Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: First pics with my old, old 'Blad  (Read 3739 times)
angelptp
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« on: August 16, 2006, 03:48:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi all,

First time posting in here, although I have been lurking for years. I've just returned to photography, and have extatically gone through eBay to pick up all those bits and pieces I could never afford before digital came around! Long live the digital revolution - it makes the analog stuff I like cheap!

This was taken last weekend, and pretty much speaks for itself. Let me know what you think?

Pete[attachment=899:attachment]
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8887


« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2006, 08:20:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've just returned to photography, and have extatically gone through eBay to pick up all those bits and pieces I could never afford before digital came around! Long live the digital revolution - it makes the analog stuff I like cheap!

This was taken last weekend, and pretty much speaks for itself. Let me know what you think?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73514\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I'm surprised an old Hasselblad cannot do better than this. It's true one can pick up second hand MF gear at a good price now that most photographers have moved to digital. The lure of a bargain is sometimes irresistable, but one should bear in mind, if you intend processing images outside of the wet darkroom you are going to need a good scanner.

The image you have presented looks as though it has been scanned on a cheap flatbed. It's noticeably grainy, out of focus at the bottom and in general would be a good advertisement for 'why digital cameras are better'.

Sorry I can't be kinder   .
Logged
angelptp
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2006, 08:30:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Ray,
Thanks for taking the time to look at the image!

I do see what you mean by the loss of focus in the edges of the image, and there are a couple of reasons for this. The lens, first of all, is a 50mm, and it was used at f5.6. It's well known that the older - in this case a "C" lens - blads can get a bit soft towards the edges, and that's what's happened here.  I don't particularly mind in this instance, and am intenting to use that to best effect in the future.

In addition, the shot was taken with the lens pointed upwards, and not at a 90 degree angle to the subject, which again has contributed to a loss of depth of field, particularly in the bottom of the image.

Finally, in relation to the grain - not sure what to say. I currently have the image on my screen, at a magnification of 200%, and I can't see any grain at all.  If it was grainy, it would certainly have shown in the deep black on the left hand side, but I can't see any at all here.  By the way, the neg was professionally drum scanned at my local pro lab.

Again, thanks for taking the time to give some feedback!

Cheers,

Pete
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8887


« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2006, 09:29:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
... and I can't see any grain at all.  If it was grainy, it would certainly have shown in the deep black on the left hand side, but I can't see any at all here.  By the way, the neg was professionally drum scanned at my local pro lab.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73586\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The grain is very apparent to me, perhaps because my eyes are now attuned to the totally smooth, grain-free digital effect. Perhaps you used a high ISO film.

Generally, a major attraction of MF film over 35mm film is the reduction of grain in equal size prints. This very small image for MF (unless it's a small crop) shows an unusual amount of grain.

The lack of grain in the shadows on the left is explained by the historgram which is pushed severly to the left. The shadows are clipped in other words. If you clip the shadows you remove everything, including noise and grain.
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7997



WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2006, 10:52:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The grain is very apparent to me, perhaps because my eyes are now attuned to the totally smooth, grain-free digital effect. Perhaps you used a high ISO film.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73590\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Perhaps it isn't grain, but to my eyes the tonalities are unpleasant. They remind me of prints I made years ago from negatives that were badly underexposed. Like Ray, I may have been "spoiled" by getting used to digital images processed to maximize dynamic range. I'd like to see a bit of detail in the heavy dark areas.

But, that being said, I congratulate you on your new toy, and I hope you get much satisfaction from it in the coming days. My own remaining film camera that I can't part with is a Mamiya 6 (MF rangefinder -- a lovely beast.)

-Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8887


« Reply #5 on: August 17, 2006, 08:20:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Perhaps it isn't grain..[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If it isn't, then what is it? This shot reminds me of the Australian Eucalyptus tree which sheds its bark rather than its leaves. I expect to see some creamy smooth surfaces. I don't see them in this shot. Was the film ISO 800, for example?

Angelptp needs to sort this out. Drum scans are not cheap.
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2795



« Reply #6 on: August 17, 2006, 09:25:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi all,

First time posting in here, although I have been lurking for years. I've just returned to photography, and have extatically gone through eBay to pick up all those bits and pieces I could never afford before digital came around! Long live the digital revolution - it makes the analog stuff I like cheap!

This was taken last weekend, and pretty much speaks for itself. Let me know what you think?

Pete
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73514\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Pete,

I have to agree with Ray and Eric. I do not find the tonality pleasing. Looking at the image at 200%, I see that it is pixelated and harsh, perhaps too much contrast even though the highlights are still gray . I don't think there is enough resolution to show grain.

Before getting discouraged, I have an old 'Blad myself and I can assure that the camera can do much better. What film and development did you use and how did you scan the negative? You don't need a drum scan, but I would suggest a decent desktop film scan at 4000 ppi.

Bill
Logged
angelptp
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2006, 02:39:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Hey guys,

I've made a print from the scan, and the print is much lighter, and has much broader tonal range than is apparent when the image is enlarged here. I'm still experimenting with the lens, and have attached another picture for your perusal. I've cropped this one - one of the few times the square format was working against my composition.  Other than that, it is pretty much as it was when I took the image - I've desaturated it in Photoshop CS, but that's all.

I think this has much better tonal range, but I will wait with baited breath for your comments!  

Pete
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad