>>4434562
>That is not "better than any lab scan"
>>4434568
>im not sure if its your skill, your lens, or the scan but this looks terrible
Maybe it's the 800px you dummy, or that the tap handle is literally the only part of the photo in focus, or that it was taken on a 1950's leaf-shutter rangefinder at minimum focus distance in full sun on tri-x and developed in rodinal.
Have you ever seen B&W scanned on a minilab in autopilot? It really is below any acceptable standard.
Here's the raw re-edited a little bigger for you.