The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Some P45+/Hasselblad V series samples

ondebanks

Member
I read so many repetitive and technical posts that somehow feel to me like they miss the point of an artistic endeavour.
On the contrary: change "they miss the point of an artistic endeavour" to "they lay the foundations for an artistic endeavour", and you will understand where we're coming from.

Obviously the end goal is enjoyment from your hobby, I guess there are people for whom the technical aspects are more important than the creative?
The technical aspects can have a fascination in and of themselves, yes.

But more important? No. You are unnecessarily pitting one thing against another. They co-exist peacefully and interdependently.

Ray
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi Ray,

Always nice to read your postings.

In a real world, I would say that we can make great pictures with any equipment. So, I don't think there is anything wrong with either Canon or Nikon, they both have a fine system very capable of almost any job. That is probably the reason most of greatest pictures taken in modern times are shot on Nikon or Canon, they are not always the best tools but they are good enough.

The reason for this thread is mainly to give real world samples showing the characteristics of Hasselblad V-series lenses as there is an urge in interest for Hasselblad V-systems with the release FVC 50c. More specifically, a reader on LuLa asked about the lenses so I posted a few samples, and I felt it was appropriate to start a thread on those images here on GETDpi.

Some of those samples (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/CastleShoot/) were shot to improve my understanding how the lenses performed at different apertures. The reason for this was that I felt that I sometimes get very good and sometimes less good sharpness.

In general I feel that my technique has improved in the 15 months I used MFD.

One aspect of MFD is that we can combine lenses, bodies and backs almost freely. Unfortunately that freedom comes with a monetary price.

Best regards
Erik


But by the same token, there are those who select a Canon or Nikon DSLR precisely because they want to select the best gear for the job and have carefully researched (and rejected) the alternatives, including medium format, on technical grounds - not even on cost grounds.

It sometimes seems to be a blind spot of medium format afficionados that it is not best for everything...although the new CMOS backs/cameras have almost changed that.

Ray
 

synn

New member
On the contrary: change "they miss the point of an artistic endeavour" to "they lay the foundations for an artistic endeavour", and you will understand where we're coming from.



The technical aspects can have a fascination in and of themselves, yes.

But more important? No. You are unnecessarily pitting one thing against another. They co-exist peacefully and interdependently.

Ray
Thing is though, those photographers producing consistently good work have a decent understanding of the technical aspects, more often than not.

The converse isn't always true.
 

ondebanks

Member
rather than constant cross-talk and mtf graphs, better yet, how's this for an idea, show some incredible photography taken with the extensive kit you carry about? Just a thought.
You know what you never see on this forum? This:
rather than constant showing photos and discussing how creative you feel, better yet, how's this for an idea, show some incredible MTF graphs and crosstalk algorithms? Just a thought.

It's far from the first time that I've seen this challenge thrown down - quit discussing tech and show us your photos! And yet, the tech-interested people would not dream of issuing the reverse challenge.

It's remarkable that some of the "art" people do not show the same respect that the "engineering" people show them.

People should show and discuss whatever they like, without being criticised and cajoled into following the demands of someone else's ideas of what photography is about.

Ray
 

synn

New member
You know what you never see on this forum? This:
rather than constant showing photos and discussing how creative you feel, better yet, how's this for an idea, show some incredible MTF graphs and crosstalk algorithms? Just a thought.

It's far from the first time that I've seen this challenge thrown down - quit discussing tech and show us your photos! And yet, the tech-interested people would not dream of issuing the reverse challenge.

It's remarkable that some of the "art" people do not show the same respect that the "engineering" people show them.

People should show and discuss whatever they like, without being criticised and cajoled into following the demands of someone else's ideas of what photography is about.

Ray
I can't speak for the entire world, but to me, a camera is a creative tool. I use it to create art and when the gear is actively incapable of helping me achieve that creative vision, THEN I look into what is technologically preventing me from doing that. This way, I progress on both the artistic and scientific aspects of photography.

