[HUG ] Re: A Sad Day
- From: Bob Adler <rgacpa@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 12:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
I thought there was some rule of thumb about where the maximum sharpness is
based on the lens' lowest fstop? For example an f2.8 lens is probably prime at
f8 or f11? I know it's only a rule of thumb, but I seem to remember reading it
somewhere...
Thanks,
Bob
Bob Adler
Palo Alto, CA
rgacpa@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.raflexions.com
----- Original Message ----
From: Jim Brick <jim@xxxxxxxxx>
To: hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2008 10:33:44 AM
Subject: [HUG ] Re: A Sad Day
The photograph in question could not have been made without Scheimpflug. Using
lens tilt, one extends horizontal DOF, regardless of f/stop. So basically, if
done correctly, with a wide angle lens, one can get from their feet
(immediately in front of the lens) to infinity in focus at maximum aperture
(f/3.5). Some stopping down is prudent in order to put the
lens characteristics at their best. Most lenses are at their best
somewhere around f/8. Also stopping down a little will help hold vertical DOF
(which suffers with lens tilt).
Lens defecation, on wide angle lenses (for 35mm cameras) comes into play around
f/11. For maximum sharpness, anything smaller than f/11 will actually loose
overall sharpness. It is therefore impossible, to even think about
photographing a scene like this, using f/stop alone to hold DOF for printing
BIG prints. My personal belief is that Bob actually lost some sharpness by
using f/16 rather than f/11. If one is not going to print mural sized prints,
then f/16 and smaller work just fine. But I urge Bob to not ever go past f/11,
or f/13 in extreme cases, if he wishes to make sharp LARGE prints.
:-)
Jim
On Oct 9, 2008, at 9:10 AM, Bob Adler wrote:
Hi Frank,
Bought a big epson when my son moved out :-) 9880...
I did not try it without the tilt/shift. My camera was about 4 inches above the
foreground rocks. Upon printing large you can see, close up, some definte
unsharpness, particularly in the foreground, but that's with your nose up
against the print. From viewing distance it's pretty darn sharp.
So my guess is that w/o T/S, it would have been even more difficult as I was
stopped down to f16 as it was. Besides, my knees and back were killing me by
the time I was done so I didn't feel much like experimenting. :-)
And one lesson I learned was that stray light coming into the eyepiece can
REALLY screw up your metering. Each initial shot was way underexposed; I had to
go to manual metering to move the histogram into the middle from the far left.
Later Jim told me he had experienced the same issue which was resolved by
blocking the light coming into the eyepiece (the camera has a built in eyepiece
shutter). Problem solved!
I stopped using my handheld meters with this outfit; I love the histogram. In
the "old" days I probably would have walked away with a bunch of underexposed
shots on Velvia and not been able to capture as much dynamic range even if
properly exposed (Pt. Lobos can have some real dynamic range challenges on a
clear day). I had a polarizer and 2ND filters on; 1 x 1.2ND and 1 x 0.6ND) and
still bracketed the heck out of it moving the histogram from the left 1/3 to
the right 1/3 in 2/3stop increments.
I'm glad you like the image. Buying the new system hoping to get acceptable
quality output was an act of faith, but it seems to have worked out OK. I had a
lot of terrific guidance from Jim; very fortunate for me indeed.
Best,
Bob
----- Original Message ----
From: Frank Filippone <red735i@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2008 7:55:06 AM
Subject: [HUG ] Re: A Sad Day
How, or rather, where, or on what? 40x60 printers are not exactly home
printers….
The coastal shot proves you have not lost your touch…….. wonderful……. Did you
try it without the tilt? I am interested if there was sufficient DOF to handle
the shot…….
Frank Filippone
red735i@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
I printed it out 40x60
Other related posts:
