Sharpness
May 28, 2018 11:53:30 #
Ron Dial
Loc: Cuenca, Ecuador
I totally understand your statements. I have found that all digital images need a little edge sharpening. That said portraits and the like, especially images that have been cut and pasted into a new background, may need a very small amount of soft blurring on some assets in the foreground and especially things in the background, AFTER they have been edge sharpened. This sounds stupid, but if you look at large optical prints and large digital prints, you can see what needs to be done.
The blur can be done in Photoshop, and is an artistic decision on which items to blur the edges, and which to leave sharp. But after a lot of work, I created images that LOOK like they were done with film and have the "roundness" you mention. I do this by making a new layer in PS, then putting a soft Gaussian blur over the entire image, then place a total black mask in the masking tool on that same layer (usually filled with black). Then use a reveal brush to see the blur.
I do a lot of large prints (up to 42 x 60) and found this process helps them look better. Hope this helps.
The blur can be done in Photoshop, and is an artistic decision on which items to blur the edges, and which to leave sharp. But after a lot of work, I created images that LOOK like they were done with film and have the "roundness" you mention. I do this by making a new layer in PS, then putting a soft Gaussian blur over the entire image, then place a total black mask in the masking tool on that same layer (usually filled with black). Then use a reveal brush to see the blur.
I do a lot of large prints (up to 42 x 60) and found this process helps them look better. Hope this helps.
May 28, 2018 12:43:31 #
The 8 x 10 view camera is , or was the optimum for clarity, and grain and allways looked sharp. The Goerz lenses, especialy the Apo lenses where one of the finest in the world. The large and medium cameras,
allways gave better results, than the 35mm, if you took the same picture with a 35mm and a large format camera, and put the prints side by side, you would see that the large format is a 1000% better. I used my
own 4x5 Linhoff while in the Army in Europe, and I won several competitions..
allways gave better results, than the 35mm, if you took the same picture with a 35mm and a large format camera, and put the prints side by side, you would see that the large format is a 1000% better. I used my
own 4x5 Linhoff while in the Army in Europe, and I won several competitions..
May 28, 2018 13:12:18 #
Just remember, "Art", like "Beauty", is in the mind of the beholder. Jackson Pollack claimed credit for many paintings that were actually done by "GRAVITY"! That is one reason I switched from Art to Photography.
May 28, 2018 13:39:05 #
Tomcat5133
Loc: Gladwyne PA
I too was in New York in ad agencies and the School of visual arts until I was almost thirty.
The craft was not easy. Print making for ads shot with large format cameras. Dodging and playing and then retouching.
The expense of gear with film and processing was huge. I seem to remember (as large format got modern to 2 1/4 that
a Hasselblad with full set lens and options was maybe 20k. The first digital 35mm were in the 35k range. I think these
were great times but also only for the most dedicated and had the pockets to buy the equipment.
This is nostalgia. The creative people in New York were crazy wonderful and some scary.
I now have in my house cameras that i can hold in the palm of my hand that blow these big boys away.
The craft was not easy. Print making for ads shot with large format cameras. Dodging and playing and then retouching.
The expense of gear with film and processing was huge. I seem to remember (as large format got modern to 2 1/4 that
a Hasselblad with full set lens and options was maybe 20k. The first digital 35mm were in the 35k range. I think these
were great times but also only for the most dedicated and had the pockets to buy the equipment.
This is nostalgia. The creative people in New York were crazy wonderful and some scary.
I now have in my house cameras that i can hold in the palm of my hand that blow these big boys away.
May 28, 2018 14:09:35 #
I had the Nikon F1, F2, F3, F4 and Nikonis an never had any problems regarding durability or anything else. Great film cameras.
May 28, 2018 18:43:49 #
I graduated as a photographer in UK in 1961., After years of humping around 5X4 MPP cameras or 10X8 Linhofs it was a relief to be able to set out for a job with a 6X6 Rolleiflex or even a 35mm Leica. I moved on to video and the early Video cameras weighed a ton with a recorder the size of a cabin trunk! The quality of the early plate glass cameras was outstanding but digital camereas these days are equally outstanding. Rarely do we have to produce large glossy prints for close perusal as we did for the Linhof Tachniek magazine. Nowadays, 90% of images are viewed on a computer screen or imaging device. Large photos are usually viewed at a large viewing distance.