The problem I see with constant technical posting is that the posters get so immersed in perfecting technique that they become oblivious to the artistic side. It's not too much to ask them to peek on the other side of he fence once in a while, IMO.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi Ray,

I agree with what you say, but I would note a few things about "crosstalk".

The first is that this thread is actually about images. To my knowledge there is only one MTF curve published on the thread, and I happen too feel that is relevant.

But, neither the P45+ used or the Hasselblad lenses involved are very sensitive to cross talk. So why complain complain about that stuff?

The other point is that the cross talk issue can be quite relevant on a system using tilts and shifts. So, I feel it is very good that Anders Torger "rediscovered" the issue. Reading these threads everyone is aware that a few of the modern MFDBs don't play well together with large shifts. That is certainly good info for anyone planning to invest in an MFD and technical cam combo.

Best regards
Erik

You know what you never see on this forum? This:
rather than constant showing photos and discussing how creative you feel, better yet, how's this for an idea, show some incredible MTF graphs and crosstalk algorithms? Just a thought.

It's far from the first time that I've seen this challenge thrown down - quit discussing tech and show us your photos! And yet, the tech-interested people would not dream of issuing the reverse challenge.

It's remarkable that some of the "art" people do not show the same respect that the "engineering" people show them.

People should show and discuss whatever they like, without being criticised and cajoled into following the demands of someone else's ideas of what photography is about.

Ray
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi Synn,

The way I see it, this is a technical thread, addressing potential buyers of V-series Hasselblad. Images not illustrating the issues at hand may go into another thread, as I see it. The portraits posted by "PSon" were great, for instance, but they were also relevant in the context, so they fit into the thread.

I am just preparing for an exhibition (well maybe) themed "Mountain, valleys and water", some of the candidates are here: Berg, dal och vatten - echophoto

Best regards
Erik

I can't speak for the entire world, but to me, a camera is a creative tool. I use it to create art and when the gear is actively incapable of helping me achieve that creative vision, THEN I look into what is technologically preventing me from doing that. This way, I progress on both the artistic and scientific aspects of photography.

The problem I see with constant technical posting is that the posters get so immersed in perfecting technique that they become oblivious to the artistic side. It's not too much to ask them to peek on the other side of he fence once in a while, IMO.
 
Last edited:

ondebanks

Member
I can't speak for the entire world, but to me, a camera is a creative tool. I use it to create art and when the gear is actively incapable of helping me achieve that creative vision, THEN I look into what is technologically preventing me from doing that. This way, I progress on both the artistic and scientific aspects of photography.

The problem I see with constant technical posting is that the posters get so immersed in perfecting technique that they become oblivious to the artistic side. It's not too much to ask them to peek on the other side of he fence once in a while, IMO.
Your first paragraph is super - you elaborate on what works for you - great!

But then in your second paragraph, you slip back into controller mode; you describe tech posting as a "problem", which makes you feel justified in asking the participants to do something different. My question is, why interfere? Let posters go where their interests and curiosity take them. It might not be what you are interested in, but so be it. (It would be different if you had started the thread and were trying to steer it back on-topic - as Erik, bless him, is still patiently trying to do :grin:).

Your post is a good example of what I was referring to...irritation at what others are perfectly entitled to do, seems to trigger this odd compulsion to control or censor...and it only comes from one side.

It's like Art and Tech are two personifications, who normally work great together. But Art, who sees himself as possessing an almost religious sense of owning the higher value or truth, gets jealous every so often of Tech, when Tech goes off on happy self-exploratory journeys which don't require the services of Art. :)

Ray
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

Sometimes Art and Tech can be dual personalities of the same individual. I am thinking of a few examples:

Ansel Adams was a great technical person with good understanding on sensitometry, densitometry and development methods. His zone system was based on that knowledge. So he was definitively Tech.

On the other hand he is also one of the most famous photographers of American Northwest (I guess). That piece of his personality is Art.

