Too contrasty?

Jamie123 said:
Just some of my late night thoughts. Maybe I'll change my mind tomorrow 🙂
Click to expand...

Yesterday I came across this discussion, it looks like Alpa MF camera owners had a similar desire and Alpa responded to it:
http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00AM2W

The Technicar discussed there is a rebranded Rodenstock Ysarex, the same lens type was used on the Polaroid Pathfinder 110a/b but 127mm then. It had and still has a good reputation as a portrait lens. A converted Pathfinder 110b may be a good alternative if it has to be a folder. Bigger though.

Ernst Dinkla
 
Jamie123 said:
I'm scanning my own negs on a Nikon 9000ED so I have quite a lot of control over the process. I'm also sufficiently proficient in PS to do the required adjustments in order to get the colors I want. My problem however is that I'm starting to feel that I can't quite get the soft gradations I'm used to with medium format film with this lens. For me this has always been the 'medium format advantage' and it's the reason why I'm still shooting film next to digital.
As for the film I'm pretty set on Kodak Portra 400NC which is pretty neutral.
Click to expand...

The Nikon 8000 that I use + wet mounting the films tends to keep contrast high. Main problem the shadow parts in negative films with normal exposure. So I expose longer, 3/4 to 2/3 the ISO number of color negative and B&W film. But that is with older Tessar type folder lenses. No way I can hold detail and tone in shadow ranges when someone brings me a Hasselblad Planar negative at normal ISO setting. I then switch to the Epson V700 + wetmounting, that is a more contrast reducing scan workflow.

I think something can be gained with a slightly difusing glass in the Nikon wetmounting holder I have right now but have not experimented yet with that. I would then switch to having the film underneath the glass instead of on top.The Minolta Scanhancer solution is related but in that case it was to solve a pepper grain effect, for contrast a slightly less drastic method should work.

met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
 
Ernst Dinkla said:
The Nikon 8000 that I use + wet mounting the films tends to keep contrast high. Main problem the shadow parts in negative films with normal exposure. So I expose longer, 3/4 to 2/3 the ISO number of color negative and B&W film. But that is with older Tessar type folder lenses. No way I can hold detail and tone in shadow ranges when someone brings me a Hasselblad Planar negative at normal ISO setting. I then switch to the Epson V700 + wetmounting, that is a more contrast reducing scan workflow.

I think something can be gained with a slightly difusing glass in the Nikon wetmounting holder I have right now but have not experimented yet with that. I would then switch to having the film underneath the glass instead of on top.The Minolta Scanhancer solution is related but in that case it was to solve a pepper grain effect, for contrast a slightly less drastic method should work.

met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
Click to expand...

I think one possible way to reduce contrast with the Nikon may be to adjust the Gamma setting as suggested in an earlier response.
While I have also noticed the blown out highlights issue with the Nikon in comparison to my Epson 4990, I don't see why the Nikon should have any technical shortcomings in this regard. I think the reason why the Epsons don't blow out highlights that quickly is that the light source is too weak to begin with so all. The Nikon light source can be adjusted manually so one should be able to get this right.

I also started saving the Nikon scans as .NEF files so I can adjust them to my liking in Adobe Camera Raw with the fill light and recovery sliders.

I will start overexposing the negs a little, though, to see if I can get less contrast with the Bessa.

As for lenses, I loved the look of the Hasselblad lenses back when I still had one. Not too contrasty at all in my opinion.
 
Jamie123 said:
I think one possible way to reduce contrast with the Nikon may be to adjust the Gamma setting as suggested in an earlier response.
While I have also noticed the blown out highlights issue with the Nikon in comparison to my Epson 4990, I don't see why the Nikon should have any technical shortcomings in this regard. I think the reason why the Epsons don't blow out highlights that quickly is that the light source is too weak to begin with so all. The Nikon light source can be adjusted manually so one should be able to get this right.

I also started saving the Nikon scans as .NEF files so I can adjust them to my liking in Adobe Camera Raw with the fill light and recovery sliders.

I will start overexposing the negs a little, though, to see if I can get less contrast with the Bessa.

As for lenses, I loved the look of the Hasselblad lenses back when I still had one. Not too contrasty at all in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Well I went that way too by saving 16 bit RAWs from Vuescan. So before any gamma choice is made. In essence that plus the shortest exposure per sample possible with Vuescan doesn't do it. One way or another, the little density differences visible in the negatives are blown out on the Nikon, simply not there in the Raw scan. Wetmounting probably making it worse in that case.

The Epson certainly doesn't have the dynamic range of the Nikon so a compromise has to be found on contrasty negatives but with subtle definitions of shadows in the negatives it makes the better scan. The kind of negatives that were preferred for the darkroom to keep grain small and hold sharp detail are easier done on the Epson than the Nikon.

Ernst Dinkla
 
Jamie123 said:
I will start overexposing the negs a little, though, to see if I can get less contrast with the Bessa.

As for lenses, I loved the look of the Hasselblad lenses back when I still had one. Not too contrasty at all in my opinion.
Click to expand...

The overexposing helps as more have mentioned here. Doesn't make (aliased) grain smaller though.

On the choice of an alternative camera I thought about the Chris Perez article that compared the Hasselblad etc with the Mamiya 7. The last will not bring back what you had with the Hasselblad = that not too contrasty negative. Of course there's a choice of lenses but more limited with the Mamiya.


http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html

Ernst Dinkla
 
Ernst Dinkla said:
On the choice of an alternative camera I thought about the Chris Perez article that compared the Hasselblad etc with the Mamiya 7. The last will not bring back what you had with the Hasselblad = that not too contrasty negative. Of course there's a choice of lenses but more limited with the Mamiya.

