Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

[jng]

Erik,

My own workflow involves raw conversion and then final editing in Photoshop. I introduced myself to Capture One for raw conversions when I first started using my IQ160 a few years ago. Let's just say that we did not make a good first impression on each other! Compared with ACR, I was having a terrible time managing the colors, which was particularly frustrating since I knew that others were using C1 with great success. I kept at it and I'm glad I did. I wouldn't consider myself an expert by any means but once I got off the steep part of the learning curve I could really see the potential that lay in the images that ACR just couldn't touch. The images are just more alive, for lack of a better description. So, for me this is part of the "magic."

Of course, Capture One won't help with the somewhat poor corner resolution of the older Distagons. Of note, however, Capture One includes lens profiles for the 40/4 IF, 60/3.5 80/2.8 and 120/4 Makro, so you may consider giving it another go. Capture One is up to version 9.x right now, and it works quite well once you become accustomed to it (I started with v8).

The project you have to place large prints at your workplace sounds exciting. This, of course, is what the larger formats really excel at.

Cheers,

John

 

[tjv]

A two lens setup will suffice for me, I think.
A 501cm body, 60mm and 40mm IF.

For those that know, does the acute matte d screen come with split prism? What are the different options for bright and sharp focusing screens? I ask because with older screens with split prism the surrounding GG area is often a lot darker.

Choose your lenses well and I think you'll find that the Credo will sing on a V system. Good luck!

- John

 

[jng]

A two lens setup will suffice for me, I think.
A 501cm body, 60mm and 40mm IF.

For those that know, does the acute matte d screen come with split prism? What are the different options for bright and sharp focusing screens? I ask because with older screens with split prism the surrounding GG area is often a lot darker.

The D screens do come with split prisms and in various configurations (with and without grid, with and without microprism collar, etc.), so your best bet is to search around on the web to familiarize yourself with the different iterations. Some people contend that the older style, non-Acute Matte ground glass screens gave the most precise focus, but using them can be challenging in low light. I have an Acute Matte ground glass screen in my 501CM and I find that it works quite well. I've read that the D screens have "snappier" focus than the non-D Acute Matte screens but haven't compared this carefully myself.

Screens are easy to swap out so it's anyone's guess what screen you'll find in whatever used body you come across. The split prism screens aren't rare, in any case. Note that on the older 500C bodies, the screens are not user interchangeable (and the older style screens are dark compared to Acute Matte) so if you want interchangeable screens you'll need to stick to the newer versions (500CM and later).

Hope this helps.

John

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I am quite sure that monitors are more critical regarding tonality than prints. Why? Because prints have very limited density range. Glossy paper on Epson may have about 2.15 (DMax - DMin) that is around 1:140 and monitors are well above 1:400. If you check "soft proofing" in Lightroom or Photoshop there is a checkbox to "Simulate paper & inc". Checking that box emulates the print, note how much dull it gets.

Jeff Schewe calls that button "the make my picture look like crap button". What Jeff says is that you need to look away while pressing that button. Jeff has a couple of nice videos on softproofing. He suggest to process the image for screen, take a duplicate and turn soft proof on for the duplicate, emulating the print media and printer. Than you adjust the duplicate to match the "for screen" image.

Another advantage with 4K screens is they have a larger gamut volume than printers. 4K calls for a new colour space called 'Rec 2020' that has pretty large volume, it fully encompasses the gamut of an Epson 3880, for example.

What screens don't match is resolution of the print. To make the samples I posted justice would need an 8K monitor with 57" screen (and they would still be cropped…).

Best regards
Erik

Not sure it matters. All that will do is satisfy the pixel peepers. Yes, it might be about resolution but what about tonality? What about the print? This seems a bit off topic, maybe best addressed in a separate thread?

 

[Geoff]

I just want to add to my post above that I've found this thread informative and thank all those who have contributed thoughts, information and ideas. I've been reluctant to dip my toes in the V system water (despite thinking it the most elegant system for film use,) and the info here has made me think I'll try it out so I can use my Credo on a different platform when the Techno is overkill.

