Fun with the Hasselblad 907x

[Godfrey]

Just thinking out loud............I am thinking there is no need to get a XCD to V adapter as the CV50 would probably work better on the 503CW verses putting the V lenses on the 907X......does that sound about right?

I have the XV Adapter (and the XH Bracket (tripod adapter foot)) as well as 500CM bodies. I find I use about as frequently one to the other ... there are times when I want to use the lens shutter and 500CM, there are other times when I want to use the eshutter and the adapter is a lot lighter ... and with the tripod adapter foot, it's easier to flip the format to Portrait mode when you want that orientation on the full 907x format.

In other words, there's sufficient reason for me to have both.

G

 

[jotloob]

907x + CFV II 50c + 4/45P
Slowly getting more familiar with the 907x . Occasional receiving , no lens attached . A slight move of the back in the attached position , clears the situation .
Happend a couple of times . I carefully cleand the contacts .

Here a testshot from the tripod at f8 . I took this image with f4 to f22 . I find the images for all apertures in very good sharpness , occording to the optical limits of course .



I have big trouble to define the correct size of the image , I want to insert . Since migration of the forum .
I can't find the specifications . Can anyone please help ?

 

[jotloob]

@ Godfrey . How do you achieve such sharp images of that size to insert in your post ? ? ?

 

[spb]

Oh yes I need to know this too. That's why I gave an URL to my shots taken with the GFX50R.

 

[Godfrey]

@ Godfrey . How do you achieve such sharp images of that size to insert in your post ? ? ?

Thank you for the compliment!

I do my finish rendering and such in either Phocus or Lightroom. If Phocus, I bring the result into LR then. I use the Slideshow module to create the drop-shadow framing I want. I create JPEG files to export from that (option key changes the 'export to PDF' button to 'export to JPEG') and set the output to be 3000x3000 (for 33x33 square crop) or 3000x2250 (for 44x33 full frame) pixels dimension. These files are imported back into LR and the IPTC metadata is copied from the master file into the JPEG for each, then metadata is saved to the files.

At this point, the files are uploaded to Flickr.com. For each photo, I copy the BBCode output from the Share button with the output parameter set to 1600x1600 or 1600x1200 (about) for posting here. I edit out the unnecessary information from the default BBCode output when I create the post to display the file here (or anywhere else on the web).

Using this process means that my files are all located in ONE place online no matter which forum or group I'm sending them to, and i can control the size of the display image with very good granularity as well as give access to half-resolution images through flickr directly for those who would like to see larger sized versions.

The process is dependent upon my understanding of just how much input and output sharpening I need to apply to a 6000x6000 or 6000x8000 image file in order that a 3000x3000 or 3000x2250 file looks good, of course, and I can only point to lots and lots of time (20+ years) and experience sharpening my photos for that.

G

 

[spb]

Godfrey, I am trying these setting out. If you have any comment on these I would welcome them.

 

[Godfrey]

Godfrey, I am trying these setting out. If you have any comment on these I would welcome them.

You should never use the ProPhoto RGB output profile with a JPEG format output file. ProPhoto RGB color space is a maximized gamut that requires a 16-bit per component image, it's intended to allow the largest color space possible so that you can edit images without risk of hitting clipping limits. JPEG is a lossy, scalable output image format which is defined to be 8-bit per component. When you mix the two, clipping issues become unpredictable.

For JPEG output, choose sRGB output profile. This is a much more restrictive color gamut modeled after 1990s CRT display monitors, but it remains still the greatest common denominator for color profiling of images for computer displays. AdobeRGB 1998 is the other option suitable for JPEG images, but this output profile is intended to model the color gamut of a web press printing engine rather than a computer display: It produces a slightly flatter, broader color space that enables a little more editability for the JPEG format when a little more post processing might prove necessary after output originals are made.

G

 

[cgastelum]

Hi,

Thanks Godfrey for all the info you share on this forum.
The 907cx is excellent for customizing it the way you want it. this is the current incarnation of mine:


I know the Official Hasselblad grip gives more control, but this works for me. It keeps the L bracket on for when I need quick tripod mounting, and also adds a place for mounting either a flash or flash trigger.

 

[jng]

The left-handed grip is very elegant! This is reminiscent of the original Hasselblad left-handed flash bracket grip, which I used when shooting my SWC hand-held. Now, if Hasselblad ever comes out with a 100 Mp CFV back...

Hi,

Thanks Godfrey for all the info you share on this forum.
The 907cx is excellent for customizing it the way you want it. this is the current incarnation of mine:

View attachment 176190
I know the Official Hasselblad grip gives more control, but this works for me. It keeps the L bracket on for when I need quick tripod mounting, and also adds a place for mounting either a flash or flash trigger.

