Some P45+/Hasselblad V series samples

[weinlamm]

Hi,

I have also added some problem shots. I don't know the exact lenses or conditions as the EXIF data doesn't contain info from the lens.

The problem areas are marked in red. Some reference areas that are good are marked in green.

At the time the images were shot I felt these problems were pretty bad, but looking now I feel they are much less an issue than originally thought.

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/Issues/

Best regards
Erik

Good morning Erik,

I don't want to swap into a discussion about film vs. P45+ vs. CFV50c vs. something else.

But I had a look on your "problem pictures" - and I think your actually system has a problem which should be solved first.

I don't know on where you did focus in your pictures - but in that with the boat (CF043880) the focus seems to be on the boat. And then - if I'm not totally unright with my know about dof - normally you can't have sharpness on the beach.
If I have a look into the technical-data from my Leica-lenses (here you can see it very fine in a graphic) I can see in the Depth of field table, that it should possible to get an infinity-focus if I stop down enough. But in my feeling the steps are very small with the distance-settings.

For example here (I only found this in the web just now...):
http://www.zone-numerique.com/uploads/objectifs/leica/super-elmar-21mm/super-elmar_dof3.jpg
At 1.2 m you only come to 3.5 m
At 2.0 m you are a real (?) infinity?
I don't calculate such things - but I can't really believe such big steps from my feeling.

The other thing which swaps me to a feeling "your system isn't right" is that your "boat-picture" looks for me a little bit like a tilted-picture. But in your list isn't a tilt-lense, if I'm right... How then you can get sharpness on the boat, on the top of the mountain - but not on the beach...? I think only if you had used tilt.

I had an similar problem with two of my Cambo-lenses. I couldn't focus real on infinity... If I stopped down enough it was "ok" - but not real infinity. I was very, very happy after returning from Cambo. :clap:
So perhaps the best idea could be to sent your camera-system to Hasselblad for adjustment. And perhaps this could help you with your feeling about your P45+-system. I only had this back here for a test-week - but some of that pictures are still hanging in our home. It's a nice system.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I know this comment is very experienced based since I have been doing this so long but here is your goal. Try to see without the camera this will come natural in time but before I even pull the camera out of the bag I already know the end result. I see a image I see the vantage point and the composition. At that point it gets down to executing the process.

Now this is what photography is and it's about the art of seeing. I know people pull a camera out and than start looking. Try to get away from that, it's really a matter of training your eye and your brain. Now big one here try not to get to wraped up in the tech of the shot. You do than you get lost on the camera stuff. This is the end goal. Train you, use the camera to record what your seeing. Not the camera take you over. This is huge

I see this so much on workshops is that camera is far to important and it's directing the shooter. Turn that around, learn to see without it.

 

[torger]

Looked at the problem pictures too; seem like the first is misfocused (the red house), the second with the mountains and boats does look like a bit of tilt but could possibly be field curvature? The last does also look like it could be some decentering going on, with the infinity more out of focus on the left side than the right.

Manual focusing on ground glass of landscape with larger apertures than f/11 is almost hopeless though, it's hit and miss unless you're some sort of super-human. Even at f/11 one have to be very very careful to hit. I use a 20x loupe myself, made direct comparisons with a ~6x loupe and while I always hit at f/11 with the 20x if I concentrate I do miss with the 6x.

Anyway, having the system adjusted could be an idea. By testing through all the lenses you could possibly see if there's a problem with one specific lens or maybe there's a problem with the body.

 

[torger]

Turn that around, learn to see without it.

It's good advice, and in fact when you have a camera like I have which is impossible to hand-hold, there's not much of an option. Oh well, you can have a viewfinder app on the mobile phone, which I actually have, but that's mostly to check exactly where the corners of the frame will get before I choose focal length.

When you're a total beginner I think it's better to use a hand-holdable camera and experiment, because you'll end up with pictures looking good which you did not realize that they would be when you shot them. I started out with a DSLR and that speeded up the learning process a lot.

I still need more hours out to really master "cropping with my eyes", I find that to be the difficult part of visualization. That is realize how the balance in the composition will be when you put the corners of the frame in a certain position. As I said earlier you can through composition create an image out of nothing, and that's the hard part to visualize.

