Yes, great eyes, Ron. now I default use either BPM or Black satin filter on most my GFX JPEG shots. I think It is really a personal preference but I love the effect and it saves tons of my time
rscheffler wrote:
Great sets Michael!
I'm curious the cause of the weird texture in the OOF specular highlights? Were you using some sort of diffusion filter?
rscheffler wrote:
Thanks for confirming! What strengths are you using? If you have the chance, maybe you could add your findings to this 'diffusion' thread: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1695216
I've been looking at adding some BPM type diffusion for portraits but the options are kind of confusing...
For BPM, i use 1/4 also has one 1/8. for Black Satin, I use 1. TBH, I never had time to really evaluate the difference as I have different filter thread size and I just put them on lenses. i have 46mm for Leica M, 58m for Fuji, ZE, 72mm for contax 645 and ZE, 77mm for Hasselblad and Leica S through 82 to 77 adapter. They are quite similar for the output with minor difference.
Here are a few thumb of rules that you may have known. you get strong effect with longer focal length. 35 need one level up to get the same 85 diffusion effect. for modern lens, you can use stronger one and for classic lens such as Leica 35mm pre ASPH you can leave them out or use weaker one. The key effect are: reduce contrast, no more or reduced hard blow out highlight, no more deep black. The effect is especially useful for back light condition. Front light condition help with skin tone rendering, it kill micro contrast without lose much definition as far as I can see. The major attraction for you I think is it might save you time for PP.
Black Satin and BPM are quite similar, but Black Satin can contaminate bokeh highlight more than BPM from what I see. BPM seems have effect on broader light spectrum but Black Satin seems affect more on high light. BPM was introduced earlier and more popular over the years and Black Satin is newer. I bought Black Satin is because I really liked cinema photography of The Queen's Gambit, they use Black Satin 1 with Zeiss supreme prime through out that series. I found the bokeh rendering was I am after and one of best I ever watched.
There is no really right or wrong here or I think it matters much if you selected one level down or up. The main attraction is it give me good starting point. You can always combine PP to get the effect you want if you feel they are too strong or weak. I watch a few vimeo and youtube to see the strength difference to get a starting point. BPM 1/4 and Black Satin 1 are good to start and I have no plan to get stronger ones. Nowadays, most my photo shooting are involve family so I default use those filter as UV filter to protect my lenses For landscape, I think you could use them as well as there is really no right or wrong here, it is all about what kind of look you want represent.
Here is one with 35mm distagon f1.4, BPM1/4 and GFX100s JPEG (Provia) out of camera.
rscheffler wrote:
Thanks for confirming! What strengths are you using? If you have the chance, maybe you could add your findings to this 'diffusion' thread: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1695216
I've been looking at adding some BPM type diffusion for portraits but the options are kind of confusing...
zhangyue wrote:
For BPM, i use 1/4 also has one 1/8. for Black Satin, I use 1. TBH, I never had time to really evaluate the difference as I have different filter thread size and I just put them on lenses. i have 46mm for Leica M, 58m for Fuji, ZE, 72mm for contax 645 and ZE, 77mm for Hasselblad and Leica S through 82 to 77 adapter. They are quite similar for the output with minor difference.
Here are a few thumb of rules that you may have known. you get strong effect with longer focal length. 35 need one level up to get the same 85 diffusion effect. for modern lens, you can use stronger one and for classic lens such as Leica 35mm pre ASPH you can leave them out or use weaker one. The key effect are: reduce contrast, no more or reduced hard blow out highlight, no more deep black. The effect is especially useful for back light condition. Front light condition help with skin tone rendering, it kill micro contrast without lose much definition as far as I can see. The major attraction for you I think is it might save you time for PP.
Black Satin and BPM are quite similar, but Black Satin can contaminate bokeh highlight more than BPM from what I see. BPM seems have effect on broader light spectrum but Black Satin seems affect more on high light. BPM was introduced earlier and more popular over the years and Black Satin is newer. I bought Black Satin is because I really liked cinema photography of The Queen's Gambit, they use Black Satin 1 with Zeiss supreme prime through out that series. I found the bokeh rendering was I am after and one of best I ever watched.