This makes a lot of sense - you have a pretty good handle on what it can/cannot do, and its an inexpensive way (relatively speaking) to expand the usage of your back. Good luck and let us know how it comes out. A well-calibrated V system, on a tripod, with MLU - it would be nice to know how it compares.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My camera came with accute matte screen and split image. I find the split image very accurate on smooth edges like a street lamp or flag pole, but far less accurate on say the trunk of a tree. The reason for this is (in my view) is that with a smooth sharp edge we can make use of vernier acuity, the human vision being very sensitive to broken lines. The bark of the tree breaks up the edge enough to disturb vernier acuity.

I am using the PM5 prism with a 3X monocular. That gives me 9X magnification in total. That gives me a decent success rate.

I chose the 3X monucular inspired by this article: Joseph Holmes - News: Medium Format Methods for Sharpness

One thing to keep in mind that even 9X viewing matches the resolution of the sensor. The image below is a shot of a distant USAF test target at actual pixels. I marked the patterns I could resolve in the viewfinder with 3X, 4X and 9X magnification. So you don't see the actual pixel details, but focus on maximal apparent detail contrast.


Best regards
Erik

The D screens do come with split prisms and in various configurations (with and without grid, with and without microprism collar, etc.), so your best bet is to search around on the web to familiarize yourself with the different iterations. Some people contend that the older style, non-Acute Matte ground glass screens gave the most precise focus, but using them can be challenging in low light. I have an Acute Matte ground glass screen in my 501CM and I find that it works quite well. I've read that the D screens have "snappier" focus than the non-D Acute Matte screens but haven't compared this carefully myself.

Screens are easy to swap out so it's anyone's guess what screen you'll find in whatever used body you come across. The split prism screens aren't rare, in any case. Note that on the older 500C bodies, the screens are not user interchangeable (and the older style screens are dark compared to Acute Matte) so if you want interchangeable screens you'll need to stick to the newer versions (500CM and later).

Hope this helps.

John

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi John,

Thanks for your input.

Regarding lens profiles I don't think they help with help with resolution loss. They would mostly handle vignetting, distortion and lateral chroma.

What I have done at times was to use the radial filter to apply extra sharpening to the outer area of the image. I have used that technique on both the Distagon 50/4 and the Planar 80/2.8 CFE with good success.

Regarding C1 vs. LR, I have always used LR with my own colour profiles. Anders Torger's DCamProf allows making colour profiles for Capture 1, but that takes some tricks. With the A7rII I found that DCamProf generated profiles can improve the images significantly.

There was an interesting thread on LuLa discussing LR vs. C1: Capture One on the A7RII giving me disappointing results

The discussion above is quite interesting. A short summary would say that the original poster tried to use C1 on his A7rII but couldn't really get the same results with C1. It sort of reflects my own experience. I have a way of working with LR and I am happy with the results. So why fight with C1 to get LR like results.

The great benefit with C1 that I see is that it has a cleaner demosaic algorithm than Lightroom's which is about the worst I have seen. So if I would print a subject with significant aliasing large, than I would probably convert in some other program, but post process and print from Lightroom. Lightroom's printing is pretty good.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,

My own workflow involves raw conversion and then final editing in Photoshop. I introduced myself to Capture One for raw conversions when I first started using my IQ160 a few years ago. Let's just say that we did not make a good first impression on each other! Compared with ACR, I was having a terrible time managing the colors, which was particularly frustrating since I knew that others were using C1 with great success. I kept at it and I'm glad I did. I wouldn't consider myself an expert by any means but once I got off the steep part of the learning curve I could really see the potential that lay in the images that ACR just couldn't touch. The images are just more alive, for lack of a better description. So, for me this is part of the "magic."

Of course, Capture One won't help with the somewhat poor corner resolution of the older Distagons. Of note, however, Capture One includes lens profiles for the 40/4 IF, 60/3.5 80/2.8 and 120/4 Makro, so you may consider giving it another go. Capture One is up to version 9.x right now, and it works quite well once you become accustomed to it (I started with v8).

The project you have to place large prints at your workplace sounds exciting. This, of course, is what the larger formats really excel at.

