ron110n Posted November 10, 2008 Share #21 Posted November 10, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Catherine, What film? what ISO? What developer? The particular developer has a lot to do in making your image sharp. I also think the grains are too harsh in your sample. The right developer combo can tame that. Try removing your UV filter and see if there's a difference. If there is... $$$Heliopan$$$ can fix that. Here's something who's light condition is very similar to your sample. Below is the softest Elmarit with an "E49" filter thread. I don't think it's that bad at all. M7, Elmarit 28mm f/2.8 (E49), Fomapan 200, Fomadon R09 1:40 dilution, 20C Pasadena Suicide Bridge Below is a classical film emulsion based in a 1952 German Emulsion and Grain standard. M7, Elmarit 28mm f/2.8 (E49), Efke KB100, Fomadon R09 1:40 dilution, 20C Hollyweird CA Here's a 50mm perspective, to compare to a 28mm like you did in your sample. M7, Summilux 50mm asph, Efke KB100, Fomadon R09 1:40 dilution, 20C Hollyweird, CA Try learning to develop your own film. It's easy and you don't need a dark room since you have a scanner. Most of all, it's fun and you have more command to your results. There are a lot of colleagues here at the forum who just recently learned B&W film developing. Now, they are better than us. Look at Rob & Peter, many of their images can smoke ours. Cheers! -Ron -Ron Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 10, 2008 Posted November 10, 2008 Hi ron110n, Take a look here Shots with Elmarit 28 2,8 look dull.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
imported_peter_m Posted November 10, 2008 Share #22 Posted November 10, 2008 Hi Ron, Good to see you around. As for the developing....I just get lucky now and then ..... this winter things get more serious , getting all the bits and pieces for a darkroom together. Partly I get to blame you for all that mess I am getting myself into Catherine, I am with Rob, it is pretty hard to tell from the scans. One thing you could do is shoot some of the test charts with both lenses . What Ron said on the developer. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bernd Banken Posted November 10, 2008 Share #23 Posted November 10, 2008 What about shooting a roll of slide film? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kodaktrix Posted November 10, 2008 Share #24 Posted November 10, 2008 There is definitely nothing wrong with the lens.I'm sorry to admit this, but the images are poorly exposed/developed. . I would second that! Regards Oliver Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernmelder Posted November 10, 2008 Share #25 Posted November 10, 2008 I'd say it comes from rather poor development, too. I had that look myself when there came a bit light to the film while putting it on the spool of the dev-tank.(that's at least what I suppose it was, could also be too different development time or so) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted November 10, 2008 Share #26 Posted November 10, 2008 I just bought the 28 elmarit and I am not happy with results. I use it on my MP but I don't see the Leica look I thought I would see... Even in f/22 nothing looks sharp. What do I do wrong? Tried it with iso 400, 1600, 3200 and I compared it with my 50 lens shots, iso 400. Catherine They certainly don't look dull to me but it is always hard to tell on scanned images. How do the negs look? and have you done your own processing? They are quite grainy but I like that. I have never used an Elmarit lens I only have Summicron optics but I might pop into my local dealer and try one of his used ones Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted November 10, 2008 Share #27 Posted November 10, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) try 50 100 iso films. That will tell you what is wrong Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted November 11, 2008 Share #28 Posted November 11, 2008 I'd have to agree with the others that development and scanning are to blame, rather than the lens. Old film stock can be another random factor. And the quality of even lab scans can vary alarmingly. So before holding the lens responsible, why not shoot a slide film, as suggested, and/or have the film processed, scanned, and evaluated by a top pro lab. It might cost more than DIY scanning, but will be worth it for peace of mind -- especially when you obviously enjoy using top gear. Good luck! David David Killick, Freelance Journalist and Photographer, New Zealand Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted November 11, 2008 Share #29 Posted November 11, 2008 I wouldnt agree that it is the development at all. There is no real way of knowing. The images shown are from (flatbed?) scan file and screen snap shots. They are small file size. I can make them look pretty reasonable but you cant put back what isnt there in the first place. They have all the hallmarks of silver based film via flatbed scanner with unkown processes in between. Really the Ferrari is stuck in the potato plot and people are standing over the fence saying the timing is off. It might be, it might not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted November 11, 2008 Share #30 Posted November 11, 2008 I wouldnt agree that it is the development at all. There is no real way of knowing. The images shown are from (flatbed?) scan file and screen snap shots. They are small file size. I can make them look pretty reasonable but you cant put back what isnt there in the first place. They have all the hallmarks of silver based film via flatbed scanner with unkown processes in between. Really the Ferrari is stuck in the potato plot and people are standing over the fence saying the timing is off. It might be, it might not. a perfect summary IMO.... To be able to offer ny valuable advice the exact process needs to be understood which at the moment we don't. IMO whilst the images look grainy and a bit flat I don't really see any major issues that could indicate a poor lens. Love the shots though, as someone mentioned above there ar e a couple of great compositions there. andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pemayeux Posted November 11, 2008 Share #31 Posted November 11, 2008 The first thing that jumps out at me is the comment in the first post about shooting at f22. I would recommend that f8 be the smallest aperture due to diffraction. I tend to like this lens best at f5.6. My copy is razor sharp at 5.6, sometimes overly sharp on the M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted December 9, 2008 Share #32 Posted December 9, 2008 forget BW film and flatbed scanning 35mm unless you are experienced when it comes to fault finding. As another poster said, shoot slide film of medium contrast, such as Astia or Provia. Shoot a variety of subjects at good speed (no slower than 1/60th) at apertures from f2.8 to f8 and shoot the same scenes at the same apertures on the 50mm. Of course the field of view will change but the perception of resolution/sharpness should be clear. Do not shoot close ups but choose subjects a moderate distance from the camera. Also shoot some landscapes where everything is at infinity and carefully focused. This will also reveal focus issues. even at f2.8 a distant landscape should show everything in sharp focus, fro left to right, assuming a constant distance for the horizon. As I say, forget B&W film and inspect your transparencies under a quality loupe on a light box. The slide film will also reveal contrast or exposure issues. FWIW there is no need to restrict yourself to F8. this aperture may not deliver enough DOF and certainly F11, even f16, still offers good enough resolution. Resolution is not everything! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.