Poor 120 results and I assume it is the scanner

The Oldun

The Oldun

Messages
220
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
Yes
I went out the other day with my recent acquisition - a GB Kershaw 450, which is in such good condition I suspect it has been overhauled by a professional. Not one of the 12 scanned images appears to be in focus anywhere in the frame. I am discounting the possibility the the lens is jiggered and I am certain I locked the lens/bellows in the fully extended position.

I stopped using my Canoscan 8800F for 35mm because it seemed to have lost the ability to focus - this was demonstrated on negatives that were sharp when scanned elsewhere. I scanned some shots taken on an Ensign Selfix 16-20 a while ago and they weren't perfectly sharp, but the camera was new to me and I thought the scanner might be ok-ish. I include the best or least bad shot from the Kershaw and would welcome any comments or suggestions:
edit bella bridge2.jpg
 
As it is new to you , Did you use the focus scale and depth of field scale ?
On line manuals are available for this camera.
 
F1.2 said:
As it is new to you , Did you use the focus scale and depth of field scale ?
On line manuals are available for this camera.
Click to expand...
This shot was taken using the DOF scale on the lens and was set for hyperfocal distance at f8. I haven't consulted the manual because there is so little to the camera - just aperture, shutter speed and focus. I have been using manual and mechanical film cameras since the 70s. The only thing that had me stumped at first was where the shutter release was - I didn't find it until I watched a youtube video (it is part of the lens cover/base.)
 
Last edited:
I would try a higher F stop of F16 or F22 before anything else.
 
Also the top of the frame "appears" to be more in focus than the bottom (scanner not holding the negs flat or film not flat in camera maybe?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: zx9
GreenNinja67 said:
Also the top of the frame "appears" to be more in focus than the bottom (scanner not holding the negs flat or film not flat in camera maybe?)
Click to expand...
That is entirely possible as that Fomapan 100 in 120 size is some really curly sh*t! :(
 
GreenNinja67 said:
Use a loupe on the negs or a light box and copy stand and photograph them to rule out the scanner
Click to expand...

GreenNinja67 said:
Also the top of the frame "appears" to be more in focus than the bottom (scanner not holding the negs flat or film not flat in camera maybe?)
Click to expand...
My thoughts are as above. ^^^^ Or the lens is well out of alignment but the loupe on a light box will solve that question.
The Oldun said:
That is entirely possible as that Fomapan 100 in 120 size is some really curly sh*t! :(
Click to expand...
Agfa APX always wanted to fight my Epson V700's negative holders, sometimes I need to press 120 negatives in a heavy book for a couple of days before attempting to scan them, not a problem with an enlarger where each frame is tightly clamped by the negative carrier.
 
Put a screen on the back of the camera, focus on something about 2m away, then 5, 10 and infinity.

The image doesn't look like the negative not being flat in the scanner, it just looks like it was focused on just a part of the subject,
 
Sangoma said:
Put a screen on the back of the camera, focus on something about 2m away, then 5, 10 and infinity.

The image doesn't look like the negative not being flat in the scanner, it just looks like it was focused on just a part of the subject,
Click to expand...
I have looked at it full size and larger and I can't find any part of that shot in focus, even the nearest part of the bridge canopy is out of focus, just high contrast. Look at the walkway: Part of that is the same distance as the canopy, but all totally blurred.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zx9
Have you checked the focus / sharpness of the negatives using a loupe as suggested?

Realistically that is the only way to determine if the problem lies with scanner or camera, not discounting user error.

Also f/8 on 6x6 could possibly be a factor too depending where you set the focus distance .
 
Last edited:
I can't find my loupe at the moment (I used to sell jewelry). Looking again at the picture it looks like a small section of the sky, just above the left side of the bridge canopy is in focus, but nothing else. The Otar lens has a depth of field scale on it and I set infinity to the right side f8 mark, so according to the scale, everything from 15 feet to infinity should be in focus. I will try to adapt my negative holder to have vertical frames to hopefully hold each frame flatter - at the moment the frame only holds the top and bottom of the strip, so that one holder fits all 120 frame sizes - cheap skate Canon! I have only shot two rolls of 120 in the last few months: 1 x Fomapan 200 and 1 x Fomapan 100. Both turned out very curly and difficult to get in the neg holder. Next time I will use FP4 or HP5 as in 35mm they tend to dry quite flat compared to Foma's 35mm products.

Thanks to all for the suggestions.
 
The Oldun said:
I have looked at it full size and larger and I can't find any part of that shot in focus, even the nearest part of the bridge canopy is out of focus, just high contrast. Look at the walkway: Part of that is the same distance as the canopy, but all totally blurred.
Click to expand...
Understood, however if the negatives was in focus, part of it should of been in focus on the scanner, going our of focus on the parts that were "curly"

It is quite easy to check the camera, as it is the negative as suggested.

