Jump to content

All pictures of came out blurry but not motion blur


brendanaroni

Recommended Posts

Those look like nice sunny day photos so with a 400 ISO film a correct exposure would be around 1/400 sec at f/16. To shoot at around 1/30 sec for some motion blur the lens aperture would have to be around f/64. I doubt that the OP lens has an f/64 aperture setting, or an f/45, 1/60 setting etc.

 

 

Not motion blur.

  • Like 1
James G. Dainis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those look like nice sunny day photos so with a 400 ISO film a correct exposure would be around 1/400 sec at f/16. To shoot at around 1/30 sec for some motion blur the lens aperture would have to be around f/64. I doubt that the OP lens has an f/64 aperture setting, or an f/45, 1/60 setting etc.

 

 

Not motion blur.

 

Because shutters never fail . . .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those look like nice sunny day photos so with a 400 ISO film a correct exposure would be around 1/400 sec at f/16. To shoot at around 1/30 sec for some motion blur the lens aperture would have to be around f/64. I doubt that the OP lens has an f/64 aperture setting, or an f/45, 1/60 setting etc. Not motion blur.

 

My comments remain referencing Image 1 ONLY - and for the sake of our guessometry conversation, as it seems to OP is gone -

 

I think the OP does not state what Film was used - so let's assume ISO100.

 

Although the other four images do appear in bright sun, I do not see any 'hard shadows' in Image 1, maybe it is overcast sky? Ergo (let’s say open up three stops for overcast sky) using the F/16 rule we have usable parameters being around F/5.6 @ 1/100s @ ISO 100.

 

The OP states that the shot was pulled at 1/500s – so for a reasonable exposure, using ISO100 film, he’d be around: F/2.8 @ 1/500 @ ISO100.

 

F/2.8 seems awfully fast for (assumed old) 35 TS Lens? - maybe not though – but it does open the possibility that the details supplied thus far may be in error or at the least not enough to rule out Camera Movement for Image 1.

 

Not that it matters much – but for me, the conversation remains interesting.

 

WW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a little internet research; it appears that Olympus never made a 35mm tilt-shift lens for the OM series cameras. Only a shift lens of f/2.8 maximum aperture.

 

So either the OP's description of the lens was incorrect, or a tilt-shift lens was adapted from another fitting.

 

A badly adapted lens might well be unable to focus to infinity, or it might interfere with the mirror and prevent it returning to the correct position. So we have yet more options for screwing up the focus.

 

The images that people are claiming are too small to analyse, clearly show out-of-focus characteristics to me, and no indication of camera shake at all.

 

Camera shake does not produce all-round halo-type blur that increases with distance. It just doesn't.

 

FWIW, the 35mm Zuiko shift lens offers a very large amount of shift that's greater than that of either Nikon or Canon. An interesting looking lens that might be a fun acquisition - if it can be found at the right price. Or found at all!

Edited by rodeo_joe|1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a little internet research; it appears that Olympus never made a 35mm tilt-shift lens for the OM series cameras. Only a shift lens of f/2.8 maximum aperture.

 

So either the OP's description of the lens was incorrect, or a tilt-shift lens was adapted from another fitting.

 

A badly adapted lens might well be unable to focus to infinity, or it might interfere with the mirror and prevent it returning to the correct position. So we have yet more options for screwing up the focus.

 

The images that people are claiming are too small to analyse, clearly show out-of-focus characteristics to me, and no indication of camera shake at all.

 

Camera shake does not produce all-round halo-type blur that increases with distance. It just doesn't.

 

FWIW, the 35mm Zuiko shift lens offers a very large amount of shift that's greater than that of either Nikon or Canon. An interesting looking lens that might be a fun acquisition - if it can be found at the right price. Or found at all!

 

I read this thread late last night was was going to reply but ended up reading about the Olympus 35mm shift lens instead then falling asleep. Now I want one too!

 

I'm going to blame the OP's problem on inexperience and the combination of the OM-10 with the shift lens. It's an odd paring. You could buy 5 to 10 OM-10s for what one of those shift lenses is fetching on eBay. If it really is this lens he has, then the most likely scenario is that he got if to use with a digital camera and decided he wanted to try it with film. The OM-10 is the cheapest way to go but not the best choice.

 

A different focusing screen is recommended for use with this lens. It is actually possible to change the focusing screen on an OM-10 but I doubt he did. Further, unless he has the manual adaptor for the OM-10 and knows how to use it, the camera will likely not expose correctly for this lens. The OP said he "believes" the shutter speed was 500 but if he didn't actually set the shutter speed, he relied on the aperture priority mode of the camera and it's likely going to be wrong if he shifted the lens. And why would you choose to use an expensive shift lens if you weren't going to shift?

 

To use the lens correctly, you have to determine the exposure using an external meter or using the camera's meter with the lens unshifted. Then set the exposure manually and shift then lens. His samples do look like they're exposed more or less correctly so maybe he got it right. However, with this lens, slow shutter speeds and a tripod are also recommended.

 

Using this lens seems fidgety enough that if you're new to film, the chances of something going wrong are pretty high, - especially with a camera that's not really a good match for it.

Edited by tomspielman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read this thread late last night was was going to reply but ended up reading about the Olympus 35mm shift lens instead then falling asleep. Now I want one too!

 

I'm going to blame the OP's problem on inexperience and the combination of the OM-10 with the shift lens. It's an odd paring. You could buy 5 to 10 OM-10s for what one of those shift lenses is fetching on eBay. If it really is this lens he has, then the most likely scenario is that he got if to use with a digital camera and decided he wanted to try it with film. The OM-10 is the cheapest way to go but not the best choice.

 

A different focusing screen is recommended for use with this lens. It is actually possible to change the focusing screen on an OM-10 but I doubt he did. Further, unless he has the manual adaptor for the OM-10 and knows how to use it, the camera will likely not expose correctly for this lens. The OP said he "believes" the shutter speed was 500 but if he didn't actually set the shutter speed, he relied on the aperture priority mode of the camera and it's likely going to be wrong if he shifted the lens. And why would you choose to use an expensive shift lens if you weren't going to shift?

 

To use the lens correctly, you have to determine the exposure using an external meter or using the camera's meter with the lens unshifted. Then set the exposure manually and shift then lens. His samples do look like they're exposed more or less correctly so maybe he got it right. However, with this lens, slow shutter speeds and a tripod are also recommended.

 

Using this lens seems fidgety enough that if you're new to film, the chances of something going wrong are pretty high, - especially with a camera that's not really a good match for it.[/quote

 

Sorry, yes I ended up getting another om ten. I was using a manual adapter shooting with the sunny 16 method. I soon realized that the manual adapter wasn’t always consistent but I would always meter at 1/500 so that’s why I said I assumed it was 1/500.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I follow, but in any case do you have results that are good now?

 

OM mount 50mm f/1.8s sell for next to nothing-I've paid ~$20 for them. I'd try the camera with that before something else.

 

Also, this may not be advisable if you don't know EXACTLY what you're doing, but I've verified focus in a 35mm SLR before with Scotch tape stretched over the film gate. Basically, what I'll do is focus with the viewfinder, then set the camera to "bulb" and hold the shutter open. The tape functions as a make shift ground glass over the film plane, and with a loupe it's easy to verify that focus is correct at the film plane.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, this may not be advisable if you don't know EXACTLY what you're doing, but I've verified focus in a 35mm SLR before with Scotch tape stretched over the film gate. Basically, what I'll do is focus with the viewfinder, then set the camera to "bulb" and hold the shutter open. The tape functions as a make shift ground glass over the film plane, and with a loupe it's easy to verify that focus is correct at the film plane.

 

Thanks for this, Ben - I'll try it with my Nikkormat, as the viewfinder focus aid seems a little iffy, although I've not yet run a film through it to confirm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the shutter failed so it shot at 1/30 sec f/16 Instead of the needed 1/400 sec f/16 the photo would be badly, badly overexposed.

 

That's why I asked about how the FILM looks . . . The images posted are scans of either the film or the prints which may appear very different from the film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1/30 on ASA 400 film in full sun would be about 4 stops over.

 

On color negative film, you'd end up with a thick, but probably usable negative. If I'm not mistaken, a lot of disposable routinely overexpose color negative film by about this much in full sun to allow them to still expose correctly in the shade.

 

Color negative film-particularly consumer 100 and 400 speed film-can be amazingly tolerant of both over and under exposure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1/30 on ASA 400 film in full sun would be about 4 stops over.

 

On color negative film, you'd end up with a thick, but probably usable negative. If I'm not mistaken, a lot of disposable routinely overexpose color negative film by about this much in full sun to allow them to still expose correctly in the shade.

 

Color negative film-particularly consumer 100 and 400 speed film-can be amazingly tolerant of both over and under exposure.

 

But the OP has an Olympus OM-10 and without the optional manual shutter speed unit it's an Aperture Priority only camera. Unless the meter is out of wack it wouldn't over expose by 4 stops and cause the shutter speed to be too slow. My take is that the OP thought he had the shot focused in the viewfinder but he didn't. Some how it's kind of harder to judge focus in an SLR viewfinder than a print. That's why people need focus aid like split image to manually focus the SLR. Some people I know can never focus without such an aid. I believe the mod on the Nikon forum Shun which is an excellent photographer but does have problem manually focusing without such aid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I follow, but in any case do you have results that are good now?

 

OM mount 50mm f/1.8s sell for next to nothing-I've paid ~$20 for them. I'd try the camera with that before something else.

 

Also, this may not be advisable if you don't know EXACTLY what you're doing, but I've verified focus in a 35mm SLR before with Scotch tape stretched over the film gate. Basically, what I'll do is focus with the viewfinder, then set the camera to "bulb" and hold the shutter open. The tape functions as a make shift ground glass over the film plane, and with a loupe it's easy to verify that focus is correct at the film plane.

 

That reminded me of something that might be relevant given that we're talking about an OM-10.

 

I recently used the technique you described to adjust the lens on an old front-focusing folder. As I started scanning my test roll I was disappointed to see that the pictures came out blurry. I figured I had screwed up somehow. However, when I was looking at the frames I hadn't yet scanned, the first pictures on the roll looked pretty sharp, - at least by eye-balling them. This was a medium format camera so the negatives are pretty big.

 

So I scanned those and they looked great. So what happened? I started playing with the camera and noticed fairly quickly that the shutter was starting to stick. I knew it wasn't sticking before. Crap. Well, at least I knew what the problem was and how to fix it. The thing is that none of the pictures looked that over exposed, - even with the sticky shutter.

 

OM-10s are notorious, especially early ones, for oil migrating to the shutter magnets and causing erratic shutter behavior. It's an easy problem to address but there's a well known OM repair guy who refuses to repair OM-10s, - partly for that reason.

 

At first I wanted to attribute the OPs problem to a fiddly lens, a low spec camera, and a newbie to old cameras. But I think it's pretty hard to get 63 out of 64 shots that badly out of focus in good light. Something is wrong, and with the OM-10 the most likely mechanical problem is a sticky shutter.

Edited by tomspielman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but I've verified focus in a 35mm SLR before with Scotch tape stretched over the film gate.

It works better if the Scotch 'magic' tape is rubbed onto a glass substrate first.

Microscope slides work excellently and the width is just about right for riding across a 35mm film gate - slightly diagonally. And if you snap the length down to 61mm, you can use it in a 120 camera as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...