Cheers,

John

 

[gmfotografie]

Question according to a Phase 645 with a p45+
Is it possible to use the P45+ back ( which comes with a used Maymia 645) - on a 501cm with an adapter?

 

[ErikKaffehr]

I wish I knew…

In theory it would be possible to change the mounting frame, but my understanding is that "mount replacement" actually mean they send you a different back.

Best regards
Erik

Question according to a Phase 645 with a p45+
Is it possible to use the P45+ back ( which comes with a used Maymia 645) - on a 501cm with an adapter?

 

[Paul2660]

Phase will send you a different back. Cost is 2500 last time I checked for a back out of value add warranty. Even under warranty you get a different physical back for a mount swap.

Paul C

 

[ChrisLivsey]

For those that know, does the acute matte d screen come with split prism? What are the different options for bright and sharp focusing screens? I ask because with older screens with split prism the surrounding GG area is often a lot darker.

You should be aware there are two types of Acute Matte screens. The original was brighter than the standard screens but there were complaints it was harder to focus. They brought out the D variant, (both designed by Minolta) the one with two cut outs that look like a D, these were easier to focus (allegedly) but not just quite as bright. They also corrected, to some extent, the excessive vignetting of the first series which I assume is what you have read about. Both AM types give the same light reading on a PME metering prism so the "less bright" may relate to the moulding of the plastic I am told and the subjective appearance.

It is not the case that a brighter screen is easier to focus. It is easier to see and compose the subject if in subdued light but manual focus without a split screen say or aid is dependant on contrast and a very bright screen, as in the first issue of Acute screens, coupled with photographers not being used to them, actually reduced contrast and made focusing harder, for some. This type of screen, because it does not diffuse the image as much as ground glass also has a higher degree of vignetting in the corners with longer lenses even in the D version. The plane of the image is also less well defined in the Acute Matte screen type and that can lead to error. You will find descriptions of focussing not on the screen but using what appears as a floating image, this is harder maybe impossible on the newer screens.
There are also third party screens by Beattie or Maxwell which are unmarked with numbers as are all the Hasselblad screens which makes identification problematic. There was also a plain screen with cross and fresnel still made in the Acute-Matte era for photomicrography work, due to the vignetting I alluded to earlier, the 42200.
A tip:
Never rely on a S/H box to positively identify BTW. People bought a new screen and placed the old one in the box, that then gets sold years later perhaps as the "new" screen type as per box!! Many people have bought D screens that were not that way.

For completeness there was, for a very short time, and therefore for completest collectors collectible forcing them to be valued more highly, an optofiber/ optifibre screen. A slice of a bundle of optical glass fibres. It does not have a reference cross. It was prone to dark spots, like dead pixels, where a fibre had failed. They are rare and I have never handled one.

Note that at f4 or faster both fields of the split image will only be clear when the eye is spot on the optical axis, using a chimney finder can be useful for that.

Acute-Matte D with microprism and slit image 42215
Acute-Matte D with grid and split image 42217
First generation AM screen 42170 with grid and split image

There are many other AM screens with other markings and grids/spots but those are the split screen ones AFAIK.

BTW, disclaimer, this is all presented as personal opinion and not fact.

Just remembered for Edit: Hasselblad never made a 45 degree split prism, you can of course mount the screen horizontal or vertical, there are 45 degree examples but are third party variants. again AFAIK.

 

[jng]

Great information, Chris. Hasselblad is still selling Acute Matte D split/microprism screens new - part number 3042264 with cross hairs plus markings for the 33x44 crop sensor, and 3042262 with similar markings for the older 36x48 sensors. The format markings of course don't correspond to the full format backs (need a mask for that) but can be used to help line things up when composing. I think that the grids on some of the older screens might come close to the 40x54 framing but this is just a guess as I haven't checked this myself. From the current prices on B&H these new screens are quite a bit less expensive than used 42215 and 42217 screens I've seen for sale on the web. Go figure.

