All pictures of came out blurry but not motion blur

I used an Olympus om-10 and all 64 pictures but one came out blurry. I’m not sure what going on and if I need to buy a new camera.

The large image DOES appear to have Motion Blur. It appears that the camera was moving diagonally from top right to bottom left as the Shutter was open.

 

What was the Shutter Speed?

WW

The large image DOES appear to have Motion Blur. It appears that the camera was moving diagonally from top right to bottom left as the Shutter was open.

 

What was the Shutter Speed?

WW

I believe it was 500, I’m really new to film photography but I thought I took every precaution before this but The viewfinder was showing it as focused but not in the photo apparently

The large image DOES appear to have Motion Blur. It appears that the camera was moving diagonally from top right to bottom left as the Shutter was open.

 

What was the Shutter Speed?

WW

Do you know what wrong with it?

I don't know. If the Shutter Speed was 1/500s then there should be no reason for blur - unless you had a very long FL lens, like 500mm - but it does look like severe blur to me and not out of focus.

 

WW

These definitely look like out-of-focus images to me. If the viewfinder shows that they are in focus, maybe the mirror or the prism is out of alignment. Maybe the lens is also out of alignment, but there are too many variables to know for sure.

 

A good way to check that the lens is good is to test it on a digital camera with an adapter. So if the lens is good, then you know something is off in the camera. If you put on a prime lens, and set it to infinity, the horizon (or the moon, etc.) should be in focus in the viewfinder. Don't use zooms to test the camera, as they are introduce variables you don't want.

I don't want to offend anyone, but --just to make sure--you are aware that this camera does not have autofocus?

I don't want to offend anyone, but --just to make sure--you are aware that this camera does not have autofocus?

Yes I’m aware it has no auto focus, for every photo I took my time focusing manually and they were basically crystal clear in the viewfinder

These definitely look like out-of-focus images to me. If the viewfinder shows that they are in focus, maybe the mirror or the prism is out of alignment. Maybe the lens is also out of alignment, but there are too many variables to know for sure.

 

A good way to check that the lens is good is to test it on a digital camera with an adapter. So if the lens is good, then you know something is off in the camera. If you put on a prime lens, and set it to infinity, the horizon (or the moon, etc.) should be in focus in the viewfinder. Don't use zooms to test the camera, as they are introduce variables you don't want.

 

Okay, thank you i’ll Try that

I don't know. If the Shutter Speed was 1/500s then there should be no reason for blur - unless you had a very long FL lens, like 500mm - but it does look like severe blur to me and not out of focus.

 

WW

It was 35mm tilt shift lens

Tilt-Shift..... have you tried another lens.?

Perhaps a 50mm.?

A lens that old should have a hard 'infinity' stop. Just wind the focus ring to the farthest distance (shortest lens extension) and then back it off a millimetre or so. Then the lens will be set close to its hyperfocal distance, and everything from a few feet in front of the camera will be in reasonable focus. Ignore what the viewfinder looks like.

 

Looks like you need a new camera, since repair will probably be uneconomical.

 

Afterthought. The T/S lens was designed for Olympus fitting was it? Or has it been adapted to the Oly from some other fitting?

 

Another afterthought. The focus in those example shots appears to be too close; meaning the lens isn't positioned close enough to the focal plane. For the viewfinder to be at fault, either the screen has dropped down out of place, or the mirror is below where it should be (unlikely). So maybe the screen just needs re-seating. Not sure if it's possible to reverse the screen in an OM-10, but that might be the problem too.

Edited July 14, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

One other thought--is your vision reasonably good without needing glasses? I once had a student with an autofocus 35 mm SLR who couldn't get a sharply focused picture when focusing manually. A visit to an optometrist confirmed that she was quite nearsighted and with corrective lenses she could finally see the blackboard from the back row as well as focus her camera accurately.

You say 'without motion blur' - are you referring to the subject or the photographer ?

I've not studied all the replies closely,but if you are seeing the scene in sharp focus on the screen, it should also be in sharp focus on the film, irrespective of the lens - this is down to the optical paths direct from lens to film, and from lens to screen via the mirror, being the same length. If they are different, for example if either mirror or screen are out of position, focusing errors will occur, more noticeably at large apertures.

 

What I would do is fit a lens, preferably a 50mm or similar and not a zoom, with a clear focusing scale, and set up a focus target at a known distance, or just something at infinity. When you focus on this, the distance scale on the lens should agree with the actual subject distance. If it doesn't the camera has a fault with the optical path as I've described above.

