Out of focus landscape photos??
LMG50
645 camera. When I developed the pictures, the part of the image at the
bottom, which was trees and ground, was very sharp, but the part at the top,
which was tree branches against overcast sky, was very blurred. The pictures
showed the same effect whether horizontal or vertical, and I have seen this as
well in photos taken with a super-ikona 6x6 (although not with pictures taken
with a Mamiya 7). I have not tested the camera (I plan to) but prior pictures
of non-backlit subjects seem sharp throughout. Can back-lighting cause
blurring? What do you do to prevent that?
Thanks, Lee
John Costello
I am not trying to be funny, but is it possible the wind was blowing the top of the
trees?
John
htodm...@my-deja.com
There are only a few elements that will cause blurred images. My first
guess is that maybe there was a wind that caused the trees to move
during the exposure. Was the exposure slower than 1/60th of a second?
If it was, maybe you moved the camera. Back or front light will not
cause a blurred image. I would try testing the camera with it on a
solid tripod and take several images to eliminate camera shake as a
cause.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
jjsta...@my-deja.com
lm...@aol.com (LMG50) wrote:
> I took some pictures in Central Park this week using tmax 100 and a
fuji folder
> 645 camera. When I developed the pictures, the part of the image at
the
> bottom, which was trees and ground, was very sharp, but the part at
the top,
Given that the bluring is against the bright area, I'd suspect flare.
Are you by any chance using a filter over the lens?
Robert E. Smith
>
> LMG50 wrote:
>
> > I took some pictures in Central Park this week using tmax 100 and a fuji folder
> > 645 camera. When I developed the pictures, the part of the image at the
> > bottom, which was trees and ground, was very sharp, but the part at the top,
> > showed the same effect whether horizontal or vertical, and I have seen this as
> > well in photos taken with a super-ikona 6x6 (although not with pictures taken
> > with a Mamiya 7). I have not tested the camera (I plan to) but prior pictures
> > of non-backlit subjects seem sharp throughout. Can back-lighting cause
> > blurring? What do you do to prevent that?
> >
> > Thanks, Lee
>
> I am not trying to be funny, but is it possible the wind was blowing the top of the
> trees?
>
> John
My first impression also, but the words "very blurred" got me thinking
about folding cameras. Is it possible that the mechanism is not locking
the lens completely in the parallel position? My bet is that something
is preventing proper alignment.
dr bob.
Richard Knight
"Robert E. Smith" <rsm...@dmv.com> wrote in message
news:3A16F6...@dmv.com...
(snip)
> My first impression also, but the words "very blurred" got me thinking
> about folding cameras. Is it possible that the mechanism is not locking
> the lens completely in the parallel position? My bet is that something
> is preventing proper alignment.
>
> dr bob.
I would agree with you if he had said the blurring was only in vertical or
horizontal format. He said it was the same in either position. That would
indicate something other than the lens axis not being perpendicular to the
film plane (otherwise the image would be blurred on the right or left when
changing from one format to another. I would have to say it was the movement
of the trees causing the blurring.
Richard
Robert E. Smith
back out of this discussion now - but this is engaging. Could the
problem be as simple as depth of field? Could the dof be so shallow at
the camera settings (not revealed in the originator's post) that a
slight upward tilt would cause this result? I have had the reverse
happen with a MF camera. More imformation is needed here.
dr bob.
JTI
>John Costello wrote:
>>
>> LMG50 wrote:
>>
>> > I took some pictures in Central Park this week using tmax 100 and a
fuji folder
>> > 645 camera. When I developed the pictures, the part of the image at
the
>> > bottom, which was trees and ground, was very sharp, but the part at the
top,
>> > which was tree branches against overcast sky, was very blurred. The
pictures
>> > showed the same effect whether horizontal or vertical, and I have seen
this as
>> > well in photos taken with a super-ikona 6x6 (although not with pictures
taken
>> > with a Mamiya 7). I have not tested the camera (I plan to) but prior
pictures
>> > of non-backlit subjects seem sharp throughout. Can back-lighting cause
>> > blurring? What do you do to prevent that?
>> >
>> > Thanks, Lee
>>
>> I am not trying to be funny, but is it possible the wind was blowing the
top of the
>> trees?
>>
>> John
>
>about folding cameras. Is it possible that the mechanism is not locking
>the lens completely in the parallel position? My bet is that something
>is preventing proper alignment.
>
>dr bob.
If this were the cause, wouldn't the blurring be moved to the left or right
side of the image when the camera is turned from hor. to vert. position? If
Lee's pictures are blurred on the top side, regardless of the position of
the camera, I think we only have two causes left: wind or over-exposure of
the sky causing haze.
Jan
LMG50
information.
The picture was taken at 1/30 sec. at f/3.4 (i.e, wide open) focused at
infinity. I was using a monopod, and I have dismissed camera shake as a
possibility because the non-back lit portions of the photos are extremely
sharp. There was also no noticeable wind, and I doubt it was because the camera
was not fully opened because in the vertical shots, the blurred portion was
still at the top of the photo.
I do not know enough about flare to know if that could cause the problem.
However, there was no sunlight, and the sky was deep overcast.
I have examined some photos taken with this camera of other subjects, and they
are sharp corner to corner, even enlarged to 16x20.
Thanks for your help in trying to figure this one out.
Nicholas O. Lindan
>
> Thank you all for your thoughtful replies. Here is some more detailed
> information.
>
> The picture was taken at 1/30 sec. at f/3.4 (i.e, wide open) focused at
> infinity.
Might you have tree branches hanging down in front from other trees that
are closer than the hyperfocal distance for extreme sharpness - maybe only
20-30 feet away.
Are far-away branches against the sky sharp?
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio noli...@ix.netcom.com
Technical Management Consulting & Engineering Services:
New Product Development; Electrical Engineering;
Software, System and Circuit Design. Oh, & Photography
Stanislaw B.A. Stawowy
but:
1/30 sec for a view camera?????? On monopod??????????????????????????????/
Below 1/250 you HAVE to have unsharp photos..
--
-----
St.
LeSabre
(Stanislaw B.A. Stawowy)
http://www.geocities.com/Stanislaw_Stawowy
jjame...@my-deja.com
the edges of anything else backlit. The light bends or flares around the
edges of the object and causes flare. You can have an extremely sharp
image but if you have thin objects backlit you will have this
appearance. james
jjsta...@my-deja.com
lm...@aol.com (LMG50) wrote:
> Thank you all for your thoughtful replies. Here is some more detailed
> information.
Were you or were you not using a filter over the lens? Given the
unsharpness is of relatively fine objects in the bright-sky area I
stand by my guess that the problem is flare - either at the lens
(possibly exacerbated by a filter) or possibly halation at the
emulsion. Maybe both.
LMG50
>unsharpness is of relatively fine objects in the bright-sky area I
>stand by my guess that the problem is flare - either at the lens
>(possibly exacerbated by a filter) or possibly halation at the
>emulsion. Maybe both.
I was not using a filter, and the blurred branches were far enough away that I
do not think it was a DOF problem. I am inclined to think that it is a flare
problem, but I do not really know enough about flare to say for sure.