John

 

[ChrisLivsey]

Great information, Chris. Hasselblad is still selling Acute Matte D split/microprism screens new - part number 3042264 with cross hairs plus markings for the 33x44 crop sensor, and 3042262 with similar markings for the older 36x48 sensors. The format markings of course don't correspond to the full format backs (need a mask for that) but can be used to help line things up when composing. I think that the grids on some of the older screens might come close to the 40x54 framing but this is just a guess as I haven't checked this myself. From the current prices on B&H these new screens are quite a bit less expensive than used 42215 and 42217 screens I've seen for sale on the web. Go figure.

John

Maybe if they have remaining stock, the current list (July 2016 V1) only gives the 3042264 for the CFV 50c sensor, but yes that is very much cheaper than on a certain auction site for the "old" screens. Yet the H screens which are AM are reasonable S/H.

http://www.procentre.co.uk/pricelists/Hasselblad_Pricelist_July2016_v1.pdf

 

[jng]

Maybe if they have remaining stock, the current list (July 2016 V1) only gives the 3042264 for the CFV 50c sensor, but yes that is very much cheaper than on a certain auction site for the "old" screens. Yet the H screens which are AM are reasonable S/H.

http://www.procentre.co.uk/pricelists/Hasselblad_Pricelist_July2016_v1.pdf

Both are listed on the B&H site (US). 42262 shows as in stock and 42264 is special order.

I have found that shopping for V system parts can be a bit of a treasure hunt. It's amusing when I have time to spend (waste), frustrating if I really need (i.e., want) something that's hard to find. However there's a lot of old V system gear floating around and things have a way of appearing if one is patient enough to wait while keeping an eye out.

 

[ChrisLivsey]

Both are listed on the B&H site (US). 42262 shows as in stock and 42264 is special order.

I have found that shopping for V system parts can be a bit of a treasure hunt. It's amusing when I have time to spend (waste), frustrating if I really need (i.e., want) something that's hard to find. However there's a lot of old V system gear floating around and things have a way of appearing if one is patient enough to wait while keeping an eye out.

Indeed, for my "new" f4 50mm C lens (not T*) I found quite quickly an original hood and a 63mm series 8 yellow filter, boxed as well, sometimes it drops lucky. Sometimes it doesn't, when I bought my H I wanted/needed/was desperate for the CF adapter, none around S/H, so desperate I rang round for new, still none, one did pop up later S/H but then required repair (under guarantee, the wisdom of using a reliable dealer for S/H not that auction site) not always lucky.

 

[Jack]

Erik:

Without quoting your numerous comments and answering each, I will answer a few of them indirectly for thread posterity...

1) P45+ file processing -- if you're using LR and not C1, you simply won't get the best results out of a Phase back -- ANY Phase back! I understand you may prefer the workflow in LR and that is fine, but if you're going to compare and comment on the file's technical merit, you really should become facile with C1 to extract the maximum from any Phase back.

2) P45+ color -- profiles were greatly improved in C1-7, moreso in 8. However, if you're still using 6, try the "flash" profile for outdoor as well as studio -- it is superior to the others for overall color fidelity and accuracy.

3) Taking a small area of an image to print and compare technical merits is not much diferent than comparing 100% crops, so I am not at all surprused you saw the same things in both. You really need to compare a good, "fine-art capable" image form each, printed full size -- that is where the subtle advantages show. (I will state here however that most non-photographer clients and most non-photographer art buyers won't notice the subtleties and hence won't care what system you used to take the image )

4) It's clear you are an engineer and not an artist -- this is not a dig in any way, just an observation. As such however, it makes sense you will to make your own personal decisions based solely on technical merits you can easily compare/measure, and perhaps cannot even see artistic merits. My point here is simple -- if your Sony A-whatever and Canon lenses generate more pleasing images for YOU, then that's the best system for YOU to use :thumbs:

Final comment re gear. In the end, WHAT you take images of can dictate which gear is best. The following images are examples. The first was one of the first images I took with the D800; the second is one of the first I took with the IQ180 -- BOTH prints have sold, though for obvious reasons the IQ180 image has sold far more. The point here is the D800 image could not have been made with the Phase/IQ system -- it was a handheld shot at 1/8th second snapped in a gap between literally hundreds of tourists walking up and down the tower hall; by contrast the IQ image was on a tripod, mirror locked, though I was tucked in-betwen roughly 50 other photographers who I left there still waiting for the "perfect light" to happen. The Nikon image prints well at A2, but the IQ image can easily go 40 inches and hold exceptional detail.