Today I work the way that I scan the scenery for subjects and when I have found a subject I first try to find the optimal shooting position to align the elements in the picture in a suitable way, and then I start thinking about cropping, holding up my hands to mask out an image, or pick up my mobile and use the viewfinder app and make a test shot. If I was better at visualizing cropping without tools I would be better at finding images, but I guess that comes with time.

 

[mjr]

I'll try making some images during the weekend... having a bit of a angst-period concerning photographs though.

Last weekend I went out in the forest for several hours without shooting a single frame. Afterwards I was mentally exhausted. In theory I think I have the skill to become a decent artistic photographer, but I just don't have the stamina so staying at an amateur level is best for me. Two days of creative photographic work and I need a week's rest from further photography, a bit depending on how it goes.

One side of having some sort of ambition and a big camera that requires tripod is that you don't bring it out if you don't think the image is going to be good, and it can be really frustrating at times when you don't manage to see anything that inspires and fits your vision. There's also a risk ending up wanting to be better than you actually are, that can take joy out of photography as successful photographs then become really far between. I think I'm dangerously close to that, which is a part of the reason I don't like to put my images out there for open criticism. I'm afraid of losing the joy.

A key driving force behind my photography is the feeling I get when I succeed with an image. Finding a composition, thinking already at shooting time how it will fit into a context, making the image and see that it come out well just as I imagined, not just a nice image but also one that can fit into an artistic context.

(sorry for being a bit off-topic, but the thread is long enough now to be pulled away I think... I always pull threads off-topic... haha)

It's inspriring to look at your images Mat by the way, both because they're good and also as I recognize some of the shooting locations as they're closeby, at least one of them has the same subject as I've shot myself

Torger, this is an interesting post, far be it for me to analyse or offer advice but it feels like you are intellectualizing an artistic endeavor, regardless of whether you feel like an artist, you are creating something artistic, a view or a vision of a scene as it speaks to you. Obviously nothing wrong with that if it brings you pleasure but reading this it does seem obvious that the process can be stressful for you.

I don't know if you feel that as you are a smart chap and you have excellent equipment, you think that you should be able to create perfection and if there's a chance you won't then you don't take the shot but I don't personally feel that that's the case. Intellect and equipment are no guarantee of a good shot.

Maybe it's time to take a fresh look? What about setting tasks for yourself that have nothing to do with the final image? I like the idea of a single lens and often go out with one lens and one body and force myself to think differently by composing through the viewfinder and creating a shot to complement the equipment being used. I don't have any expectation, it's purely an exercise in looking and creating within the limitations of what I have. Often times I get nothing but pleasure from the process and have no pressure to produce something, on occasion I get something nice but as I'm not going out with the express goal of creating then it's just a pleasant surprise.

As for critique, it's daft for me to say don't take things too seriously because it's obvious that this is in your nature but it's worth trying to see the images you produce as stepping stones to something better in the future, constructive criticism is incredibly valuable. If you are predisposed to take things negatively then that is something you need to get over and look for the positive, it's an image it's not an attack on you personally.

One thing I noticed about the few images of yours I have seen you post is that you feel the need to explain the process and the technical aspects, it makes me feel that you don't trust that the viewer will get it unless you explain it to them, that turns me off a bit as it comes across that you don't feel the image can stand on its own merit which is not the case. Let the image be what it is, the majority of images posted that I personally find inspirational are just that, an image with no information, no technical aspects and they allow me to look and absorb and wonder and think about how it was created and whether I can gain from it in my own work.

Anyway, I'm no expert I just appreciate the process and I get a huge amount from taking a photograph, especially when I have had to work very hard to get it. Here's a case in point, a stunning day a few weeks back, I had decided to work with a single focal length and came across a scene that I just had to try and capture. Had I got my whole kit with me I'd have changed lenses and missed the shot, as it was I used the 135mm on the camera and had to stitch to get what I wanted. It's not perfect by any stretch but it gives me huge pleasure to know it works for me, after all, we're really doing this for ourselves.