I'm sure Ansel Adams would have loved the current crop of cameras!! I, personally,have no regrets at not having to carry a truck load of gear every time I venture out into the country!
I'm sure Ansel Adams would have loved the current crop of cameras!! I, personally,have no regrets at not having to carry a truck load of gear every time I venture out into the country!
May 28, 2018 19:05:45 #
DaveyDitzer
Loc: Western PA
Delray wrote:
Wedding phographers are wedding photographers. You shoot 600 or more pix. We shot less then 40 or 50 shots on 4X5 cameras in B&W with flash bulbs. We charged for 24 shots in a white album $ 25.00 $ 7.00 for the proofs. Table shots were at the reception as per requests. We collected cash at that time. My, how things have changed.
As I recall our wedding album - white with about 20 B/W 8x10 shots, all very good, cost more, maybe about $75 which is a whopping amount in 1965 dollars.
May 28, 2018 19:12:36 #
In portraiture, oftentimes terminology, nomenclature and various techniques are confused, overlapped and superimposed on one and other and that least to miscommunication of information.
Modeling, roundness, the illusion of a 3rd dimension is mainly the function of lighting. We often hear of the Chiaroscuro effect, that is the function light and shadow creating the illusion of depth on a two dimensional surface. Dimension, roundness or modeling is controlled by the angle at which the light strikes the subject in relation to the camera/subject axis.
There is softness and hardness of light- this has to do with light qiality from the source. Soft light naturally occurs naturally on an overcast day or in open shade and similar conditions. It is simulated in the studio by large diffused modified light sources such as umbrellas and soft boxes or in light "bounced of off larger surfaces such as walls, ceilings or special reflector panels. Certain larger parabolic, pan or so called beauty dishes can provide soft light depending on how they are employed as to distance, relative size to the subject or the use of diffusion screens. Hard light usually comes for direct sunligh and can be simulated with optical or Fresnel spotlights or lights equipped wwith smaller or more highly polished parabolic reflectors
In portraiture, the transition from highlight into shadow is usually more delineated where as with soft light the transition is softer or feathered. The difference in density between highlight and shadow determines contrast via lighting ratio. This contrast contrast factors in to the creation of dimension as well as dramatic impact of the image.
This kind of LIGHTING effect or realistic quality can not usually be added in any post processing procedure.
Optical diffusion and soft focus is an entirely separate matter. There are various kinds of optical diffusion. The most effective is done with the use of a special;y designed soft focus lens. Theses lenses have controlled aberrations formulated into their design and can be adjusted for various levels of softness. They may work by blending the highlights into the shadows or by superimposing a secondary softer image over a sharper one. The oftentimes a shimmering appearance in the secular highlights. There are softening filters of different strengths. The better types. like the Zeiss Softars, work very much like the soft focus lens in creating a secondary soft image- they stand up well in grater degrees of enlargement. . The ones of lesser quality simply scrabble the image- the work to a certain extent but the don't make for greater degrees of enlargement in that they tend to degrade the image.
Diffusion applied a the camera is usually superior to blurring or softening of the image in post processing, In analog work, heavy diffusion during enlarging will blend the shadows into the highlights and may result in muddy prints.
Because soft focus and diffusion filtration techniques tend to reduce contrast, a harder light source and more contrast in the ratio ratios will hold up better in theses images by providing the needed level of spectacularity.
Modeling, roundness, the illusion of a 3rd dimension is mainly the function of lighting. We often hear of the Chiaroscuro effect, that is the function light and shadow creating the illusion of depth on a two dimensional surface. Dimension, roundness or modeling is controlled by the angle at which the light strikes the subject in relation to the camera/subject axis.
There is softness and hardness of light- this has to do with light qiality from the source. Soft light naturally occurs naturally on an overcast day or in open shade and similar conditions. It is simulated in the studio by large diffused modified light sources such as umbrellas and soft boxes or in light "bounced of off larger surfaces such as walls, ceilings or special reflector panels. Certain larger parabolic, pan or so called beauty dishes can provide soft light depending on how they are employed as to distance, relative size to the subject or the use of diffusion screens. Hard light usually comes for direct sunligh and can be simulated with optical or Fresnel spotlights or lights equipped wwith smaller or more highly polished parabolic reflectors
In portraiture, the transition from highlight into shadow is usually more delineated where as with soft light the transition is softer or feathered. The difference in density between highlight and shadow determines contrast via lighting ratio. This contrast contrast factors in to the creation of dimension as well as dramatic impact of the image.