There is no really right or wrong here or I think it matters much if you selected one level down or up. The main attraction is it give me good starting point. You can always combine PP to get the effect you want if you feel they are too strong or weak. I watch a few vimeo and youtube to see the strength difference to get a starting point. BPM 1/4 and Black Satin 1 are good to start and I have no plan to get stronger ones. Nowadays, most my photo shooting are involve family so I default use those filter as UV filter to protect my lenses For landscape, I think you could use them as well as there is really no right or wrong here, it is all about what kind of look you want represent. ...Show more →
Thanks for the summary. Sorry for the slow reply.
Do you have any comment on how much the effect changes as the lens is stopped down?
The use I actually have in mind is for studio portraits where I'm typically in the 100-135mm range (70-200 zoom) and usually at f/8 for good depth of field on the face. I'd like something that knocks down fine details but doesn't kill contrast. In this situation I wouldn't really care about highlight blooming. It's more or less as you suggested, to save time in post. I asked in the other thread and was provided a couple examples at 135mm and f/8. It was difficult to see any of the effect, so not sure it's even worth it. Or would I have to go with a much stronger grade? Probably will have to try it for myself at some point. Just reluctant to spend the money on a bunch of filters that might not do what I want.
rscheffler wrote:
Thanks for the summary. Sorry for the slow reply.
Do you have any comment on how much the effect changes as the lens is stopped down?
The use I actually have in mind is for studio portraits where I'm typically in the 100-135mm range (70-200 zoom) and usually at f/8 for good depth of field on the face. I'd like something that knocks down fine details but doesn't kill contrast. In this situation I wouldn't really care about highlight blooming. It's more or less as you suggested, to save time in post. I asked in the other thread and was provided a couple examples at 135mm and f/8. It was difficult to see any of the effect, so not sure it's even worth it. Or would I have to go with a much stronger grade? Probably will have to try it for myself at some point. Just reluctant to spend the money on a bunch of filters that might not do what I want....Show more →
I see. This is a user case totally out of my usage I almost never shoot portrait in this aperture not because I don't appreciate deep DOF portrait but I don't have luxury for it, either not enough light, or not enough controlled background to make images interesting. I do have smaller aperture family images with grand landscape or nice color pattern background in background but mostly, for those cases, story or whole image composition are more important and skin tone or skin rendering was not main issue for me.
I just made a few quick shots for you with my wife sitting there reading, (sorry, don't want post here) based on what I see, I think you still get the effect nicely with even small aperture shooting though I am not sure if this can or can't be recreated with PP or even a quick profile set with PP skill like you. You may never match final results if you consider those results are standard though. Front light has less effect again but hardly a surprise here.
However, It indeed reduce contrast, (you mentioned you don't want reduce contrast) you just won't get deep black out of camera. (I think you can easily PP black level with or without filter) if backlight blooming is not your main care, I would suggest black Satin or Soft/fx that are mainly for reduce resolution for you based on the link of TRIANGLE OF DIFFUSION I sent early reply.
You mentioned: it is difficult to see the effect. I think it could be good or bad depend on how you see this. To me, maybe it is a good thing to have effect in a subtle way. If you see it clearly, maybe it is already too much. I tend to overuse it but maybe it should be a nice subtle touch instead.
My opinion (take a grain of salts) on this, theoretically, filter at hardware level will make difference for sure. Back light condition just magnify the diffusion effect, but front light also consist with light reflection on all level, those will diffuse as well, just not as obvious as you can easily detect. If you value traditional deep DOP portraits make with classic glasses such as Yousuf Karsh's, those glasses don't have modern coating or correction, they don't have the contrast or micro contrast of modern glasses, but the portraits are just so powerful and nice to look at. Maybe those filers will do the same thing for you at 1st order level correction of modern harshness of digital sensor and glasses. I don't have extensive experience on those, so I can only 'talk' and discuss here.
SergeyT wrote:
You could get the same rendering from a Contax 645 210mm for a fraction of the cost.
If you ask me, not even close. I had C140 but not 210, great lens for sonnar rendering but with lots of CA and based on MTF, 140 might be even slightly better than 210mm for sharpness. However, There is no comparison between C140 to Leica S's 120 or 180. There is not a small difference that totally in different level. These two S might be few of best glass if not the best I ever used.
For landscape, I think you could use them as well as there is really no right or wrong here, it is all about what kind of look you want represent. 