 

Another thought - is the pressure plate holding the film tightly against the rails? And is the pressure plate even present? I recently acquired a camera which was actually missing its pressure plate - luckily I has a scrap donor camera.

Is it simply focusing a different distance than the viewfinder is showing?

A john mentioned above the optical path length for focusing should be identical to the optical path length for shooting.

With SLRs operations like changing the focusing screen & putting the shims back wrong (or not at all) will get the optical path distance from lens flange to focusing screen out of adjustment .

 

I'd start with a test shot of something like a tape measure going from the camera & heading straight away. Note the distance you've got focused on the screen & see how the image compares.

Regarding my comments about camera motion blur, I was only commenting on the large photo, the first one: IMO the other four are too small to make any reasonable evaluation.

 

Thinking about this further, and considering that "all" your photos were blurry, then I think that other's comments about there being a fault in the optical path has the most credence - I suggest you follow up those suggestions, firstly testing with another lens, a Prime Lens like a 50mm lens would be a good idea.

 

WW

The first image is CLEARLY camera shake. Clearly . . . The smaller images are much harder to tell so I would guess that they are the same. If the shutter was set at 1/500, you have a problem with the camera. If you are mistaken, it's very difficult to tell where the problem is.

 

Are the negatives over exposed?

The first image is CLEARLY camera shake. Clearly . . .

I'm not so sure.

Here's a deliberately too-closely-focussed shot that appears to have a double image in the OOF areas.

The hanging basket in the foreground clearly shows a lack of camera shake, and yet the bare branches in the background show a faint double image. With no sharp foreground reference, you might easily think the double image was due to camera shake.

 

The OOF double image effect varies among lens models. Probably due to the amount of residual spherical aberration, and its 'polarity'.

 

Anyway. To me all the OP's images seem to simply be out of focus, since the blur becomes greater in the distance.

It's interesting and it might be that there are two issues (for Image 1)

 

Personally I still hold (a strong view) that the First Image shows Blur from Camera Movement. (rationale below): BUT - I reviewed and changed my advice to the OP on the grounds that the OP cites "all" pictures came out blurry - then a T/S lens was used, perhaps with or without a correct adapter - hence a stronger line of initial investigation is that the main problem is an Optical Issue

 

On the point of Camera Motion Blur - taking the Sample Image that rodeojoe has posted - the OOF areas of the tree branches do "show a faint double image" but, the double appears regular in density and shape: on the other hand the doubles in the OP's first image are NOT regular in density, each showing odd densities top and right compared to the main and the densities bottom and left - the two yellow poles are a good example, AND the same pattern (of leading and trailing edges) is repeated across the whole image. I have not seen this as an OOF artifact in any lens. Of course this analysis does not preclude that the image may also be OOF.

 

Anyway, whilst the other four images certainly appear blurry - they're not big enough to identify why: and if all of the images are blurry then its not the first probability that they are all blurry, simply because of camera movement.

 

WW

It could be a glass element fitted the wrong way around during a CLA. I've done this in a 135mm lens and discovered the mistake thankfully just before going on a trip for a photo shoot. Looking through the SLR viewfinder, the focusing and image seemed OK but after repeated viewing, I could tell something wasn't quite right, it was a bit soft. It then dawned on me I may have fitted one of the elements ass about. Luckily, it was the rear glass and little time was needed to remove it, turn it around and re-fit it.

brendanaroni,

 

I would like to see the one picture out of the 64 that did not come out blurry.

I'm not so sure.

 

You must be seeing something in your image that I am not . . .

Who'd have thought that getting just the right amount of camera shake would be so difficult?

I must have spent a half-hour trying different shutter speeds and amounts of camera waving before I got anything even close to what's seen in the OP's first example.

...And still it doesn't look the same!

There are double images, but only in one direction. So it must have been a very peculiar type of camera shake - if that's what it was.

Looks much more like plain out-of-focusness to me.

However, I did come across a weird phenomenon, whereby a thin object across the lens produced distinct double images in out-of- focus areas. I held a piece of thick wire across the front of the lens for this shot.

Which makes me wonder if the OP was trying to shoot through a mesh fence with the misfocussed lens?

Could be a plausible explanation, and no camera shake needed.

 

But it looks as if the OP isn't checking back with us. We might never know the real explanation.

Edited July 16, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1