>>4300552>At that close, you probably want to be f8 depending on your tolerance for diffraction.I did another try.
Couldn't get perfect A/B aperture changes since my remote app doesn't let me control aperture and the camera isn't mounted on anything secure and turning dials is kind of heavy handed however careful I try to be, so there was a bit of cam movement between tests. I did my best and there's like a subpixel's worth of rotation which would be like 1/300th of an inch however that translates to degrees.
Focus was manual remotely via the app.
f/3.5 has soft subpixels in the top right but the dust is sharp
f/16 has the subpixels looking okay but some of the dust to the right is less sharp
>I'd still guess your issues are more technique based than anything.I think you're right.
There doesn't even seem to be 2mm of sharp DOF. I guess it is user error/technique and this distance requires WAY more precision than I ever imagined it would.
How much easier would it be be to use a longer lens at a further distance?
>If you want to see how it handles a film scan, try scanning some film.That's a future project I still gotta get stuff for, including lighting. Best I got right now would be like an incandescent bulb, some white paper or sheets for diffusing, and trying to handhold the camera+film and I know that'd be a total joke so I'm waiting till I get some kind of film holder/stand+light source before attempting that.
I think I will hold off on scanning my film until I have a different camera, something that can do tethering so I can be totally hands off aside from moving negs through a holder.
All things considered, I'm now kind of impressed with what idiot proof flatbeds are capable of.
Anyway here are the images. A little bigger, 50% scale vs 1/3.
#1 f/3.5