This kind of LIGHTING effect or realistic quality can not usually be added in any post processing procedure.
Optical diffusion and soft focus is an entirely separate matter. There are various kinds of optical diffusion. The most effective is done with the use of a special;y designed soft focus lens. Theses lenses have controlled aberrations formulated into their design and can be adjusted for various levels of softness. They may work by blending the highlights into the shadows or by superimposing a secondary softer image over a sharper one. The oftentimes a shimmering appearance in the secular highlights. There are softening filters of different strengths. The better types. like the Zeiss Softars, work very much like the soft focus lens in creating a secondary soft image- they stand up well in grater degrees of enlargement. . The ones of lesser quality simply scrabble the image- the work to a certain extent but the don't make for greater degrees of enlargement in that they tend to degrade the image.
Diffusion applied a the camera is usually superior to blurring or softening of the image in post processing, In analog work, heavy diffusion during enlarging will blend the shadows into the highlights and may result in muddy prints.
Because soft focus and diffusion filtration techniques tend to reduce contrast, a harder light source and more contrast in the ratio ratios will hold up better in theses images by providing the needed level of spectacularity.
May 28, 2018 23:02:54 #
Delray wrote:
I am an old timer who had a studio in NYC. I serve... (show quote)
I would love to have a Deardoff with Dagor lenses. And I agree that quality is more important than quality. With that said I believe the quality of my sports photography with my Nikon D5 is much better than what I could do with a view camera. Quality is relative. The view camera probably takes a sharper image, but it can't keep up with the action. Same problem that Steve Perry pointed out on bif photos.
May 29, 2018 01:41:26 #
Actually, the first pro digital was a Nikon 1½ Mp and the retail price was $18,500. One of the News Agencies got Nikon to drop the price $1,000, but had to buy 20, I think. I was working for a guy that was trying to create a package with that Nikon, a lens, a computer, and a printer. Never knew what price he was trying to get for the package, but I knew he went Bankrupt trying.
May 29, 2018 07:13:29 #
When you compare a large forma view camera to a 35mm film camera or even a current DSLR, you are not comparing apples to oranges- you are comparing apples to, I don't know- washing machines or lawnmowers! Of course they are all cameras but the have diametrically opposite usages. No doubt, an 8x10 view camera is a fine instrument with many advantages and finite controls, however, it is not the tool of choice for rapid action spontaneous photography of any sort. OK- so Mathew Brady shot the Civil War with a large format camera but that's all they had at the time.
I just about wore out 2 8x10 Linhoff Kardens shooting architecture, interiors and products but theses were all static subjects. The demand was for 8x10 transparencies for maximizing potential in lithographic reproduction and large advertising display projects like billboards. Yes, the lenses were good- I had a bunch of German models and a few Gortz items including the Dagor and the Red Dot Artar. Nice, but by today's standards, there were shortcomings. Some of theses lenses were f/9.0s and f9.5s- not bad for focusing under hot incandescent studio lights or out in bright sunlight. Just try to focus, compose and use all the swings, tilts and shifts on a dim day or in the studio with strobes with 250 watt-modeling lamps bounced off umbrellas or in a soft-box! Not a whole bunch of good fun! Why were they f/9.0s- well many of them suffered form diffraction at small apertures and yet, small apertures were required fro depth of field, especially with certain perspective controls. So...an f/ 9.5 lens performs best at around f/16 and can make it to F/22 or f/32 without insane diffraction! At the end of a busy shooting day, I had that focusing magnifier impeded in my right eye socket! Thank goodness the folks a Intesnscreen made a model for 8x10 but by that time I needed stronger eyeglasses!
Oh- I forgot- On close up table-top work there were bellows extension factors. Most transparency emulsions required a filter pack. If you needed a polarizing filter for certain shots theses absorbed more light. By the time you factored all of this in there was reciprocity law failure. With an ISO 100 film, I would end up metering at IOS 10 to 25 to incorporate all the light loss and by that time the ground glass looked like the Black Hole of Calcutta! With electronic flash- sometimes 1 dozen pops at 2400 watt-seconds were required to make the exposure. Bracketing?- that meant shooting at 6 and 24 pops each side of the metered exposure. Then we purchased the 8x10 Polaroid processor and the film as about 20 bucks as sheet! We wrote some BIG invoices for clients!