 

[spb]

You should never use the ProPhoto RGB output profile with a JPEG format output file. ProPhoto RGB color space is a maximized gamut that requires a 16-bit per component image, it's intended to allow the largest color space possible so that you can edit images without risk of hitting clipping limits. JPEG is a lossy, scalable output image format which is defined to be 8-bit per component. When you mix the two, clipping issues become unpredictable.

For JPEG output, choose sRGB output profile. This is a much more restrictive color gamut modeled after 1990s CRT display monitors, but it remains still the greatest common denominator for color profiling of images for computer displays. AdobeRGB 1998 is the other option suitable for JPEG images, but this output profile is intended to model the color gamut of a web press printing engine rather than a computer display: It produces a slightly flatter, broader color space that enables a little more editability for the JPEG format when a little more post processing might prove necessary after output originals are made.

G

I will second the others and thank you for the information that you are able to impart from all your experiences Godfrey. I have amended my Export profile.

 

[Godfrey]

The left-handed grip is very elegant! This is reminiscent of the original Hasselblad left-handed flash bracket grip, which I used when shooting my SWC hand-held. Now, if Hasselblad ever comes out with a 100 Mp CFV back...

View attachment 176191

I have to get off my duff and finish the left hand grip I've been working on, very slowly.

If I had any faith that a full 56x56 format back which would work well with the Biogon 38mm f/4.5 T* lens would be available at some time soon and at a price that I could afford, I'd not have sold my SWC. Sigh; I don't. I used the money from selling the SWC to help fund the 907x and XCD 21mm lens, and I'm happy with that combination.

G

 

[Godfrey]

Having some fun playing with Phocus Mobile 2 for iPhone this morning, I caught our Halloween Bear waiting patiently for his day on the dining room table...

Eeky, Waiting for Halloween - Santa Clara 2020
Hasselblad 907x + 45P, iPhone 11 Pro tether, iPad Pro 11" edit from raw
ISO 400 @ f/4 @ 1/25​

Manual focus too, using peaking for assistance. I dont see any way to get focus magnification on the iPhone version of Phocus Mobile 2 yet, but I just downloaded it this morning.

G

 

[jng]

Godfrey,

Ah, a 56 x 56mm sensor - if only! I think the main benefits of the SWC and 38mm Biogon would be lost on the smaller sensor, although this would not prevent me from having fun with a 100 Mp BSI sensor if/when it does materialize in a CFV-type back. I actually acquired and later sold a newer model SWC/M to use with my IQ160 (since sold as well). It turns out the early vintage SWCs have a small ridge built into the light trap that prevents the Phase One backs from seating. But I will never sell my old SWC, regardless...

John

If I had any faith that a full 56x56 format back which would work well with the Biogon 38mm f/4.5 T* lens would be available at some time soon and at a price that I could afford, I'd not have sold my SWC. Sigh; I don't. I used the money from selling the SWC to help fund the 907x and XCD 21mm lens, and I'm happy with that combination.

G

 

[Godfrey]

Ah, a 56 x 56mm sensor - if only! I think the main benefits of the SWC and 38mm Biogon would be lost on the smaller sensor, although this would not prevent me from having fun with a 100 Mp BSI sensor if/when it does materialize in a CFV-type back. I actually acquired and later sold a newer model SWC/M to use with my IQ160 (since sold as well). It turns out the early vintage SWCs have a small ridge built into the light trap that prevents the Phase One backs from seating. But I will never sell my old SWC, regardless...

For me, the cropped format takes away most of the joy of the SWC .. a major part of which is the Biogon's wide field of view with extraordinary correction and resolution over the huge 56x56 format. Fitted with a 33x44 mm back, regardless of 100 Mpixel or the current 50 Mpixel, the difference in FoV between the SWC and the 907x fitted with 45P or 30 mm lenses is mostly inconsequential. The 21mm lens on the 907x nets me a square crop just a hair wider than the SWC and, with the lens profile applied in Phocus, the correction and resolution is close to the same.

While I'll take more pixels if they come along at a reasonable price, I honestly cannot see the benefit for my photography in general. I don't make huge prints that would benefit from 100 Mpixel and the dynamic range of the current sensor is already very very good. I think it's a case of technical superiority vs practical utility.

G

 

[jng]

For me, the cropped format takes away most of the joy of the SWC .. a major part of which is the Biogon's wide field of view with extraordinary correction and resolution over the huge 56x56 format. Fitted with a 33x44 mm back, regardless of 100 Mpixel or the current 50 Mpixel, the difference in FoV between the SWC and the 907x fitted with 45P or 30 mm lenses is mostly inconsequential. The 21mm lens on the 907x nets me a square crop just a hair wider than the SWC and, with the lens profile applied in Phocus, the correction and resolution is close to the same.