 

[mjr]

Yet again, I am slow at saying what I want to say so loads of posts appear, apologies for repeating what has already been said.

 

[torger]

Thanks for the feedback.

The reason I often explain how a shot was made when I post them here is because I think people appreciate that, to give a little back story. I appreciate that myself when others do that, like you do with the fine shot in the end of your post. And indeed I have got positive feedback for that, more in real life than on the forums though. I'm always curious about how a shot was made, and I like sharing various tricks I have. I am aware that some think that some of the "mystery" is lost when you talk about a picture, especially in technical terms, but that's not a view shared by all and not by me.

The gear I have has not put me in any different mindset than from when I had a simple APS-C camera. The reason I went to MF is because I got a tilt-shift lens and got hooked by the compositional possibilities, and studied large format for a while and felt that "this is how I want to create images". As said many times it's about handling. Quality is nice to have when you print but have of course little to do with how you succeed with images. My modest digital back is outperformed by any high res DSLR today anyway, but the absolute quality is good so it's fine.

It seems to me that you don't think that great technical interest and an interest in art can be within the same person, and that technology is in the way of art. I think indeed that it can be so for certain persons, but it depends on how you're wired. I don't feel it's a problem for myself, my interest in art and interest in engineering is just two separate interests. I talk a lot more about engineering than art, but I think that's a natural state of the subjects at hand. Ansel Adams was a very technical photographer and wrote loads of technical details about his images, but also had good artistry. Cartier-Bresson is an example of a great photographer that was totally uninterested in the technical aspects, he probably would have hated shooting large format in the style and technique of Ansel Adams though.

Finding good critics that help you develop is not so easy. My experience from critique is that most people try to bend you into their own personal taste, to make you shoot the same type of pictures they do themselves. It may not look like it but I do have some confidence in the style I'm striving for. To get effective critique I think I need to publish a body of work first so the skilled critic can understand what my style is and how I can develop within that. I don't think I'm ready for that yet.

I'm not yet sure I need a different way to work, but I appreciate the tips. All have harder periods in terms of creativity. I know of a simple trick that always seem work too -- go to some place new. A new shooting location always seems to fire up my inspiration.

When out I shoot about 1-2 images per hour, so perhaps I come home with 8 images after a day. If one image out of those is good, I'm happy.

Anyway, all this is getting very close and personal now and I don't feel like going much deeper in a public forum using myself as some sort of example. I'm a sensitive person, which to me is a strength when it comes to creating art, but also a weakness in that I'm not as robust when discussions come close to my own person.

 

[mjr]

I like understanding how remarkably different people can be, you and I are polar opposites in our thinking but that doesn't mean we don't have lots to learn from each other.

I see myself as an example of how to do things about the same as I see you, i.e not very much at all! I appreciate my views are only relevant to the way I do things and yours relevant to you, any suggestions I make are pretty vague, I don't suggest for one second that you follow the things I have found that help me, just that based on your comments, it feels like a change may be as good as a rest, as the saying goes. I don't necessarily think I'm right, it's just a suggestion. From what you have previously posted it's obvious that something somewhere isn't right.

You are wrong about my views on the technical side of things, I know exactly what my equipment is capable of, I buy only exactly what will work for me and I find the testing process to be a very personal one. I am also an engineer by trade, in many facets of my life I am extraordinarily focused, I do everything myself and I have a great affection for the technical process in a great many things but as I have said many times on this thread, to me it is all about balance, the technical side is a part but by no means all and I feel that focussing on the technical part alone does not necessarily tell the full story. I agree with a lot of Pson's comments, to be honest the few shots posted by him speak to me far more than charts and graphs but that's just me.

I can see how lots of people are interested in the technical aspect of posted images, there are times when an image is posted and someone will reply with a question about how the image is made, to me that seems like a fantastic way of doing things, those that appreciate an image for what it is can do just that and those who want to know more can ask, at least the options are there, I may be the only person who is put off by the technical details, I can accept that. I only added a technical explanation to the image I posted as it related to my experiences of trying something different, I almost never post anything other than an image normally.

