The official Zeiss 35/1.4 thread
/forum/topic/839374/115

1       2       3              115      
116
       117              129       130       end

wfrank
Registered: Feb 09, 2011
Total Posts: 3188
Country: Sweden

Samuli Vahonen wrote:
wfrank wrote:
Talking about bokeh including the linked digger example - I agree, not very nice. But do you mask that area while downsizing? I always mask bokeh/OOF areas. If not bokeh have a lot of potential turning worse than it is. Sometimes it doesnt matter though, very much depending on distance, size and amount of contrast in the OOF areas.

I don't do masking or other photo processing. I do if photo is important somehow and it needs to be rescued for reason or another. After doing x+1 weddings and other stuff it causes strong negative feeling even just knowing I need to do that kind of work - to me the photo processing is the disgusting side of doing photography.
...
Samuli


Either we disagree or you misunderstood the point. Downsizing for web with sharpening in each step will induce artificial sharpness. With that I mean you will extrapolate sharpness from something sometimes lacking that ability [to become sharp]. This applies to short DOF scenes, not necessarily just wide-open F/1.4 shots but anything with a bad-character OOF background.

From your image with the digger it probably applies to the faint trees in the background, in my image stitch with two cars it would e.g. apply to the mast wires in the background. These are blurry, and supposed to be blurry. And if not covered in downsizing you're introducing something artificial. At least according to me.

You shouldnt think "I need to soften the background". It's the other way around. You want the digger to look sharp when downsized. Then make it sharp, but dont apply that sharpening to the rest. The surrounding wont cope with your downsizing schemes. The preservation of a wanted soft background is an integral part of the beauty with 20+ MP FF-sensors and fast lenses.

As for time, I usually spend say 10-20 seconds masking. The downsizing script I use introduces three layers with increasing sharpness ready to mask. The mask can be created with a single black brushstroke if you like [5 secs]. But I tend to do a little more. To me it's not manipulating it's more like preserving the qualities fast lenses have.

If you do a strong fill light in ACR, you are in many ways introducing more progressive postprocessing than a simple masking to preserve a soft background if you ask me :-)



Samuli Vahonen
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Total Posts: 1892
Country: Finland

wfrank wrote:
Either we disagree or you misunderstood the point. Downsizing for web with sharpening in each step will induce artificial sharpness. With that I mean you will extrapolate sharpness from something sometimes lacking that ability [to become sharp]. This applies to short DOF scenes, not necessarily just wide-open F/1.4 shots but anything with a bad-character OOF background.


There might have been misunderstanding on both sides. To clarify I hate the post processing just for it being disgusting to perform for me, not because artifacts. I hope this is not common problem for photographers (it's very limiting), but for me it's real issue - I really enjoy being outdoors and photographing, but I have lost interest of processing ordinary single exposure images. Thou there are always exceptions e.g. "The how-would-you-process-my-image thread" has been quite interesting to see other camera RAW files and try to process them.

The resizing methods I use (Lanczos interpolation [currently >99% of images] or step sharpening [remaining <1% of images]) do not artificially "extrapolate sharpness from something lacking ability to become sharp". Both methods I use have been selected for their abilities to maintain detail in subject and transition from focus to bokeh as naturally as it can be represented in web size (or atleast I have not found better methods). The traditional "resize to final size and then add sharpening" will do just exactly what you describe, due to which I won't use those methods.

For example if bokeh highlights have light concentration so that the edges of bokeh balls are bright, that is "real" detail saved to film (they were very visible on slides projected to few meters wide) or sensor - unfortunately.

wfrank wrote:
You shouldnt think "I need to soften the background". It's the other way around. You want the digger to look sharp when downsized. Then make it sharp, but dont apply that sharpening to the rest. The surrounding wont cope with your downsizing schemes. The preservation of a wanted soft background is an integral part of the beauty with 20+ MP FF-sensors and fast lenses.


Only sharpening I apply is the final size minor edge enhancement, which is done by the Adobe PS droplet in gamma 1.0 colorspace. In the "The how-would-you-process-my-image thread" you can see my total process explained (thou due to underexposure image required tons of tweaking to restore colours and tonality) and if you open the final image without and with final size minor edge enhancement to two different tabs for comparison you can see that if I would mask in this step it would have ultra small effect to bokeh issues. Lanczos cannot be masked since it's resizing method (similar to bicubic what PhotoShop uses).

