Is this poor processing/scanning by the lab?

[skida]

Stupidly, I shot a whole roll of HP5 with two untried lenses, a Helios 44M4, and an Optomax 6.3/400. Every shot looks horrible - grainy and unsharp. I can't scan myself at the moment because I have a focussing problem with my Canonscan 8800! I wonder if you can run your expert eyes over the following shots and give an opinion as to whether the lenses have issues, or if the processing and/or scanning by the lab is the problem:

Helios 44M4


B017797_N217_ID268113_FF_P001 by skida, on Flickr


B017797_N201_ID268113_FF_P001 by skida, on Flickr


B017797_N195_ID268113_FF_P001 by skida, on Flickr

Optomax 6.3/400


B017797_N223_ID268113_FF_P001 by skida, on Flickr


B017797_N221_ID268113_FF_P001 by skida, on Flickr


Nothing anywhere with either lens seems to be sharp. The Telephoto shots were taken on a tripod with the self-timer used.

[David]

Holding the negatives up to a light, how do they look,?

[Orio]

Scanning is likely to be the most culprit. Most labs are set to high contrast scanning in order to compensate for most consumers' photos that are blurred/weak/hazed etc.
Labs' developing isn't going to be good too anymore because less and less people do film, and even lesser do B&W, so labs tend to overuse chemicals (in the case of B&W) and store them longer than recommended (in all cases).
Also keep in mind that HP5 isn't the most grainless of films, on the contrary in my personal experience it is a quite grainy film. It can be nice if you are after the grainy effect, but if you look for cleaner output you should try other 400 ISO films, such as Delta 400 or T-Max 400.
Finally, check your film date, expired B&W film does become grainier (although not by the day of course).

[skida]

I got the processing and scanning done by the local franchise, Max Spielman, which is the successor to Klick. B&Ws have to be sent away because they only do C41 in the shop, so I assume the central place they are sent to do a lot of processing. I did notice that the packaging was different this time, plus the file names on the scans follow a different format to all the previous ones, so maybe they have changed the central processing lab.

Holding the negs up to the light, doesn't tell me how sharp they are unfortunately as they are too small to tell.

[visualopsins]

Use fast 50mm as magnifying lens to look at film sharpness...

[ForenSeil]

I think it's both but mostly the scanner. I got very similar results here with B/W dev. and scans from a drug store. At home with my Epson V500 I got much better results, but not as good as when I would develope them myself.

[mdarnton]

To me it looks like you missed the focus, focusing close on the ones where I can find focus. For instance, in the long scene, the very closest grass in the foreground looks fine. In the fountain, the closer parts of the edge of the pool, on the left, look OK. The first, the post, I suspect the focus is in the air short of the post somewhere. On the bird, the near edge of the dock looks better than the bird.

[skida]

If the shots with the Helios are missed focus then there must be a problem with the lens as the long shot was around f11 and set for hyperfocal. I don't claim to be a great photographer but I have never missed focus on 24 consecutive shots before, especially when a good proportion were set at hyperfocal. I will be prepared to eat humble pie if, when I do my own scans, they are all soft like this.

[skida]

As a comparison, here are two shots taken with a different Helios (44M), first a hyperfocal shot with HP5 from the same twin pack as the latest batch, second with Fuji C200, but the same settings as the HP5 shot of the clothes prop:


What the new Market Place looks like in colour by skida, on Flickr


Test shot 2 by skida, on Flickr

[mdarnton]

I just went to your Flicker page to look at the large versions, which still really aren't large enough for the questions you're asking, and the long shot scene is definitely front-focused. You do know that basically hyperfocal and depth of field are scams for the unwary? Even at f/32, there still is only going to be ONE distance that's in focus, and then things get worse in front and back of there. If you want a spot in focus, you have to focus there.

It's such a bad plan, I never understood why people use hyperfocal distances--it virtually guarantees your pix will be out of focus, except by coincidence. I remember reading one source who said that if you were going to do it, at least use the range for a stop or two down--that is, set the hyperfocal for f/5.6, and shoot at f/11--and that you could possibly get acceptable results that way if you were lucky, with the right subject.

[skida]

I understand there is a difference between pin-sharp focus and acceptable focus, but the distance shot doesn't show either. I have taken enough shots in the last 40 years to have realistic expectations and that distance shot shows a major deviation from my expectation when setting the focus on the lens. I also use DOF preview on the camera before committing to the shot. The distance is so unsharp that I would have noticed before shooting.

I am beginning to think that the scans are poor AND that there may be a problem with the Helios 44M-4 lens.

[skida]

Yesterday I tried out the Helios 44M-4 alongside the 44M, with some Jessops 200, dated June 2006. I can't really seperate them for quality (looking at them large shows the drawbacks of the film before any lens imperfections). Both shots at f11 ('cos it was very bright), and no editing or lens filters.


Helios 44M Test by skida, on Flickr


Helios 44M-4 Test by skida, on Flickr