystals to make it light-sensitve. It is more or less just a laboratory-grade version of the gelatin desserts one can buy and eat (minus the coloring - mostly). 

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!

Gelatin, and the crystals added to it, diffuse light (bounce light around, and blur and spread it a little).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_diffusion

The "glowing white ball" on the sunglasses frame of your cyclist is a fairly classic "diffusion blur", although larger than average because it is diffusing intense light direct from that continuous thermonuclear explosion we call the Sun.

And the whole gelatin-light-scattering process happens again - when re-photographing the film (with camera, enlarger or scanner) to take the film to a new stage.

Diffusion (not to be confused with diffraction as such) is an inescapable blurring-factor in film photography. Although there are choices one can make to minimize its appearance.

Use BIG film (which requires less enlargement/magnification, and thus keeps the diffusion blurs invisible). This (plus grain) is the main reason many photographers kept on using medium-format and/or huge view cameras for their work, even after "Barnack-sized" easy-to-carry 35mm cameras arrived 100 years ago.

Use ultra-THIN-coating films (microfilms) which will mostly mean extreme-low-ISO (6 to 40 or so), and for best results, B&W-only single-layer coatings.

Use special "surface-acting" developers (also B&W-only) that do not penetrate the film, and thus only develop the image that was not diffused by entering the deeper parts of the gelatin coating (fairly common 1930-1960s, for picky 35mm picture-makers).

Or to avoid those exotic approaches, use more "normal" films of fairly LOW ISOs (160 or less) - that also incorporate chemical tricks to keep the gelatin coatings(s) as thin as possible, and approximate the effect of surface-acting developers through enhancement of edge-contrast (chemical "unsharp-masking," more or less): the T-grain or Delta-grain B&W films, and color films that use the same technology (generally the pricier "Pro" films: Portras, Ektar 100, Fuji Velvia slide films).

Or, of course, just say the heck with it, and use any film you want in any size you want - as originally intended.

For prints - and/or on-screen viewing - no larger than a "letter-sized" piece of paper.

Edited November 2, 2024 by adan

[sometimesmaybe]

On 10/31/2024 at 10:24 AM, TheEyesHaveIt said:

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

your images look about right for Gold 200. you might have more luck using a finer grain stock like Portra 160 (as per below)

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!

[sometimesmaybe]

or AeroColor IV 

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!

[sometimesmaybe]

Gold 200

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!

[Sebastian S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

back in the days we used slide film for professional work. can't beat the sharpness of a velvia 50 with any negative film. or try b&w, there are still some gigapixel films around or you could use acros 100 for convenience, which is unbeliveable good in every way.

[fotomas]

For the question raised in the titel:

For 35 mm I did posted an example some times ago. Can be seen here.

And later on for medium format also.

But that's examples with high resolution film. 
Here an comparison of a normal low ISO finegrain film with high resolution.

The normal film Rollei Retro 80S is already a very sharp and finegrained film. 

But this is not average materials. For a Kodak Gold 200 the sharpness look quit OK.

Ektar 100 or Portra should be sharper, but the new Portras of today are not as sharp as the old ones any more.

BW film always was sharper then color film. Sharpest color film was Kodachrome. Fuji Velvia 50 comes close.

One of the sharpest color negative film was Fuji Superia Reala. Better then Ektar 100, but a bit grainier. Unfortunately the good stuff is almost gone.

In the I like film thread are a lot of sharp examples, as well as unsharp too. A good scanner also as a large impact on what you will get.

 

Edited November 29, 2024 by fotomas

[skucera]

Looking at the initial images from the OP, it looks like they're all just slightly out of focus.  Is it possible that the photographer is wearing progressive eyeglasses?  Is the photographer a wearer of glasses who takes them off to look through the viewfinder?  If the photographer needs eyeglasses and takes them off to look through the viewfinder, does the photographer have an astigmatism?

In all these cases, the camera may be providing some of the vision correction that the photographer's glasses normally provide.  