As for getting personal, I don't feel that's the case, we are just people on a forum, I don't really care whether you create great images or are happy with your processes, I have my own problems. It's nice to think you're having fun with what you do but it would be daft to suggest it really matters to me. Conversely I don't wish my comments to cause offense (most of the time!) but you can only express yourself in a way you see fit, how it is taken is largely down to the individual.

Anyway, I am sure you're fed up of reading my drivel by now so I shall wish you a good weekend.

 

[torger]

I'm all geared up for getting out shooting. Couldn't resist leaving a few more comments before slamming the door behind me

I don't believe being a "smart chap" makes you a better artistic photographer, it's totally unrelated to artistic talent. Everyone needs to train, but the 10000 hour myth is a just that, a myth. Some have more talent and needs say only 3000 hours to reach a high level, some have less talent and may need 25000 hours to reach the same level, and some work all life without reaching to a high level.

I distant friend of mine just opened an instagram account, she's not interested in photography gear at all, shoots everything with the mobile phone but just produces wonderfully composed images in that stream. AFAIK she's not been shooting much before. That's talent. Well she happens to be very intelligent too, but I think that's unrelated

I'd also like to say that artistic landscape photography is a very narrow genre as I see it, when you see art as something that conveys a multilayered message. Edward Burtynsky is one of the few that make it. I think many of the established photographers also at high level does not really do art, they shoot very pretty images but that's not so much art as I look upon art.

Of course there's many different views of what art is and I'm perfectly alright with other approaches, but what I ideally want to achieve at some point is art in the sense of Burtynsky, albeit on a more diffuse level. This is a very high ambition though and I'm not sure if I can live up to that, it's not only about being able to shoot well-composed images, it's also about putting them in a context. As it comes down to selecting images in the end, I'm free to shoot anything that looks pretty though when I'm out, and I do.

 

[Uaiomex]

These 3 pictures are good examples of two things MF can do better.

1.- Smooth tonal gradation with great sharpness that doesn't interrupt the speech.

2.- Bokeh quality that separates subject to background but leaving background distinct. Leaving backgrounds features beyond recognition is distracting. Yeah, right, contrary to what is supposed to do. Of course, head shots are not included here.

Many times I've read that both can be accomplished using megapixel 24X36 sensors and the right glass.
The new super-sharp lenses like Otus and Art (and more coming) are meant to get the best mileage to the last drop.

In my opinion and to my eyes, this doesn't happen but in limited right circumstances. In general, pictures from megapixel sensors and new generation super-sharp glass lack certain subtleties that affect the overall beauty of the image. The add their "signature" to the image while at the same time decreasing the picture's own atmosphere. The powerful drawing of these combinations go a notch closer to what I would call grunge or dragan effects. Of course, they are not there at all, they just go a bit in that direction.
Big sensors and big film have a unique look. I don't know if the new sensor technologies first applied to miniature sensors will kill DMF but if this happens, the world of photography will sadly lose the best tool invented.
My verdict: If my 61 year old eyes can see the difference with these small pics over the internet, I say it won't happen.

Eduardo

I like to contribute to the thread with some images as well. These were taken with either the Hasselblad V lens or Hasselblad V camera and digital back or all in combination. I have hybridized my different photographic systems so that they all can be interchangeable to overcome the limitations of each closed system.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I agree with this in part. On the downside I have noticed that my Hasselblad lenses tend to have magenta/green finging even at moderate apertures and they have hexagonal apertures, giving hexagonal OoF focus patterns. The Sonys have no colour fringing and circular apertures.

That said. The images posted here by PSon are just great. The lens he has used may either have circular aperture or be used fully open.

Just to say, this is a good example of an image that shows that a great image is not about resolution. The resolution may be great but it is hard to judge from a small image. But those pictures are just great.

Best regards
Erik

These 3 pictures are good examples of two things MF can do better.

1.- Smooth tonal gradation with great sharpness that doesn't interrupt the speech.

2.- Bokeh quality that separates subject to background but leaving background distinct. Leaving backgrounds features beyond recognition is distracting. Yeah, right, contrary to what is supposed to do. Of course, head shots are not included here.

