Finally

If you’re shooting a waist-level finder on a medium format camera (well, any SLR really…) and you can’t seem to get “crisp” shots when they appear in focus, consider the possibility that the mirror supports may have deteriorated, or your focusing screen is malpositioned.

In my case, the focusing screen was about a millimeter too low (about 1/32 of an inch, if you still speak “ancient”) and everything was slightly front-focused.

This is Tri-X 400 pushed to ISO 1200 and developed in D76.

(Oh and congrats to Jordan and the Kansas City Chiefs…who apparently aren’t in Kansas anymore.)

🤣

oy vey.

Hazy

This is what happens when you drink too many cocktails made of rum and IPA.

🙂

You’ll have to excuse the blur…even at 1600 ISO, most were shot at 1/8s or slower.

NPL Does B&W Too!

These two files were both scanned and processed exactly the same way–but there is one important difference:

The second was scanned using the Betterscanning holder, with ANR glass.

If you zoom in, you will note a definite increase in sharpness–but the interesting thing is the ever-so-slight difference in the actual character of the file–presumably due to the slight curvature of the film, and differing height above the scanner glass.

Holders matter, people.

Unfortunately, I may have to invest in another film scanner (? Braun–WHERE ARE YOU Opticfilm Pro??) as I think there is more in the negative here, and the Epson seems to be maxing-out.  The Epson is definitely good…but good enough, I’m no longer certain.

EDIT:

Well, here is the same negative placed right on the V600 glass, with the Betterscanning ANR Glass placed over it.  It may, in fact, be even sharper, but the difference is extremely hard to notice.  At the very least, it is certainly NO WORSE than the second scan, leading me to believe that either (1) Film flatness matters more than height; or (2) the Epson V600 is really maxed out in terms of detail resolution.

Below are crops of both images, with the Negative-on-glass on the RIGHT (Left is the Betterscanning holder)

Admittedly, these files are a tad flat (and shot at ISO 80 on finely-grained film…) so I may repeat the experiment later using something with a bit more structure.