Landscape comparison

[scho]

The same landscape shot with 28, 40, and 75 mm lenses on the Bessa R3M and two earlier images of the same scene captured with a Canon 5D (50mm f/1.4 lens) and Tachihara 4x5 (135mm lens Polaroid type 55 neg). Surprisingly good resolution with all three cv lenses, considering that the RF shots were handheld and earlier shots with 4x5 and 5D were tripod mounted.

Canon 5D:
http://www.schophoto.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=735&lang=eng
Tachihara 4x5:
http://www.pbase.com/scho/image/35674699
Voigtlander R3M:
28mm Ultron:
http://www.pbase.com/scho/image/69892966
40mm Nokton:
http://www.pbase.com/scho/image/69892967
75mm Heliar:
http://www.pbase.com/scho/image/69892968

 

[rbiemer]

Very nice work!
And good to see someone local(I'm in Cortland).
I enjoyed what I've seen of you galleries so far and bookmarked 'em so I can go back for a more thorough study.
Rob

 

[scho]

Very nice work!
And good to see someone local(I'm in Cortland).
I enjoyed what I've seen of you galleries so far and bookmarked 'em so I can go back for a more thorough study.
Rob

Thanks Rob. I enjoyed looking at your gallery as well. No shortage of scenic opportunities in the Finger Lakes region.

Carl

 

[rbiemer]

Carl,
There are a few of us RFF folks around here--depending how loosely one defines the Finger Lakes region there may be all of 5 or 6. Enough to consider a gathering of some kind?
Rob

 

[FrankS]

Hello Scho,

Have you made darkroom prints from these negatives? I"m guessing that scanning and computer monitor resolution is acting as a significant equalizer in your pressentation/comparison of these images.

 

[Trius]

Add my appreciation and welcome here. It would be interesting to see the CV shots on something like Pan F+, Adox 25, etc. The lenses seem to hold up very well, but that Type 55 stuff is just, well, in a league by itself. The 400CN is a totally different animal!

Besides Rob, there's me, Doug Reilly, Bromo (Brian?) and Ed in the area, probably some more I'm not remembering.

 

[rbiemer]

Besides Rob, there's me, Doug Reilly, Bromo (Brian?) and Ed in the area, probably some more I'm not remembering.

And, a bit further afield, IGMeanwell(Northern NY somewhere) and Bob Clark in Oswego--though I haven't seen him around in a while...
Rob

 

[scho]

Carl,
There are a few of us RFF folks around here--depending how loosely one defines the Finger Lakes region there may be all of 5 or 6. Enough to consider a gathering of some kind?
Rob

One possible meeting forum would be the Cayuga Nature Photographers. I'm a member but unfortunately haven't attended many meetings in the past year because of travel commitments.
http://home.twcny.rr.com/cayugaridgeapps/CNP/Main.html

 

[scho]

Hello Scho,

Have you made darkroom prints from these negatives? I"m guessing that scanning and computer monitor resolution is acting as a significant equalizer in your pressentation/comparison of these images.

Frank,

I dismantled my darkroom several yeras ago and only print inkjet now. My Epson 4000 prints (with ColorBurst RIP and gray profiles) from the high res scans look very good (better than on a monitor). With respect to scanner and monitor equalizing, you are right and although the RF prints look great in small sizes (up to 11x14 or so) they would of course not look as good (compared to the 4x5) if printed at 16x20 or so.

Carl

 

[scho]

Add my appreciation and welcome here. It would be interesting to see the CV shots on something like Pan F+, Adox 25, etc. The lenses seem to hold up very well, but that Type 55 stuff is just, well, in a league by itself. The 400CN is a totally different animal!

Besides Rob, there's me, Doug Reilly, Bromo (Brian?) and Ed in the area, probably some more I'm not remembering.

Thanks Trius. I've got to wean myself off of the convenience of c41 processing and try some different films. The type 55 is supposed to be the same film as the old panatomic X.

 

[Ronald M]

Yes the monitor/scanniny is a great leveler.

I have a Canon p&s digi and the monitor pics look no better than Portra 16 0
4x5 scans.

The images of Canon full frame down to cheapies on the Canon digital learning center website all look the same.

may I suggest you sharpen the 35mm scans. They can be a whole lot better than you show.

I love waterfall pics. Too bad I missed the family vacation in finger lakes last summer.

 

[FrankS]

With the 35mm , Mf, and LF gear that I have, differences are very clearly evident beginning at the 8x10 size. And I have top shelf 35mm and not so fine LF gear. I'm talking about traditional wet prints. An inkjet printer would be yet an additional equalizer.

 

[scho]

Yes the monitor/scanniny is a great leveler.

I have a Canon p&s digi and the monitor pics look no better than Portra 16 0
4x5 scans.

The images of Canon full frame down to cheapies on the Canon digital learning center website all look the same.

may I suggest you sharpen the 35mm scans. They can be a whole lot better than you show.

I love waterfall pics. Too bad I missed the family vacation in finger lakes last summer.

I agree that they could have been sharpened more for the web. I'm finding that these film scans need more aggressive sharpening routines (compared to my digital camera shots), particularly for printing. I was using PK sharpener routines, but they were designed primarily for RGB images and are a bit too conservative for the scans. I'm now using Deadman's custom sharpen actions that are much better for working with 16 bit gray scans.
http://www.pinkheadedbug.com/links.html

 

[uhligfd]

Are you using hyperfocal distance? It appears that the trees in the very back are a bit unsharp to my eyes. But what can I tell from a screen ... I would just like to know how come, if indeed so.

 

[scho]

With the 35mm , Mf, and LF gear that I have, differences are very clearly evident beginning at the 8x10 size. And I have top shelf 35mm and not so fine LF gear. I'm talking about traditional wet prints. An inkjet printer would be yet an additional equalizer.

Yes, I can also see differences in 8x10 prints, but I'm still quite pleased with the appearance of the 35mm RF prints.

 

[scho]

Are you using hyperfocal distance? It appears that the trees in the very back are a bit unsharp to my eyes. But what can I tell from a screen ... I would just like to know how come, if indeed so.

No, I did not use hyperfocal distance. The focus point for each image was the edge of the rock jutting out from the right into the creek just below the middle falls. I don't recall the f stop used for the RF shots, but was probably 5.6 or 8 (@1/250 sec).

 

[FrankS]

I figure it this way: it's horses for courses. If highest print quality is required, use the biggest format possible, considering weight and distance to carry. If the image is fleeting, then use a camera which is the fastest acting.