Many times I've read that both can be accomplished using megapixel 24X36 sensors and the right glass.
The new super-sharp lenses like Otus and Art (and more coming) are meant to get the best mileage to the last drop.

In my opinion and to my eyes, this doesn't happen but in limited right circumstances. In general, pictures from megapixel sensors and new generation super-sharp glass lack certain subtleties that affect the overall beauty of the image. The add their "signature" to the image while at the same time decreasing the picture's own atmosphere. The powerful drawing of these combinations go a notch closer to what I would call grunge or dragan effects. Of course, they are not there at all, they just go a bit in that direction.
Big sensors and big film have a unique look. I don't know if the new sensor technologies first applied to miniature sensors will kill DMF but if this happens, the world of photography will sadly lose the best tool invented.
My verdict: If my 61 year old eyes can see the difference with these small pics over the internet, I say it won't happen.

Eduardo

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

It is a bit of my experience that many of the greatest images are made by people who don't consider them selves as great artists or technicians, thay just happen to make great pictures.

A lady at our photo club happens to be the best printmaker I have seen this side Ansel Adams or Ctein, but she was neither aware of or very proud her skills. She will never get famous, but she was a great master of her art.

Why is she no longer? While she doesn't work in the dark room any longer. Her digital images are great, but she doesn't have that magical touch she had in the wet darkroom.

Best regards
Erik

I'm all geared up for getting out shooting. Couldn't resist leaving a few more comments before slamming the door behind me

I don't believe being a "smart chap" makes you a better artistic photographer, it's totally unrelated to artistic talent. Everyone needs to train, but the 10000 hour myth is a just that, a myth. Some have more talent and needs say only 3000 hours to reach a high level, some have less talent and may need 25000 hours to reach the same level, and some work all life without reaching to a high level.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have analysed that picture a lot, and at that stage I was pretty certain that the problem is field curvature. I will elaborate on that, but I need to go back and recheck my initial findings. It is a couple hours of work.

The problem I have that I have a number of images having problems and a lot of images not having those problems. I sort of feel that I have learnt to make better use of the system by finding and avoiding weak points.

I will post a more detailed evaluation of that image.

But just to mention. A rowing boat is about five meter long. I takes about 1/6 of the horisontal frame. So it is quite impossible that it would be at something like 3 meter distance, especially as the image is probably shot with 80 mm lens. It would take like 30 m distance on a wide angle to make a 5 meter boat to fill 1/6 of the frame.

Best regards
Erik

Good morning Erik,

I don't want to swap into a discussion about film vs. P45+ vs. CFV50c vs. something else.

But I had a look on your "problem pictures" - and I think your actually system has a problem which should be solved first.

I don't know on where you did focus in your pictures - but in that with the boat (CF043880) the focus seems to be on the boat. And then - if I'm not totally unright with my know about dof - normally you can't have sharpness on the beach.
If I have a look into the technical-data from my Leica-lenses (here you can see it very fine in a graphic) I can see in the Depth of field table, that it should possible to get an infinity-focus if I stop down enough. But in my feeling the steps are very small with the distance-settings.

For example here (I only found this in the web just now...):
http://www.zone-numerique.com/uploads/objectifs/leica/super-elmar-21mm/super-elmar_dof3.jpg
At 1.2 m you only come to 3.5 m
At 2.0 m you are a real (?) infinity?
I don't calculate such things - but I can't really believe such big steps from my feeling.

The other thing which swaps me to a feeling "your system isn't right" is that your "boat-picture" looks for me a little bit like a tilted-picture. But in your list isn't a tilt-lense, if I'm right... How then you can get sharpness on the boat, on the top of the mountain - but not on the beach...? I think only if you had used tilt.

I had an similar problem with two of my Cambo-lenses. I couldn't focus real on infinity... If I stopped down enough it was "ok" - but not real infinity. I was very, very happy after returning from Cambo. :clap:
So perhaps the best idea could be to sent your camera-system to Hasselblad for adjustment. And perhaps this could help you with your feeling about your P45+-system. I only had this back here for a test-week - but some of that pictures are still hanging in our home. It's a nice system.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi!

