philber wrote:
Guys, I need some advice here. I have uploaded a low-light shot, cropped to about 100%, and it looks horrible, and it is not the only one. Forget the noise, which is not my concern. What I would like to know, is it camera shake, is it lens softness, is it missed focus, or something else? Thanks for the help...
Maybe it's missed focus, but whatever noise reduction was set appears to be excessive to me. It's possible that strong NR and 50 f/1.4 Planar softness has combined in a nasty combination? Was it shot handheld? (I seem to recall you mentioning that you don't use a tripod often)
pinball_pw: love the last portrait/train window; seems like you already know how to put the 50/1.4 to good use.
charles.K/rsolti13: love the light on the cross/the arch
philber: can't help you with your shot, but my 550D does just the same every now and then: makes images turn really ugly oof and noisy. I found it happens at ISO 200 and above, low contrast / shady situation and maybe a too low shutter speed handheld. I'm leaning towards hand held 1/2-3f. I guess it's the price we have to pay for hires.
denoir: wow! Zeiss can handle scratched airplane windows!
Sami: especially love the 1st. Zeisses seems to be really good at rendering lacquered wood, boat images by Makten (if I remember properly) were the reason for me to start with Zeiss.
Makten: yes B&W film and Zeiss looks really weird.
Philippe, I may have a bad copy of the planar, but at 1.4 I can't expect better sharpness from mine than what you show in your crop.
The lens surely creates a dreamy "glow" wide open, as someone has said, but it's very far from sharp. At regular image sizes it's hardly a problem, though. It's not a focusing problem since I can track the focus point on some ground in the picture, and even at this focus point the image is very soft despite good shooting parameters (ie. iso, speed, etc...).
I can't get very good sharpness until the aperture is closed to f2.5.
I knew this before I buyed the lens, as this lack of sharpness is something of a strength for some shots.
charles.K wrote:
Philippe, I have looked over my photos again with the 50/1.4 Planar, and your 100% crop would be about the image to be expected at f/1.4.
I have included a previous post of a shot at f/1.4 iso3200, underexposed about 1 1/2 stops due to lack of light. The sharpness of the image would be the same as yours. Interesting...I never really noticed it before.
I wonder how this translate to a final print however. I have noticed that a of what we see when pixel peeping, particularly noise and some sharpness like in this image are essentially not seen in print, even when printed large. Just my experience, but I'd be curious what you think.
charles.K wrote:
I have included a previous post of a shot at f/1.4 iso3200, underexposed about 1 1/2 stops due to lack of light. The sharpness of the image would be the same as yours. Interesting...I never really noticed it before.
That's because you focused on the teeth not the eyes
Makten wrote:
Sure! The classic look of B&W photography, is not very sharp. Not with 24x36 anyway. So when using for instance the 35/2, the results looks odd. There isn't "supposed" to be extreme local contrast, sharpness and 3D in B&W images!
The building in the background looks nice, but that's because it's out of focus! The forground on the other hand, is "too sharp" for my liking. And if I sharpen it less, it'll look boring without the nice grain.
The 50/1.4 is much better. The very high resolution just drowns in the grain anyway, and it behaves much more neutral than on digital. So does the Biogon 35/2.8.
I've tried the 100/2 too, but haven't PP:d any shot with it yet....Show more →
Ok, I see. Your photo looks like medium format B/W, while you want 24x36
1. If the film was printed in traditional manner from negative, it will probably look very good.
2. Convergence of analogue ( Film ) + digital ( Scan + sharpening + print through computer ) to me, is bringing out something interesting. Unusual, may be, but I liked it on the scaffolding shot. That was probably not what you were after.
3. Using Nikkor 50 1.8 may still bring out the same issue, please keep us posted.
1. If the film was printed in traditional manner from negative, it will probably look very good.
2. Convergence of analogue ( Film ) + digital ( Scan + sharpening + print through computer ) to me, is bringing out something interesting. Unusual, may be, but I liked it on the scaffolding shot. That was probably not what you were after.
Now that is an interesting thought. I guess it also depends if the enlarger is using a light condenser or diffuser. There are so many variables.
Having shot a lot of B/W in the past, traditionally printed as well as scanned (Nikon coolscan 5000), I could swear that film has more DOF than digital. Don't want to open the can of worms, but I believe film having a measurable thickness, there is more of the image in focus but less maximum sharpness than with digital.
Sorry for continuing the digression, but Makten, I suggest having a quality lab scan some of your B&W film to compare to your scans. The V700 is a great scanner but doesn't really cut it for your standard of quality with 35mm film.
That said, the grain definitely plays a roll, but I think it might be a positive one if you get scans that do it justice.
I think you've misunderstood the issue. I want lower contrast and resolution in relation to the grain! Now, look a this shot, taken with the Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 on the same roll of film:
This is what I want from B&W film. Tonality, grain, dynamic range. Not details and 3D. If I want that, I'll just shoot digital.
And yes, film definitely has larger DOF.
Edit: I think I'll sell som stuff and get a Voigtländer 40/2 Ultron again.
35mm GEAR by Son V Hanoi, on Flickr
Im glad to hear other photographers are using their zeiss lens on film camera. It seems a photograph on film has just a bit more personality, especially when seen through a zeiss lens. I have been enjoying 35mm film for the past year, any recommendation on a scanner? Thanks you all...