I recognize these possibilities because I suffer from nearsightedness, have an astigmatism, and I need bifocals now that I'm older.  Unfortunately, because of these conditions I can't just slip on a corrective diopter to enjoy my cameras without glasses.  I have to keep my glasses on, and because I have progressives, I have to be very careful which portion of the glasses I look through because of the variable correction changes rapidly with only a few degrees of change off of straight-ahead.  Worse, if my glasses slide down my slippery nose on a warm day, it may affect how I focus my manual focus lenses and I won't realize until I get the prints back.  It has resulted in a lot of frustration!

As much as I love my old cameras, I've found that as I've grown older that I get better results from auto-focus cameras.  This is a terrible admission on a Leica forum, but it is nonetheless the truth for me.  Aging has its frustrations.

Good luck,

Scott

Edited December 3, 2024 by skucera
Typo

[Doug A]

17 hours ago, skucera said:

Looking at the initial images from the OP, it looks like they're all just slightly out of focus.  Is it possible that the photographer is wearing progressive eyeglasses?  Is the photographer a wearer of glasses who takes them off to look through the viewfinder?  If the photographer needs eyeglasses and takes them off to look through the viewfinder, does the photographer have an astigmatism?

In all these cases, the camera may be providing some of the vision correction that the photographer's glasses normally provide.  

I recognize these possibilities because I suffer from nearsightedness, have an astigmatism, and I need bifocals now that I'm older.  Unfortunately, because of these conditions I can't just slip on a corrective diopter to enjoy my cameras without glasses.  I have to keep my glasses on, and because I have progressives, I have to be very careful which portion of the glasses I look through because of the variable correction changes rapidly with only a few degrees of change off of straight-ahead.  Worse, if my glasses slide down my slippery nose on a warm day, it may affect how I focus my manual focus lenses and I won't realize until I get the prints back.  It has resulted in a lot of frustration!

As much as I love my old cameras, I've found that as I've grown older that I get better results from auto-focus cameras.  This is a terrible admission on a Leica forum, but it is nonetheless the truth for me.  Aging has its frustrations.

Good luck,

Scott

I have a number of issues with my vision, some of which are worsening with age. Sixty years ago I found it easier to focus a rangefinder camera than a reflex camera which depends on judging the sharpness of the image on the viewfinder screen. Today the only way I can focus a reflex camera is with the little split image circle in the middle of the screen. Even the microprism surrounding it is useless. But my vision issues have not affected my ability to focus a rangefinder camera, particularly the Barnacks with their 1.5 to 1 rangefinder magnification. 

The OP is using an MP. The M cameras are not as easy to focus as the Barnacks but I would still be very surprised if vision issues would affect their ability to focus the image. 

[sometimesmaybe]

On 12/3/2024 at 3:39 PM, skucera said:

As much as I love my old cameras, I've found that as I've grown older that I get better results from auto-focus cameras.  This is a terrible admission on a Leica forum, but it is nonetheless the truth for me.  Aging has its frustrations.

Same issue here. I'm ok with manual focus on my m246 and EVF (with focus peaking), but i have no hope with manual film cameras unless I'm zone focusing.

I take my Canon 1v and 1n (just for the AF) to all my shoots now

[oldwino]

I wear contact lenses (and reading glasses for...reading). I used to use the multi-focal contacts, but a few years back I switched back to a regular lens in my right (dominant) eye. So I see distance crisply in my right, and my left can focus better closer. It's amazing that the brain can compensate for this, but it does.

At any rate, this has made focusing my SLRs much easier than before. I still find rangefinders better for shorter focal lengths (35 and under). 50mm is pretty much the same with either focusing system. But at least now I can focus my longer nikkors with good accuracy.

[Hell]

On 11/2/2024 at 1:19 AM, JoshuaRothman said:

For me, this was a big secret to enjoying film again after many years of digital. Print it! Then you start to interact with the image at the right scale and to understand what the look of film really does (and doesn't do) for an image.

