Welcome, Darin!
Darin Rhein wrote:
>At any rate, yes they are scanned from prints, not film. I have been thinking
>about getting a film scanner though.
>
>
As others have mentioned, there are a lot of obvious problems with lack
of apparent sharpness and lost shadow and highlight detail. Sooo much of
this can be the result of indifferent prints and scanning quality, that
it's really impossible to comment on those qualities in the underlying
photos. Even a good scan of a rather good 4x6 print looses a great deal
compared to a film scan. Here's an example I did some time ago
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/PrintvsScan/pages/FBvsFSfu.htm>. As
you can see, even the full frame images differ enormously in quality and
the enlargements show how much more detail, birghtness range and
contrast is in the film than the print.
As you can see from this example shot on what is now Kodak High
Definition 400 film, a good 400 speed film won't give you any grain
problems. I don't know the various Fuji films, so don't know if the one
you mostly use is correct or not. Others may be able to help there. I
wouldn't recommend a switch to slower film until you determine where
your unsharpness is coming from.
>>Get a tripod if you don't have one, get a good one (which usually means a
>>little heavier than you think you might want to carry all over!), and use
>>it.
>>
>>
>I do have a tripod (although not the best), I just need to make myself use
>it more often.
>
>
Several of the shots look like camera shake from too slow a shutter
speed 'may' be a problem. Learning how slow a shutter speed you can hand
hold is an important aprt of learning technique and varies among
individuals. A rule of thumb to start from is one over the focal length.
So for the 50mm lens, hand holding anything slower than 1/60 requires
steady hands and help from a nearby solid object would be helpful. Then
at 210mm, 1/250 sec. or faster is best, and so on.
Again, there are signs of depth of field problems in a few shots. I
asssume you know that the wider open the lens is, the narrower the range
of distances at which the image is sharp. The higher the numerical
f-stop, the greater the DOF. Shallow DOF is great for separating a
subject from a more distant background, but poor for shots where things
at different distances all need to be in focus. Finding the best
combination of flim speed, lens opening, focal length and shutter speed
is the constant task of the photographer.
Although many OM-10s were purchased with decent, late design 50/1.8
lenses, you should check yours. Early versions of the 50/1.8, including
my first OM lens bought in the early 70s, just aren't really sharp. Not
bad enough to cause the unsharpness of the photos on your site, but
something you should know about as your technique improves. There is
lots about this in the list archives and you can get an idea of the
differences on Gary's lens test site
<http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm>.
>>Learn the Olympus technique of supporting the camera in your hands,
>>even while on the tripod, and squeezing off shots. That's especially
>>important technique to get the best out of the OM-1.
>>
>>
>When I do remember to bring the tripod along, I use an M. Remote cord
>(forgot to mention I use a winder).
>
>
A winder is fine, as long as you don't shoot rapidly enough that the
vibration from the winder doesn't die down before the next shot, but
your tripod technique is wrong. Even with the mirror lock up, a 35mm SLR
sitting unsuported on even a good tripod is not going to give good
results. If you go through Gary's tests, which were all done with solid
tripod support, you will see differences in almost every case between
tests with just mirror lock up on OM-1s and those done with the later
bodies with both mirror and aperture pre-fire. You may also notice the
extensive testing of some telephoto lenses with different camera bodies,
lens supports, etc. That's because the operation of mirror, aperture
mechanism and shutter mechanism all create various sympathetic
vibrations in the camera body structure, the connection between body and
lens, the tripod head and tripod legs (especially the legs of light,
aluminum tripods, which can vibrate like crazy without a sufficient load).
So that's the bad news. The good news is that vibration damping, in the
form of human hands holding the camera and pressing down gently, but
firmly, on camera and tripod, do a rather good job of damping these
vibrations. Another excellent damper, and the best way if you must
operate remotely, is a beanbag filled with something relatively heavy
and granular, like birdshot, sand, etc., draped over body and lens.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|