Nikon:

Phase:

So, in my case, I can see benefit to multiple systems.

Cheers,

 

[jng]

2) P45+ color -- profiles were greatly improved in C1-7, moreso in 8. However, if you're still using 6, try the "flash" profile for outdoor as well as studio -- it is superior to the others for overall color fidelity and accuracy.

Jack,

I agree that one can (only) get the most out of the P1 files using C1. At the risk of dragging this thread off topic (but in the spirit of getting the most out of a V system/MFDB set-up), can one generalize about the benefits of using the C1 "flash" profiles for the other backs as well? I'm shooting on an IQ160 and seem to get pretty pleasing results with it although I certainly don't work with a flash on this particular rig.

Thanks.

John

P.S. Beautiful images, both!

 

[tjv]

I struggle with C1 and getting the best out of it, particularly with colours, which seem to me to have the life sucked out of them when using the Leafy colour profiles. I've been using ProPhoto as the profile instead, then dealing down saturation globally or on selected colours, but assume many here would consider that crazy?

And again, all in the spirit of getting the most out of s V mount back!

Jack,

I agree that one can (only) get the most out of the P1 files using C1. At the risk of dragging this thread off topic (but in the spirit of getting the most out of a V system/MFDB set-up), can one generalize about the benefits of using the C1 "flash" profiles for the other backs as well? I'm shooting on an IQ160 and seem to get pretty pleasing results with it although I certainly don't work with a flash on this particular rig.

Thanks.

John

P.S. Beautiful images, both!

 

[ChrisLivsey]

For what's it worth, and financially not a lot as I don't sell prints, Flash Easy Grey is the best "base" profile, started with that on the V P20 and now on the H P45+ as well, no IQ (yet). Non attributable source, take that how you want.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Jack,

This thread is sort of intended to give information on V-series Hasselblads and P45 class backs. I would say that all information is benefitial wether positive or negative.

It is quite impressive that a 2007 (?) generation back still yields good results in 2016.

Getting back to your comments, I take some issue with some of your statements.

3) Looking at an A2 size crop from a 31" x 47", it is half the image or a quadrant of the whole image. It would be difficult to compare two 31" x 47" images hanging side by side as you would need walk back and forth between them. So the crops I use are a reasonable compromise. I wouldn't say it is a small area.

4) I never said anything else that I am an engineer, but it is not the same as saying that I lack artistic vision. But critical and edvidence based evaluation comes with an engineering profession. Some folks think I have an artistic vision. But my possible lack of vision doesn't affect image quality of a Distagon.

So, you have an opinion based on a lot of experience. I have great respect for that, but still it is a biased opinion. Biased and opinion are terms that sort of go hand in hand.

I also have an opinion, and that is obviously also biased, opinions always are.

The image below shot on the A7rII has some nice tonality, I think. Full image is here: https://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Dolomites-2016-1/i-5dT7hnM/O

Best regards
Erik

Erik:

Without quoting your numerous comments and answering each, I will answer a few of them indirectly for thread posterity...


3) Taking a small area of an image to print and compare technical merits is not much diferent than comparing 100% crops, so I am not at all surprused you saw the same things in both. You really need to compare a good, "fine-art capable" image form each, printed full size -- that is where the subtle advantages show. (I will state here however that most non-photographer clients and most non-photographer art buyers won't notice the subtleties and hence won't care what system you used to take the image )

4) It's clear you are an engineer and not an artist -- this is not a dig in any way, just an observation. As such however, it makes sense you will to make your own personal decisions based solely on technical merits you can easily compare/measure, and perhaps cannot even see artistic merits. My point here is simple -- if your Sony A-whatever and Canon lenses generate more pleasing images for YOU, then that's the best system for YOU to use :thumbs: