Nikon: Sharpness of my photographs

[dan_kim1]

Hello, I'm an amateur so I was wondering if there were any pros out

there who could help me with a problem. My problem is this: I've

taken a lot of pictures on my Nikon F3HP and my Nikon Nikkor 35-70mm

2.8 lens. I primarily shoot Tri-X 400 either at 200 or 800 (depending

on what I'm shooting). For every picture I take, however, it seems as

if the pictures are not as sharp as those I see posted at the

photolabs, especially those headshot pictures. I've tried everything

I can to increase sharpness including stopping down and increasing

shutter speed. Does anyone know why those headshots always come out

so crisp? I've had my lens and camera recently serviced so I don't

think there is a problem with my equipment. Any advice to an amateur

on how to increase the sharpness of my photos would be appreciated.

Thank you,

 

Dan

[hudsonphotos]

I would suggest not shooting at 800 iso if you want sharpness. Although the image is still sharp as "in focus" at 800 iso the grain you will see won't match the sharpness of a slowner film.

 

I would recommend Kodak Tmax 100 or Agfa 100 b/w film. Keep the lens about f4 or 5.6 and the camera on a tripod if you want the most sharpness possible.

[mike_scott2]

Many of those headshots (and probably most of the other display prints) were likely shot on medium format. The larger negative = better detail.

[richard_cochran]

There are lots of ways to lose sharpness, and without

seeing your images, it's hard to tell what's wrong. Is

your exposure right

on? Are you using a sturdy tripod? Keeping the lens close to f8?

Focusing properly? Developing and printing using good technique?

<p>

But it's possible you're getting the best possible sharpness

out of your film/camera combination, and you're just comparing

it against an unrealistic standard.

<p>

Tri-X in 35mm is very versatile, but it isn't the sharpest. Try

a slower film, such as Plus-X or Ilford's Pan F if you want

to stay with conventional B&W. There are lots of sharp

slide and color negative films, as well, but they're pretty much all

slower than Tri-X. Also, different developers

can have quite an effect on sharpness.

<p>

Those headshots you're admiring were almost certainly taken in

the studio where there was plenty of light, so the photographer

didn't need to use such a high speed film. But more importantly,

I'll bet the really dazzlingly sharp photos you're admiring

were taken with a bigger negative than 35mm. There's no

35mm camera that is inherently very much sharper than your F3HP

(some might argue that their camera is a bit better, but if

they claim a large easily noticable improvement, they're pretty much

wrong). That lens may not be the absolute very best, but

it's very good, and by f8,

it should certainly be capable of photos that are sharp enough

to meet a professional's standards for 35mm photos. National

Geographic photographers have used similar equipment to get

publishable photos. But wonderful as your

F3HP is, a cheap TLR that takes 120 film will blow it away

as far as making sharp enlargements, and any 4x5 camera will

blow away the TLR.

[Ed_Ingold]

How are you judging the sharpness? It's pretty hard to judge negatives directly. Eyes and eyebrows are the best areas to look at. Are your prints grain-sharp? Commercial photo printers are often placed out of focus to minimize dust problems. Commercial prints often lack the tonal range of custom prints, which affects apparent sharpness.

 

Secondly, how are you taking the pictures? The 35-70/2.8 is amazingly sharp! You can only do it justice using a sturdy tripod. You can improve your hand-held sharpness by holding the camera properly, appropriate posture, concentration and practice.

 

Finally, how are you focusing the camera? Focus on the eyes for head shots (or any other animate object.) If the eyes are sharp, the picture will look sharp.

[Jerry_]

My suggestion: get a 60mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor lens -- the AF version will work manually on your F3. In daylight, the results should be too sharp.

 

If you cannot obtain a 'sharp' print from a lens of this type, then give up on Tri-X and 35mm.

[jonathan_ratzlaff]

This is your second post regarding sharpness with two different cameras. Are you sure there is not something wrong with your technique or perhaps your vision? I suddenly noticed that a number of images I took were not as sharp as I wanted them to be. On close inspection, the viewscreen did not seem as clear as it used to be. I am of an age where I need to wear glasses for focussing; a real pain, however it die improve that problem. If you are missing focus, you can try all you want but your images will be fuzzy.

Are the focussing marks in your veiwefinder clear? If not its your vision. If it is, check your camera system for sharpness

To check for sharpness get some Velvia film. Set the camera up on a tripod. Pick a subject with fine detail. Focus your camera carefully shoot at F8 Use mirror lockup or a self timer. make notes. make a series of image bracketing focus as well as at different apertures. use the 35-70, as many people say it is as sharp as a prime lens. When you get your images back, look at them with a loupe, If you have access to a microscope, use that at about 40X. A sharp image will have texture into the film grain.

Put the 35-70 on your digital camera. Make some test images with it. Turn off the sharpening. Do the same with the tokina, you will have some common focal lengths. Import the images into photoshop and examine them at full resolution or above and compare the two. this will give you some idea of where your problem lies.

[eric_stevens]

If they were fairly large prints, then I would agree with the other posts that these sharp enlargements were most certainly made with medium format cameras.

[robert_byrd1]

I used to have the same problem, and finally discovered I was overexposing everything. Another of my problems was using lighting setups that obscured detail, thus creating a sense of unsharpness. Look at John Hart's book on portrait photography--he describes lighting setups for portraits that will give you really good results in 35mm. He uses the redoubtable Nikkor 105 2.5, but your lens should be close to the same quality.

 

Robert

[nom]

Ok... Seriously now... (although it wasn't a joke at all!)

 

Shoot some slides and check them with a good quality 10X loupe. This will help you to locate the stage that the problem gets into your work: before or after the "click".

You can't imagine how bad the printing can be -especially with 1 hour labs-

 

(BUT... If you are an amateur and you usually make prints to size A4 and you already own a computer, then the easiest way to improve your results is a digital camera. Even a 4 MP model combined with a Epson Photo printer and Photo paper will give you VERY good results. I hate saying this but it is true) :O(

[ShunCheung]

The majority of shaprness problems is the result of photographer errors. Dan, are you using a tripod?

[lukedavis]

One National Geographic photographer, Mike Yamashita, uses (maybe not anymore) a F3HP + MD4 and achieves excellent results. He even sometimes uses Nikkor MF zooms, which are not notoriously sharp. However, I have a problem with sharpness on my photos sometimes as well, however I attribute it mostly to focussing errors - though this probably isn't your problem if you are taking shots where you have time to focus.