So I would either have to do the step sharpening in Photo Shop (and drawing the masks=no longer possible to script the whole post processing but I actually need to do something in PS) instead of Image Magick OR soften background with mask (could be done in Apple Aperture). Both methods tend to also cause minor colour and tonality differences. And mask can sometimes take hours to draw if they need to include smoothing mask to cover the transition from focus to bokeh. I did this quite often 10 years ago before when I was still shooting with Canon lenses. And I really don't want to go back there.

wfrank wrote:
As for time, I usually spend say 10-20 seconds masking. The downsizing script I use introduces three layers with increasing sharpness ready to mask. The mask can be created with a single black brushstroke if you like [5 secs]. But I tend to do a little more. To me it's not manipulating it's more like preserving the qualities fast lenses have.

Hmmm, so you can add masks in LightRoom and your step sharpening script in PhotoShop is able to use those masks? Or you actually have to go in PhotoShop and draw the mask there?

My normal workflow doesn't involve any active usage of PhotoShop, all I do in PhotoShop happens via droplets (actions saved to files into which one can drop files and action is performed). All actions I'm actually doing something happen in Apple Aperture. After that there are just Linux scripts running and files dropped to Adobe PS droplets. Then finally I review the JPGs created and if standard script didn't work as I wanted I run manually different subscripts (all intermediate steps are still saved on different folders as TIFF-files) - of 1000 single exposure files I need to process <5 manually in Photo Shop.

And please don't understand wrong - I don't see anything wrong what you are doing - If you have the motivation and time to do what you do it's great for you and your photography.

Samuli



Makten
Registered: Jul 14, 2008
Total Posts: 4101
Country: Sweden

Samuli Vahonen wrote:
I have quite little experience shooting 50 planar wide open close up - tried few frames years ago and that's it.


Try it! The Planar is really a "double nature" in that it gives very harsh bokeh close up, but is instead very smooth for distant shots (+2-3 meters or so). Personally, I don't understand why one would want smooth bokeh when the background is totally blurred out. I want chaos! Hence 95% of all "bokeh tests" are totally irrelevant for me since they usually are carried out near MFD.

I think you should try some medium format, if you can afford it. I have only used 6x6 and 6x7 film because of cost, but many of the lenses have characteristics that I'm sure you would love, because they don't have to be faster than ~f/2.8 to give a really blurred background. Especially the humble Hasselblad Zeiss 80/2.8 Planar behaves very much the same as the Z* 50/1.4, but it is of course much sharper at the same DOF.



Paul Yi
Registered: Dec 10, 2004
Total Posts: 5324
Country: United States

Just to confirm that I bought the lens again because of this thread....









Makten
Registered: Jul 14, 2008
Total Posts: 4101
Country: Sweden

Paul Yi wrote:
Just to confirm that I bought the lens again because of this thread....


As usual I'm wondering what "the" lens is, because the C/Y or Rollei, and the ZF/ZE don't share the same optical design.



Paul Yi
Registered: Dec 10, 2004
Total Posts: 5324
Country: United States

They were taken with C/Y MMJ version....



wfrank
Registered: Feb 09, 2011
Total Posts: 3188
Country: Sweden

Interesting, I did not know they were very different [optically]. But yes, I've read opinions about 3D advantage CY/Rollei vs ZE/ZF, better sharpness ZE/ZF vs the older, color talk and so on but I honestly cant tell the difference. Lack of fidelity perhaps.

The only one with characteristics that sticks out is the Rollei with the triangular bokeh which you may or may not like. Other than that I'd be very easy too fool with any of the versions. Got a CY (MMJ) myself.





Makten
Registered: Jul 14, 2008
Total Posts: 4101
Country: Sweden

wfrank wrote:
Interesting, I did not know they were very different [optically]. But yes, I've read opinions about 3D advantage CY/Rollei vs ZE/ZF, better sharpness ZE/ZF vs the older, color talk and so on but I honestly cant tell the difference. Lack of fidelity perhaps.

The only one with characteristics that sticks out is the Rollei with the triangular bokeh which you may or may not like. Other than that I'd be very easy too fool with any of the versions. Got a CY (MMJ) myself.


I haven't tried the C/Y or Rollei but I own the ZF, and from what I've seen, there is not much in common between them. The older lens gives much smoother bokeh in the middle at medium short distances, but is also very "nervous" towards the corners. The new one is more uniform across the frame and maintains a relatively good bokeh at large distances (like the Planars), with a low contrast background.

So, I'm a bit annoyed with people posting images without telling what lens they used. I mean, this thread is about pure gear freakery, so let's get there. Otherwise we could also have a thread named "The official Zeiss 50 mm thread". As you might know, there are like 10 lenses that fits, which are all different.



wfrank
Registered: Feb 09, 2011
Total Posts: 3188
Country: Sweden

Thanks Samuli for the detailed answer.

I'll investigate Lanczos sometime to see what it can do for me.