G

Agreed! But just being able to use the SWC as a point and shoot would be great fun, even with the narrower FOV. I tried this with the IQ160, but even the Dalsa sensor didn't play well with the Biogon, necessitating stopping down to f/16 to bring the edges into reasonable shape, a problem that should be obviated by the newer generation BSI sensor. I certainly have other options at my disposal in the meantime (40HR on a Cambo + IQ3100 -- +/- 10mm vertical shift + flat stich => 54x54mm), but this has its own limitations.

 

[Godfrey]

This one is actually using the 907x's back on my 500CM for a walk around session a few weeks back.

Pipe - Santa Clara 2020
Hasselblad 500CM + CFVII 50c + Planar 80mm f/2.8 T*​

enjoy!
G

 

[jotloob]

Thank you for the compliment!

I do my finish rendering and such in either Phocus or Lightroom. If Phocus, I bring the result into LR then. I use the Slideshow module to create the drop-shadow framing I want. I create JPEG files to export from that (option key changes the 'export to PDF' button to 'export to JPEG') and set the output to be 3000x3000 (for 33x33 square crop) or 3000x2250 (for 44x33 full frame) pixels dimension. These files are imported back into LR and the IPTC metadata is copied from the master file into the JPEG for each, then metadata is saved to the files.

At this point, the files are uploaded to Flickr.com. For each photo, I copy the BBCode output from the Share button with the output parameter set to 1600x1600 or 1600x1200 (about) for posting here. I edit out the unnecessary information from the default BBCode output when I create the post to display the file here (or anywhere else on the web).

Using this process means that my files are all located in ONE place online no matter which forum or group I'm sending them to, and i can control the size of the display image with very good granularity as well as give access to half-resolution images through flickr directly for those who would like to see larger sized versions.

The process is dependent upon my understanding of just how much input and output sharpening I need to apply to a 6000x6000 or 6000x8000 image file in order that a 3000x3000 or 3000x2250 file looks good, of course, and I can only point to lots and lots of time (20+ years) and experience sharpening my photos for that.

G

Hello Godfrey

Thank you very much for your detailed insight into your workflow . Very sofisticated . Far too complicated for me .
The obtained results rectify your effort . I envy you . I envy you very much .

My goal in the moment is , to obtain acceptable file quality for the forum by just using given export possibilities say in LR CC or LRC or PSCC or ON1 PHOTO RAW .
I do not want to store my images on any media outside my own computer . No external source .

Therefore I would like to know what image size can the forum take . Currently it seems to under 1MB , around 850K , which of course does not show satisfaying image quality .
For example say , jpeg with long side xxx pixels . This could be seen in the old forum , but I can not find anything in the migrated version .
An attempt to the administration of this forum about this topic ended up with no answer .

Perhaps one of the users can help .

 

[Photon42]

Thanks! I am looking for some adaptable 135 lenses for wide angle work, preferably ZM. Not sure how any of the Zeiss Biogons would fare... any thoughts?

I know that extreme ray angles are going to be a problem, but 3:2 and 1:1 crops should make them perform at pretty much their optimum, right?

The ZM 1.5 / 50 works well on the X1D.

 

[spb]

Therefore I would like to know what image size can the forum take . Currently it seems to under 1MB , around 850K , which of course does not show satisfaying image quality .
For example say , jpeg with long side xxx pixels . This could be seen in the old forum , but I can not find anything in the migrated version .
An attempt to the administration of this forum about this topic ended up with no answer .

Perhaps one of the users can help .

I think you will find that the uploads handle files bigger than 1MB. This one is 1.3MB I used Phocus to export square 3048x3048. The same should be possible in the software you use for editing. When I tried to go past 6048x6048 images it would no longer upload. I tried 4048x4048 too that would have been OK.

 

[KlausJH]

Thanks! I am looking for some adaptable 135 lenses for wide angle work, preferably ZM. Not sure how any of the Zeiss Biogons would fare... any thoughts?

I know that extreme ray angles are going to be a problem, but 3:2 and 1:1 crops should make them perform at pretty much their optimum, right?

The Distagon 1.4/35 ZM works very well, only the far corners show a strong vignette. I use scene calibration to mitigate some color shift and vignetting. It renders beautifully. ZM 1.5/50 works OK. The Biogon 2.8/25 ZM does not, unless you crop a lot and stop down to f/11 or more.