O don't know the scanner, can the negative be held down with the glass from a photo frame? It would no be optically perfect, but it would be infinitely better than what you have if the curling was a problem (on my cheap scanner, that would not be possible as the carrier slides through a slot)

Possibly this weekend we will be trying an alternative method for 120 negatives, if it works I will post it :)
 
The Oldun said:
I can't find my loupe at the moment (I used to sell jewelry). Looking again at the picture it looks like a small section of the sky, just above the left side of the bridge canopy is in focus, but nothing else. The Otar lens has a depth of field scale on it and I set infinity to the right side f8 mark, so according to the scale, everything from 15 feet to infinity should be in focus. I will try to adapt my negative holder to have vertical frames to hopefully hold each frame flatter - at the moment the frame only holds the top and bottom of the strip, so that one holder fits all 120 frame sizes - cheap skate Canon! I have only shot two rolls of 120 in the last few months: 1 x Fomapan 200 and 1 x Fomapan 100. Both turned out very curly and difficult to get in the neg holder. Next time I will use FP4 or HP5 as in 35mm they tend to dry quite flat compared to Foma's 35mm products.

Thanks to all for the suggestions.
Click to expand...
Without access to a loupe you could try hand-holding a lens, reversed?
 
My memory of the Kershaw still cameras is that they were never highly regarded.

Mostly they were aimed at the "snapshot" market, where contact prints or 2X machine prints were the norm. It's possible that your lens is within spec for that model. Having said that, the 450 was priced at £12-19s in 1956; roughly £257 in today's money - so I would expect a better output than you're getting.

When opening the camera, do you do so slowly, to avoid "vacuum cleaner" effect? This is where the film is sucked inwards by the reduced air pressure; I used to have this on an Agfa and it's infuriating, to say the least. Also, using a piece of ground glass or tracing paper in the film gate, have you checked that focus at the gate agrees with the numbers on the scale?
 
If it is the curl of the film causing it, it may be worth trying putting it in the other way up. Don't know how it is held in the carrier, but it may just help.
You can always flip it in the software later.
 
Sangoma said:
If it is the curl of the film causing it, it may be worth trying putting it in the other way up.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that scanning through the base material would be effective. On the other hand, "nothing ventured, nothing gained" may apply. ;)
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I'm not sure that scanning through the base material would be effective. On the other hand, "nothing ventured, nothing gained" may apply. ;)
Click to expand...
It can be done. ( I’ve managed it many times by loading the film’ incorrectly ´)

Obviously the image is inverted just like they are if you load film incorrectly into an enlarger ,but that can be easily rectified in PS or other post processing program.
.
 
Sorry, I seem to have accumulated quite a few responses while I was away. I have been sorting out my CV as I heard there were a few vacancies at BBC Sport ;)

I am going to put 120 on the back burner for a little while as I have managed to acquire a number of 35mm cameras that need a tryout.
 
The Oldun said:
Sorry, I seem to have accumulated quite a few responses while I was away. I have been sorting out my CV as I heard there were a few vacancies at BBC Sport ;)

I am going to put 120 on the back burner for a little while as I have managed to acquire a number of 35mm cameras that need a tryout.
Click to expand...
Also have a few to try, but going to try more than one camera per film, not do cheap anymore.

Do any of yours have a Pronto SVS shutter ?
 
If the scanner allows it, I'd rescan them with a piece of perspex or glass holding the negs flat, and then see what they look like in comparison.
 
Last edited:
The Oldun said:
Yes, the Agfa Super Silette has it.
Click to expand...
I replied to this yesterday, but I can't see it!
Check the lower speeds, nearly all of them are slow or don't work properly, and would need attention.
 
Sangoma said:
I replied to this yesterday, but I can't see it!
Check the lower speeds, nearly all of them are slow or don't work properly, and would need attention.
Click to expand...
I think I have been lucky and the shutter doesn't seem to be lagging on the slower speeds - I will know better in the coming days as I am about to test it for the first time for my vlog.
 
garry71 said:
If the scanner allows it, I'd rescan them with a piece of perspex or glass holding the negs flat, and then see what they look like in comparison.
Click to expand...
I have been analysing my methods when I scanned this and I think it is possible that I scanned them emulsion side up instead of down, which wouldn't help. I also need to modify and improve my negative holder as 120 is a big area to be supported only by the edges.
 
I think I missed something.
You stopped using your canoscan but I can't see what you used instead.
 
soupdragon said:
I think I missed something.
You stopped using your canoscan but I can't see what you used instead.
Click to expand...
Sorry I wasn't very clear about that: I stopped using the Canonscan for 35mm some time ago and subsequently bought a Plustek. I decided to give the Canoscan another chance using it for 120. The first time with the 6x4.5 from the Ensign was mainly successful. The second time with the 6x6 from the Kershaw wasn't. I considered looking to get a Plustek that did 120, but there is no way at £2K.
 
The Oldun said:
Sorry I wasn't very clear about that: I stopped using the Canonscan for 35mm some time ago and subsequently bought a Plustek. I decided to give the Canoscan another chance using it for 120. The first time with the 6x4.5 from the Ensign was mainly successful. The second time with the 6x6 from the Kershaw wasn't. I considered looking to get a Plustek that did 120, but there is no way at £2K.
Click to expand...
I feel your pain regarding the 2k for the plustek scanner as I' really like one.
Given the Ensign gave better results than the Kershaw has me thinking it's not the scanner.
That said, when I owned an Epson V850, film flatness was an issue even with the well designed holders.

Eventually I got an Epson fluid mount and all my problems were gone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top