The wide angle lenses, such as the Super Angulon for 8x10 had to cover a 16x20 circle in order for the vertical rise and horizontal shifts not to vignette. These lenses cost a fortune and were as large and heavy as the camera. I killed all the locking knobs on the front standards with that thing!
Portraiture- with a view camera?! In the early days, that's what I did. Photographing babies and active kids was challenging. Nowadays, we take our TTL viewing for granted. We can observe the subject up until the last micro-second before exposure to capture expression and we can SEE the exact camera angle and composition. On a view camera, once you inset the film holder that's that! You have to stick you head right next to the lens to observe the lighting and everything else and if the subject moves an inch or two- all bets are off! Believe me- I was the first kid on the block with a TLR 4x5 Gowlandflex.
Nowadays, with a full frame DSLR and modern glass you can achieve incredible sharpness. If you wanna spend the bucks and go to medium format digital, you can easily produce photo-murals from the files!
So...were dems REALLY the GOOD old days? Well- it makes one appreciate the good NEW days!
I just about wore out 2 8x10 Linhoff Kardens shooting architecture, interiors and products but theses were all static subjects. The demand was for 8x10 transparencies for maximizing potential in lithographic reproduction and large advertising display projects like billboards. Yes, the lenses were good- I had a bunch of German models and a few Gortz items including the Dagor and the Red Dot Artar. Nice, but by today's standards, there were shortcomings. Some of theses lenses were f/9.0s and f9.5s- not bad for focusing under hot incandescent studio lights or out in bright sunlight. Just try to focus, compose and use all the swings, tilts and shifts on a dim day or in the studio with strobes with 250 watt-modeling lamps bounced off umbrellas or in a soft-box! Not a whole bunch of good fun! Why were they f/9.0s- well many of them suffered form diffraction at small apertures and yet, small apertures were required fro depth of field, especially with certain perspective controls. So...an f/ 9.5 lens performs best at around f/16 and can make it to F/22 or f/32 without insane diffraction! At the end of a busy shooting day, I had that focusing magnifier impeded in my right eye socket! Thank goodness the folks a Intesnscreen made a model for 8x10 but by that time I needed stronger eyeglasses!
Oh- I forgot- On close up table-top work there were bellows extension factors. Most transparency emulsions required a filter pack. If you needed a polarizing filter for certain shots theses absorbed more light. By the time you factored all of this in there was reciprocity law failure. With an ISO 100 film, I would end up metering at IOS 10 to 25 to incorporate all the light loss and by that time the ground glass looked like the Black Hole of Calcutta! With electronic flash- sometimes 1 dozen pops at 2400 watt-seconds were required to make the exposure. Bracketing?- that meant shooting at 6 and 24 pops each side of the metered exposure. Then we purchased the 8x10 Polaroid processor and the film as about 20 bucks as sheet! We wrote some BIG invoices for clients!
The wide angle lenses, such as the Super Angulon for 8x10 had to cover a 16x20 circle in order for the vertical rise and horizontal shifts not to vignette. These lenses cost a fortune and were as large and heavy as the camera. I killed all the locking knobs on the front standards with that thing!
Portraiture- with a view camera?! In the early days, that's what I did. Photographing babies and active kids was challenging. Nowadays, we take our TTL viewing for granted. We can observe the subject up until the last micro-second before exposure to capture expression and we can SEE the exact camera angle and composition. On a view camera, once you inset the film holder that's that! You have to stick you head right next to the lens to observe the lighting and everything else and if the subject moves an inch or two- all bets are off! Believe me- I was the first kid on the block with a TLR 4x5 Gowlandflex.
Nowadays, with a full frame DSLR and modern glass you can achieve incredible sharpness. If you wanna spend the bucks and go to medium format digital, you can easily produce photo-murals from the files!
So...were dems REALLY the GOOD old days? Well- it makes one appreciate the good NEW days!
May 29, 2018 19:15:44 #
Sounds like the 'Ancient' photographers had as many difficulties using their limited equipment as the ancient Sailor Captains with their 'Square Rigger' ships leaving and docking- under Sail alone and NOT being able to 'tack' thru the wind. Whoa, what a pain!