Your observations are interesting. I posted these images in part because I remembered that I had some issues I could not explain.

The red house I need to reinvestigate, it is quite possible that the only problem is bad focus, but it was not I felt was at the time I had that system.

Regarding the pictures with the boat in the foreground, I am pretty sure that the issue is field curvature.

In general I tend to use f/11. Exact focusing in ground glass is not easy. Initally I used a 3X monocular that gave me a total 9X magnification of the image. Now I replaced the original ocular with one that is adapted to my vision, but that does not work with monocular. Split image focusing aid seems to be pretty accurate, but works only on very high contrast edges, like a flagpole. The trunk of a tree is not straight enough for exact focusing. So I focus at maximum aperture and stop down to f/11. Diffraction effects are quite visible on computer screen at f/16 (and they also eliminate moiré), f/11 still has moiré in all it's glory, but doesn't affect resolution/contrast that much. So, f/11 is my compromise.

Best regards
Erik

Looked at the problem pictures too; seem like the first is misfocused (the red house), the second with the mountains and boats does look like a bit of tilt but could possibly be field curvature? The last does also look like it could be some decentering going on, with the infinity more out of focus on the left side than the right.

Manual focusing on ground glass of landscape with larger apertures than f/11 is almost hopeless though, it's hit and miss unless you're some sort of super-human. Even at f/11 one have to be very very careful to hit. I use a 20x loupe myself, made direct comparisons with a ~6x loupe and while I always hit at f/11 with the 20x if I concentrate I do miss with the 6x.

Anyway, having the system adjusted could be an idea. By testing through all the lenses you could possibly see if there's a problem with one specific lens or maybe there's a problem with the body.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Problem sample, reevaluated

Hi,

Just to say, I am pretty satisfied with the Hasselblad system, but this thread is intended to give good insights into both the strengths and the weaknesses.

The first posting here was a series of shots I made recently with four of the five lenses at f/4, f/8 and f/16 at Nynäs Castle. Those shots would show camera issues. In fact all lenses performed well:

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

Now, getting back to that boat image:

I have marked some interesting parts of the image:

You can see two circles, a red one and a blue one. Below the MTF curves of the lens I believe was used, the Planar 80, with the corresponding positions marked. Keep also in mind that this MTF data from Zeiss only go to about half of the resolution of the sensor (10/20/40 lp/mm), the sensor resolves 73 lp/mm.

So we see that MTF at 40 lp/mm drops significantly at the red line.

Now, check the top yellow area, it is decently sharp:

Next check the lower yellow area which is also OK:

Having the lens sharp in two vertically not adjoint points indicates that there is little or no tilt.

Now, check the read rectangle at the bottom. What I see is that sharpness is
diminishing going from the right to the left.

The boat in the foreground is very sharp, although it lies on the red line. The probable cause of this is curvature of field. The lens is very sharp, but it's plane of focus is curved. That observation is very consistent with the MTF data from Hasselblad.

Now, how do I know it was shot with the Planar 80 and not with one of the wide angles? There is no lens data in the EXIFs!

I have shot similar images with my DSLR which does record focal length, so I arrived at the 80 mm figure. I don't know the aperture but it was probably either f/5.6 or f/8 as the DSLR shots were at f/8 and both were shot at 50 ISO and the DSLR was shot using 1/125 s and the MFDB at 1/250 s.

Best regards
Erik

This is entirely consistent with

Good morning Erik,

I don't want to swap into a discussion about film vs. P45+ vs. CFV50c vs. something else.

But I had a look on your "problem pictures" - and I think your actually system has a problem which should be solved first.

I don't know on where you did focus in your pictures - but in that with the boat (CF043880) the focus seems to be on the boat. And then - if I'm not totally unright with my know about dof - normally you can't have sharpness on the beach.
If I have a look into the technical-data from my Leica-lenses (here you can see it very fine in a graphic) I can see in the Depth of field table, that it should possible to get an infinity-focus if I stop down enough. But in my feeling the steps are very small with the distance-settings.