As @JoshuaRothman and @bdjackson said, printing the photos really gives a much more satisfying end product. When you have bad prints, they are a bit aggravating. When the prints are nice, you have a little piece of art. Comparing 35mm scans to digital camera images on screen is really not playing to film's strengths.

But that pile of bad prints will sit there mocking you, and aren't as easy to ignore or delete as your rubbish digital snaps!

[Hell]

 

Somewhat off-topic to the original post, but I hope people find it relevant.

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!

 

2 PM in late November at the dock in Honningsvag, Norway. Lunchtime!

2023 Leica M6, Summicron 35mm, Ilford Delta 3200. 

Ag Labs development and scan. I let my Pixel8 phone do "Unblur" and "Enhance" which has gotten rid of the grain, and used the Instasize app to reduce file size so that I could upload here.

I had the lab do high-res scans on the batch of photos from Norway, and got standard 6x4 prints. The prints are gorgeous, better than I've had in recent years. The scans show high-res images of grain in greater detail; I'm not so sold on them.

Commercial prints these days are made from a digital scan. Although these prints are better than anything I've had in recent years, they are definitely less detailed than the prints from many years ago which were actual photo-optical enlargements. I don't know if these prints are better because I asked for a high-res scan.

Do I really need to start making my own prints at this advanced age of mine?

Anyway, I'm enjoying the process.

[Pyrogallol]

On 12/3/2024 at 4:39 AM, skucera said:

Looking at the initial images from the OP, it looks like they're all just slightly out of focus.  Is it possible that the photographer is wearing progressive eyeglasses?  Is the photographer a wearer of glasses who takes them off to look through the viewfinder?  If the photographer needs eyeglasses and takes them off to look through the viewfinder, does the photographer have an astigmatism?

In all these cases, the camera may be providing some of the vision correction that the photographer's glasses normally provide.  

I recognize these possibilities because I suffer from nearsightedness, have an astigmatism, and I need bifocals now that I'm older.  Unfortunately, because of these conditions I can't just slip on a corrective diopter to enjoy my cameras without glasses.  I have to keep my glasses on, and because I have progressives, I have to be very careful which portion of the glasses I look through because of the variable correction changes rapidly with only a few degrees of change off of straight-ahead.  Worse, if my glasses slide down my slippery nose on a warm day, it may affect how I focus my manual focus lenses and I won't realize until I get the prints back.  It has resulted in a lot of frustration!

As much as I love my old cameras, I've found that as I've grown older that I get better results from auto-focus cameras.  This is a terrible admission on a Leica forum, but it is nonetheless the truth for me.  Aging has its frustrations.

Good luck,

Scott

I found a huge difference when I bought a +1.5 or +2 dioptre screw in eyepiece for my M bodies. Now I can clearly see the rangefinder double images.

Edited December 15, 2024 by Pyrogallol

[username]

On 10/31/2024 at 12:24 AM, TheEyesHaveIt said:

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

If I were you I'd get some of the sharpest 35mm film, like Kodak Ektar (color negative), Velvia (color slide) or T-Max 100 (b&w),
find a motiv that offers a lot of detail and that is easy to focus (something static, not moving cyclists etc.), in bright light, 
set your lens to f5.6 or f8, and double check that the shutter speed you're going to use is fast enough (something you'll definitely be able to hold still).

Like somebody else said already, with black & white film you can see the grain nicely when you zoom in, and you can tell if it's sharp.
With color it's not quite the same as it's multiple layers of dye clouds that form the image, not silver halide crystals like in b&w.
Shoot and scan both, and you'll clearly see the difference.

All this being said your girl-on-the-bike image is reasonably sharp already considering it's "only" Kodak Gold, it doesn't get much better than that with 35mm -
if you really want to check out how far you can go in regards to sharpness try the films mentioned above with proper shot discipline, then you'll know for sure 👍

Happy shooting!