May 29, 2018 21:03:58 #
snapshot,
We large format photographers love sailing our “ancient” ships made of wood and leather. No batteries necessary and the process of setting the camera up and seeing the image on the ground glass is just half the enjoyment. The other half involves mixing the chemistry and employing the almost lost art rituals of dodging and burning under the eerie yellow light to finally get the print you initially envisioned.
I find no enjoyment in the digital world. I am hopelessly stuck in the analog world and love every minute of it.
We large format photographers love sailing our “ancient” ships made of wood and leather. No batteries necessary and the process of setting the camera up and seeing the image on the ground glass is just half the enjoyment. The other half involves mixing the chemistry and employing the almost lost art rituals of dodging and burning under the eerie yellow light to finally get the print you initially envisioned.
I find no enjoyment in the digital world. I am hopelessly stuck in the analog world and love every minute of it.
May 29, 2018 23:29:41 #
I have absolutely NO problem with that. I once did it; it was just OK for me. Most of my film days involved shooting
Medium Format of beautiful models on 'Chrome' and getting color that matched or exceeded today's best digital cameras.
I still have a film camera so fine, I got rid of a complete Hasselblad system. It's a Koni-Omegaflex M. This camera is at
least 50 years old. It's a TLR (my preference) 6X7 format with interchangeable lenses AND interchangeable backs and has
feature even the great 'Hassy' didn't have . . . Hassy owners- what did you do with the dark slide after withdrawing it? The
Koni had a secure, protective slot in the back. Plus as you focused closer, the viewfinder which was actually a ground glass,
NO mirror (internally), exactly like a view camera, moved to accommodate the true image, plus for advancing the film, you
grabbed a knob, pulled it to the right and then pushed back, which also released the film pressure plate during the advance
and re-positioned it to eliminate scratches.
I was asked to present some large (20x24) black & whites for a showing and I noticed the ones made with the Koni were
measurably sharper than the ones made with the Hassy. I searched and found another Koni, bought it and sold the complete
Hasselblad outfit a week later.
I use digital exclusively (as much for economy as anything), but I LOVE not having to wait for a week to see if ALL came out OK).
However, I am experimenting with using the Koni for Portraits, having the developed trans scanned to digital, and making the prints
myself (unless a much appreciated customer wants a 'biggie').
I'll let UHH members know if successful.
Medium Format of beautiful models on 'Chrome' and getting color that matched or exceeded today's best digital cameras.
I still have a film camera so fine, I got rid of a complete Hasselblad system. It's a Koni-Omegaflex M. This camera is at
least 50 years old. It's a TLR (my preference) 6X7 format with interchangeable lenses AND interchangeable backs and has
feature even the great 'Hassy' didn't have . . . Hassy owners- what did you do with the dark slide after withdrawing it? The
Koni had a secure, protective slot in the back. Plus as you focused closer, the viewfinder which was actually a ground glass,
NO mirror (internally), exactly like a view camera, moved to accommodate the true image, plus for advancing the film, you
grabbed a knob, pulled it to the right and then pushed back, which also released the film pressure plate during the advance
and re-positioned it to eliminate scratches.
I was asked to present some large (20x24) black & whites for a showing and I noticed the ones made with the Koni were
measurably sharper than the ones made with the Hassy. I searched and found another Koni, bought it and sold the complete
Hasselblad outfit a week later.
I use digital exclusively (as much for economy as anything), but I LOVE not having to wait for a week to see if ALL came out OK).
However, I am experimenting with using the Koni for Portraits, having the developed trans scanned to digital, and making the prints
myself (unless a much appreciated customer wants a 'biggie').
I'll let UHH members know if successful.
May 30, 2018 00:19:46 #
Love the wayback machines cited here! Gowlandflex! Koni-Omega! Dagor lenses!
I still shoot my old film gear for fun at times, but I'm damn glad I can carry an entire kit in my bag without giving myself a hernia these days.
Nostalgia is fun, but making photos today is actually more fun. I'm sure Ansel would approve....
Andy
I still shoot my old film gear for fun at times, but I'm damn glad I can carry an entire kit in my bag without giving myself a hernia these days.
Nostalgia is fun, but making photos today is actually more fun. I'm sure Ansel would approve....
Andy
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.