For example here (I only found this in the web just now...):
http://www.zone-numerique.com/uploads/objectifs/leica/super-elmar-21mm/super-elmar_dof3.jpg
At 1.2 m you only come to 3.5 m
At 2.0 m you are a real (?) infinity?
I don't calculate such things - but I can't really believe such big steps from my feeling.

The other thing which swaps me to a feeling "your system isn't right" is that your "boat-picture" looks for me a little bit like a tilted-picture. But in your list isn't a tilt-lense, if I'm right... How then you can get sharpness on the boat, on the top of the mountain - but not on the beach...? I think only if you had used tilt.

I had an similar problem with two of my Cambo-lenses. I couldn't focus real on infinity... If I stopped down enough it was "ok" - but not real infinity. I was very, very happy after returning from Cambo. :clap:
So perhaps the best idea could be to sent your camera-system to Hasselblad for adjustment. And perhaps this could help you with your feeling about your P45+-system. I only had this back here for a test-week - but some of that pictures are still hanging in our home. It's a nice system.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Re: Some P45+/Hasselblad V (Portrait sample)

Hi,

This are portrait samples shot using one of the Planars, probably at f/5.6.

Raw files and stuff is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/PortraitSamples/

I don't shoot portraits normally, in fact it was my first portrait shoot in perhaps 40 years.

Best regards
Erik

 

[torger]

I've got the feeling that MF is better on that look with a out-of-focus-background-but-still-defined, and even that older analog MF glass can be better than newer, as the strive for ever-increasing resolving power have hurt bokeh rendering.

But I've actually never made or seen a real comparison to see if that really is the case. Could be that 135 has more of a tradition to shoot with ultra-short DoF and longer lenses, and if you would shoot with smaller apertures equivalent result would be had? Sometimes prejudices and assumptions are crushed when one actually investigate them... bokeh is hard to investigate though, lots of subjectivity.

Pentagon apertures and bokeh fringing can show with the older lenses, but that's just one aspect of it. When it's smooth it's really smooth, I just love a creamy but still defined background. As a tech and landscape shooter myself I almost only use "micro-bokeh", ie let things go very little out of focus to layer the image a little, but that's only seen on a larger print. So I'm definitely not a connoisseur of portrait bokeh, but I know when I see something I like.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Anders,

I don't know. I am a landscape shooter, too. I did a small test 1.5 years ago shooting flowers with three lenses, but using the same sensor.

One subject, three lenses

One reflection may be that 50/1.4 lenses used to be awful fully open, while say an 80/2.8 is quite usable at f/2.8. But latest generation lenses are sharp at f/1.4.

Best regards
Erik

I've got the feeling that MF is better on that look with a out-of-focus-background-but-still-defined, and even that older analog MF glass can be better than newer, as the strive for ever-increasing resolving power have hurt bokeh rendering.

But I've actually never made or seen a real comparison to see if that really is the case. Could be that 135 has more of a tradition to shoot with ultra-short DoF and longer lenses, and if you would shoot with smaller apertures equivalent result would be had? Sometimes prejudices and assumptions are crushed when one actually investigate them... bokeh is hard to investigate though, lots of subjectivity.

Pentagon apertures and bokeh fringing can show with the older lenses, but that's just one aspect of it. When it's smooth it's really smooth, I just love a creamy but still defined background. As a tech and landscape shooter myself I almost only use "micro-bokeh", ie let things go very little out of focus to layer the image a little, but that's only seen on a larger print. So I'm definitely not a connoisseur of portrait bokeh, but I know when I see something I like.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

New samples

Hi,

I added "real world" samples for all lenses I presently have.

The images are organised this way now:

1) CastleSlots, one folder for each lens (except Sonnar 180/4), with three exposures, f/4, f/8 and f/16

2) A folder for each lens with one or more samples

3) A folder with problems observed.

General observations.

All lenses seem to perform well. I decided on using f/11 as standard aperture as I feel it is a decent compromise between DoF and sharpness. For the Macro Planar I only used close up subjects as that is the intended purpose of that lens.

The images are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/

Best regards
Erik

 

[ondebanks]

A photographer truly not interested in gear at all would most likely use a Canon or Nikon DSLR, today the most all-around systems you can get in terms of creative possibilities.

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