The other guy I think about is Bill Atkinson, who was a neuro-scientist turned into software development. He was the principal developer behind QuickDraw and AppleScript, amongst other things. But, he is a successful and highly regarded landscape photographer. Bill Atkinson published a very nice book, Within the Stone, he had problems printing it, as he couldn't find a printer he trusted with a job.

But, he was giving courses in colour management, and one of his customers was a Japanese printing company. The Japanese guys asked him to come to Japan and help them implement colour management on the press. Bill Atkinson was somewhat reluctant, but the printing company suggested that he would help them with colour management and they would print his book.

So, he went to Japan and implemented colour management at the plant, suggest use of new inks so they could improve DM significantly. And the company printed his book.

Ctein's words: "To that list of benchmark books, add Within the Stone (Browntrout Publishers, 2004). This is absolutely, positively the very best 4-color reproduction I've ever seen. Depending upon whether other presses follow his lead, it may very well be the best for color reproduction I ever see."


Best regards
Erik


Your first paragraph is super - you elaborate on what works for you - great!

It's like Art and Tech are two personifications, who normally work great together. But Art, who sees himself as possessing an almost religious sense of owning the higher value or truth, gets jealous every so often of Tech, when Tech goes off on happy self-exploratory journeys which don't require the services of Art. :)

Ray
 

Jacob CHP

New member
... But Art, who sees himself as possessing an almost religious sense of owning the higher value or truth, gets jealous every so often of Tech, when Tech goes off on happy self-exploratory journeys which don't require the services of Art. :)
Only a true Tech would think so! :)
 

synn

New member
It's like Art and Tech are two personifications, who normally work great together. But Art, who sees himself as possessing an almost religious sense of owning the higher value or truth, gets jealous every so often of Tech, when Tech goes off on happy self-exploratory journeys which don't require the services of Art. :)

Ray

A camera is primarily an image making device. An artist sees tech as a means to an end. He needs to understand it, not obsess over it. Not sure what the "jealousy" part is. An artist is more than happy that he's not wasting valuable shooting time over other things.

Using a camera to obsess over tech is the same as using an oscilloscope to create "Artistic" waveforms. It can be done, but there are far better uses to it.
 

torger

Active member
The discussion is not really meaningful.

If someone's too interested in a subject for your taste you don't really need to jump at them. You don't need to read tech threads if you're getting provoked by them. You're free to start an art discussion thread, of which there are very few on this forum by the way, or just post images if you prefer that.

Not all members on this forum are artists, and not all are working photographers. I've probably spent more time writing raw software and image processing software than I've shot images, I use my talent where I can contribute most. Of course it would be a problem if my intention was to become a great artist(tm), but not everyone can be that. Great (and even the not-so-great) photography artists rely on technology to produce their art.
 

synn

New member
Nobody is jumping at tech threads. But there are several art oriented threads that de-evolved into technobabble (Not talking about this particular one)
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

I am the OP, and this thread was started with potential buyers of the Hasselblad VFC-50c in mind. The main purpose was to share some test images of the lenses I possess as a mean of assessing lens quality before making a major investment in a digital back.

One reader, over at LuLa, felt that this informations was sufficient to buy into the Hasselblad system. I also guess that it helped some people on this thread to get better insight into the Hasselblad lenses.

Now, we need to keep in mind that many of these designs are like thirty years old. They have been intended to be used with film and were designed before many new technologies arrived. Just to mention, we now have mouldable aspherics, SD glass, high refraction index glass and a lot of new technologies both simplifying and improving optical designs.

Regarding the age, these lenses do a remarkably good job, but they have some limitations. Just as an example all Distagons are floating element designs, but the floating element is not connected to focusing, except the Distagon 40/4 IF, which is a very special lens that is seldom found at a very high price.

The 120/4 Macro Planar has very ugly MTF curves and they show in real world images, but stopped down to f/11 or f/16 it is pretty good at infinity. It is intended for close distances, however, where it really shines. Zeiss themselves are very clear on not recommending the Planar 120/4 for large size objects, for anything larger than one square meter they recommend the Planar 100/3.5, which is also an excellent lens.

The Zeiss 120/4 APO Planar for Contax is an entirely different lens from the Hasselblad 120/4, it has two extra elements and floating elements (that is variable air space between different groups) coupled to internal focusing.

Knowing the strengths and weaknesses of lenses may be helpful to make the right choices, but also helpful to make best use of them.

Initially there was just one f/4, f/8 and f/16 shot of each lens, but later I added more real world samples a couple for each lens. The aperture series show strengths/weaknesses at each aperture, while the real world examples try to illustrate more creative use of the lenses.

A photographer calling him(?)self PSon published wonderful portraits. I am deeply thankful. But, the images I posted are full resolution, you can download them if you want to. If you want to do your raw processing, just download the raw image and do your raw processing. If you want print large, just try.

But, this thread is about tools, and not art. Tools can be useful, but don't make art. On the other hand, what constitutes art is not decided by the photographer but the viewers.

It may seem technobabble to you, but if someones is expected to spend like 12000 k$US on a back it may be nice to have some information about how it will perform. That is what this thread is about.

Personally, I don't consider myself an 'Artist'. I see myself as an engineer having photography as a hobby. Hopefully I make some good images, there are actually some people who feel I do that. That's nice.

Best regards
Erik


Nobody is jumping at tech threads. But there are several art oriented threads that de-evolved into technobabble (Not talking about this particular one)
 

Kabraxis

New member
Hi folks

To came back to the main part of this topic, I got one real good sample from today. While shooting today I take some long time exposures at a public place in Zuerich. I was lucky today, it was not that windy as most of the other days.

From my point of view, is this the very close to the maximum sharpness you can achieve with an P45+ back.
The picture is taken with a Full-Spectrum-Converted P45+ back + UV/IR-Cut Filter (interference filter), a Hasselblad 503CW with Winder (Remote-Control and pre released mirror) and a Hasselblad CF Superachromat 250mm @5.6
To provide a good focus I used a magnifier.

You will find the raw file here: http://kabraxis.de/samples/getdpi/CF010616.IIQ
You may choose an ICC: Phase One P45+ Thungsten easy black (for color) or Phase One Achromatic Plus Neutral (for less saturation and b/w)

Best regards
Pascal
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi Pascal,

Thanks for sharing the image!

Best regards
Erik


Hi folks

To came back to the main part of this topic, I got one real good sample from today. While shooting today I take some long time exposures at a public place in Zuerich. I was lucky today, it was not that windy as most of the other days.

From my point of view, is this the very close to the maximum sharpness you can achieve with an P45+ back.
The picture is taken with a Full-Spectrum-Converted P45+ back + UV/IR-Cut Filter (interference filter), a Hasselblad 503CW with Winder (Remote-Control and pre released mirror) and a Hasselblad CF Superachromat 250mm @5.6
To provide a good focus I used a magnifier.

You will find the raw file here: http://kabraxis.de/samples/getdpi/CF010616.IIQ
You may choose an ICC: Phase One P45+ Thungsten easy black (for color) or Phase One Achromatic Plus Neutral (for less saturation and b/w)

Best regards
Pascal
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

I have added a few "real world" samples with the 100/3.5 Planar to my pages on the Hasselblad lenses with the P45+ back.


http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/Planar_100_35/Brewery/


http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/Planar_100_35/Castle/

There are three images in each folder, shot at f/4, f/8 and f/16.

This essentially covers the lenses I have. Possibly, I would replace the 50/4 Distagon and Planar 80/2.8 with a Distagon 60/3.5. But, difficult to foresee the future is.

I plan a comparison of the three Planars, the 80/2.8, 100/3.5 and 120/4.

Best regards
Erik
 
Top