I can only say that if PP wasnt there I would not be in this hobby. Straight out of cam can be good. But even in a perfect exposure there are some basic things I want to do or check. All depends on the lighting conditions. For me any exposure diverge from the scene I saw. So a big part of my hobby is developing something true to the scenery.



wfrank
Registered: Feb 09, 2011
Total Posts: 3188
Country: Sweden

Makten wrote:
So, I'm a bit annoyed with people posting images without telling what lens they used. I mean, this thread is about pure gear freakery, so let's get there. Otherwise we could also have a thread named "The official Zeiss 50 mm thread". As you might know, there are like 10 lenses that fits, which are all different.


Right. I'd like to know too though I am easy to fool. Cam is interesting too, 5D2 for me.



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 16156
Country: Germany

Makten wrote:
Otherwise we could also have a thread named "The official Zeiss 50 mm thread". As you might know, there are like 10 lenses that fits, which are all different.


I am quite sure that there is way more than 10! I can think of 4-5 medium format lenses right off the bat, and there are old ones too.



wfrank
Registered: Feb 09, 2011
Total Posts: 3188
Country: Sweden

People should do like you two guys, brag with their gear in their profile ;-)



Makten
Registered: Jul 14, 2008
Total Posts: 4101
Country: Sweden

wfrank wrote:
People should do like you two guys, brag with their gear in their profile ;-)


If people think it's about bragging I will remove the list at once, as I hate bragging. I use the profile for remembering what lenses I've owned or used for an extended period.

Anyhow, I thought it was obvious that the C/Y and Z* were completely different designs.



Mescalamba
Registered: Jul 06, 2011
Total Posts: 3731
Country: Czech Republic

Paul Yi wrote:
They were taken with C/Y MMJ version....



Thought so, my favorite, at least based on look. How much did it cost you?



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 16156
Country: Germany

Hmm, I am considering adding my old gear to my profile as well. Nice way to keep track...



ceder
Registered: May 13, 2011
Total Posts: 299
Country: Sweden

HELP!

I have the C/Y 35/1.4, it was leitaxed for canon mount, and today I got the Metabones speed boost adapter, so I unscrewed the leitax adapter, put on the speed booster and put it on the camera. I immediately noticed it felt like a loose fit, so I put the camera down and realised I had forgotten to screw back the screws into the C/Y 35mm when taking off the Leitax adapter. Well, I un-mounted the speed booster, and noticed that the holes for the screws were still aligned at the back of my 35mm lens, so I screwed them in.

Everything fine and dandy?

NOPE! The aperture ring now slides without the distinct stops between the full apertures (I think it used to do that), and I can now only go to aperture 11, not aperture 16 (which is max). Well, I can go into 16 if I use force, but I do not want to do that.

What is the cure?

Thanks for any help guys!!



wfrank
Registered: Feb 09, 2011
Total Posts: 3188
Country: Sweden

Sorry to hear ceder!

If youre lucky there's a simple solution, the screws you screwed in came with the Leitax adapter and they are usually longer than the original ones. A guess is that they now press on aperture mechanics making it malfunction. Hopefully just unscrew them (a bit at least) so they not pushing anything for a prolonged time.

If you dont got the original screws together with the lens, it ought to be possible to get the correct ones from Zeiss if it is a MM version (green F/16 mark). Leitax may very well be able to help you too, I understand that he is a helpful guy quick to respond to emails.



ceder
Registered: May 13, 2011
Total Posts: 299
Country: Sweden

Yes, I will change to the shorter screws! Thanks Frank!



sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 12463
Country: United States

ceder wrote:
Yes, I will change to the shorter screws! Thanks Frank!


i bet the aperture ring came out of alignment at some point without tight screws holding the mount in place and the ball bearing that is responsible for click stops came out of position. those things are slippery devils, hopefully it's still under the aperture ring just out of position (and is what is blocking f/16). otherwise you'll have to get a new one if you want click stops.

note: i believe the ball bearings on all contax lenses are spring loaded? so it's possible the spring might be displaced as well.

my solution would be to put the lens in a shoe box (where the ball bearing won't get away) and remove the aperture ring (after the mount of course) to see if you can locate the bearing (and spring) and put them back in their proper location.



wfrank
Registered: Feb 09, 2011
Total Posts: 3188
Country: Sweden

For the ball bearing position and "mount", check this links image #8 and #9. It's an instruction for a different conversion (of the 85/1.4 and 35/1.4) and involves lifting the aperture ring also revealing some other mechanics.

http://leitax.com/conversion/contax/Planar_8514/index.html



1       2       3              115      
116
       117              129       130       end