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html

Ernst Dinkla
Click to expand...

I had read this before, too. Great analysis. My own experiences with comparing the Hasselblad with the Bessa III led to similar conclusions as he found with Hasselblad to Mamiya. I'm betting the Bessa III is just a little more contrasty than the Mamiya though.

It seems what makes the Hasseblad have such a great "glow" and flattering look on portraits (lower contrast and soft transition between micro-areas of contrast) is the same thing that make the far away details in shots go soft and somewhat old-school or less-digital-like or however one views it.

It's all about what one is looking for. I sold my Hasselblad after a LOT of contemplation about just this very stuff (and out-of-focus rendition differences, too). If you see my earlier posts on this forum, I didn't think I'd ever do that. But after finding that I am really not a portrait shooter and I prefer the super-sharp-less-romantic-period-like look for most of my work, I did sell it. I only regret the sale when I want to take a family portrait. The fact that I can fold the Bessa III and take it with me always was the crowning blow. I just wasn't using the Hasselblad that much because of the bulk.

All this said, I am doing more and more 8x10 large format now, and am also using a Ricoh GR Digital III (kind of both ends of the spectrum). And now I am finding I am using the Bessa III, which sits in middle of those two, less often! It's a never ending story it seems. Part of the fun of it, too.
 
John NYC said:
I had read this before, too. Great analysis. My own experiences with comparing the Hasselblad with the Bessa III led to similar conclusions as he found with Hasselblad to Mamiya. I'm betting the Bessa III is just a little more contrasty than the Mamiya though.

It seems what makes the Hasseblad have such a great "glow" and flattering look on portraits (lower contrast and soft transition between micro-areas of contrast) is the same thing that make the far away details in shots go soft and somewhat old-school or less-digital-like or however one views it.

It's all about what one is looking for. I sold my Hasselblad after a LOT of contemplation about just this very stuff (and out-of-focus rendition differences, too). If you see my earlier posts on this forum, I didn't think I'd ever do that. But after finding that I am really not a portrait shooter and I prefer the super-sharp-less-romantic-period-like look for most of my work, I did sell it. I only regret the sale when I want to take a family portrait. The fact that I can fold the Bessa III and take it with me always was the crowning blow. I just wasn't using the Hasselblad that much because of the bulk.

All this said, I am doing more and more 8x10 large format now, and am also using a Ricoh GR Digital III (kind of both ends of the spectrum). And now I am finding I am using the Bessa III, which sits in middle of those two, less often! It's a never ending story it seems. Part of the fun of it, too.
Click to expand...

I guess my issue is that I'm mostly a portrait photographer and most of my previous photography has heavily relied on the more romatic look of the Hasselblad lenses. However, I was a bit tired of the bulk of the camera, the square format and most of all I was tired of constantly having to replace lenses or backs or have them fixed because of minor mechanical failures.

I replaced the Hasselblad with the BessaIII because I got a Canon 5DII which started to take precedent over the Hasselblad more often than not because it's more convenient. At the same time I didn't want to give up all the qualities I was used to with medium format film so I decided to get the Bessa for it's portability, the included meter and the electronic shutter. The only 'problem' now seems to be that those medium format qualities were really Hasselblad qualities and the Bessa III gives me a look that's much closer to what I can also achieve with digital.

But anyways, like you say, it's a neverending story. I recently made a conscious decision to use the Bessa III whenever I don't need the immediacy of digital. Also, it's going to be my travel camera for an upcoming trip to NYC and California. I'm planning a couple of projects for which I'll probably use a friend's RZ67. I'm dying to do some portraits on 4x5'' or even 8x10'' large format but I just can't justify buying another camera and renting one is a bit too expensive. I think I'll have to stick to medium format 🙂
 
The 5D MK II is a good camera to adapt a range of lenses to. Without doubt there will be some older 35mm Planars, Xenons, Xenotars around that equal the Hasselblad look.

I have more or less decided to sell the folders that I have and use the 5D II more. The Polaroid Pathfinders I like to keep. The resurrected Dutch factory promised new 665 film and otherwise the cameras are nice to convert to MF panorama and 4x5.

Daydreaming: One of the new Evil models could be the compact to carry around where a 5D isn't convenient. They all adapt to a wide range of lenses, the Samsung less to the most compact lenses M-, C-mount. The Olympus E-P models with the image stabilisation on the sensor and the nice separate viewfinder that can flip upwards + one of the two C-mount Schneider Xenons 50mm f2 that I happen to have. I'll wait for a secondhand one or prices that come down with Evil competition.

Ernst Dinkla
 
It's interesting to read this thread and note the comparison with the Hasselblad. The first thing I noticed when I got my 500cm was how much I liked the look of the 80mm Zeiss lens ... it really glows under the right conditions. The Bessa lens definitely has a clinical look to it which some may like but I wasn't over enthused and the OOF areas seem a little harsh to me.

I like the camera itself but would probably balk at owning one because of this!


This pic was with Kodak VC 160 ... I can't remember the aperture but it was probably close to wide open ... I find the OOF background quite distracting.


motogiro003.jpg
 
Last edited:
John NYC said:
I've got a roll of 400NC in my Bessa III right now. I'll let you know how mine turns out. Believe it or not, this will be the first time a roll of Portra NC has been in this camera for me!
Click to expand...

Well, I got this roll back, and I do not find the photos at all too contrasty, and many were taken under pretty severe lighting conditions. I do control things somewhat when I scan, but I do that with every camera I use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom