Related Local Links:
Autofocus Problems Page
Erwin Puts on Degradation Factors %
Lens Reviews (Pop. Photography..)
Mirror Lockup
Tips on Improving Results
Zeiss Tips for High Performance
Related Links:
Sharpshooter - tips to sharper images
How can you get the most out of your lenses, whether they are high priced
OEM lenses by Nikon or Leitz or low cost used lenses by third party lens
makers under a "no-name" importer brand?
By carefully using your low cost lenses so they can perform at their
maximum, you can often equal the performance of much more expensive
lenses.
For example, a low cost lens used with a lens hood may outperform the
contrast of a much more expensive name-brand lens used without a lens
hood.
A low cost third party lens used at its sweet spot will
probably outperform a high priced OEM lens used wide open or stopped down
fully.
A monopod may enable you to equal the sharpness of a super-expensive
large aperture telephoto lens using your slower, cheaper and much lighter
amateur lens.
A low cost 50mm normal lens will probably be sharper than the most
expensive zoom, as well as exhibiting fewer optical aberrations and defects.
Many slower lens designs (e.g., f/2.8 or f/3.5) may outperform a much more
expensive faster lens (e.g., f1.4, f/2) - even at the same aperture! The
faster lens has more compromises in its optical design, often in favor of
its fastest aperture. These tradeoffs aren't made or needed in the
slower lens designs.
In short, you can trade a bit of knowledge and some low cost tools (such
as lens hoods and a monopod) to produce results virtually equal to big
name brand OEM pro lenses (Nikon, Canon, Leitz..) that cost much more to
buy!
You are probably the first person to test out that new lens with a roll of film.
Some fraction (2-5%) of new lenses are lemons that have problems right
out of the box. But not all problem lenses are returned to the factory
for service - some get shipped out again to the next buyer. Could that be
you? Unless you test your lens, you won't know!
This advice is even more important if you are buying a used lens. Here,
you want to be sure that the lens has not been abused or developed
problems during prolonged storage. Lens
Faults Page lists some of these problems to look for, including
fungus and cleaning marks on the lens. Do you know the tricks of using a
small flashlight to find such defects before you buy? If not, then
you really do have to read up to avoid other people's problems!
A related use of your set of lens test slides is for comparison over
time. Has your lens gotten softer, or was it always like this at f/4? A
check of your lens test slides will tell the tale. You can also see how
much of an improvement, if any, that newer high priced lens is over your
older third party lens!
In short, you have to perform these tests to ensure your lens is not a
newly manufactured "lemon" or an abused orphan lens. In the process of
ensuring the lens is working properly, you can also learn how to use the
lens in its maximum performance zone.
The basic idea is to take a series of photos at various apertures and
distances, taking notes. I cheat by putting a 3x5 card
with lens settings in
the photo as I do them. When you look at this series of slides, you can
see how well the lens performed at f/5.6 or f/8 versus f/16 or f/22 and
wide open. Usually, the critical areas for my tastes are edge sharpness in
the corners and linear distortion.
Many new photographers confuse maximum depth of field stopped all the way
down (f/16 or f/22) with maximum sharpness. In general, few lenses are at
their sharpest when stopped all the way down (e.g., f/16). The reason is
diffraction, an effect of the small
hole or aperture produced when stopping down.
On the other hand, most lenses are also not at their sharpest when fully
open (e.g., f/2.8 or f/2). Depth of field is minimal when lenses are used
wide open. But focusing errors are also a bigger problem when lenses are
used wide open (see film flatness notes).
Some photographers have summarized these tradeoffs by using a short
saying:
Sorry, but that could be wrong for any particular lens! Some
lenses have their worst performance in these supposedly safe middle
aperture ranges! A few expensive telephoto lenses are carefully designed
and built to have their maximum sharpness available wide open. On the
other hand, some older low cost wide angle lenses may improve their
performance when stopped down to f/11 or even f/16.
In other words, you can't just rely on this Myth of Photography that the middle
apertures are always the best performance or sweet spot on
every lens! You have to individually test your lenses, look at the
slides, and decide.
Few new photographers realize how good most third party lenses are when
used at their optimum settings. It is not at all unusual for these low
cost lenses to rival and even equal the performance of much more
expensive lenses when used at their optimal settings too. The OEM lenses
will usually be carefully optimized to perform better when used wide open
or at a wider range of f-stops. But the sharpness of a low-cost third
party lenses used at its sweet spot(s) may be impossible to
distinguish from the highest cost OEM lenses on slides and prints.
Incidentally, I keep saying slides as print film introduces another layer
of potential errors into your evaluation tests. Many low cost printers do
a poor job of printing from a good negative, saving time and money but
delivering less than crisp prints. So use slide
film and a loupe to examine your
slides and see what's really going on - not prints!
Many people look at magazine and online lens test
reviews as the last word in how lens XYZ by ABC company will perform
against lens JKL by DEF corporation. But it isn't that simple. As our
page on lens variations shows, lenses may
vary more within a batch of lenses than between different
designs and brands of lenses!
Granted, a 19-35mm f/3.5 Vivitar ultrawide angle zoom lens costing $120 is
probably going to be less sharp in the corners and wide open than a
$2,000+ OEM lens in the same range by Nikon or Canon. But a Tokina
80-200mm f/4 zoom lens costing $500 may well be as good or better in
design and manufacture than an OEM 80-200mm f/4 lens by Nikon or Canon
costing $500 or even $700.
How can you tell? Start with the lens reviews,
but then test and verify that the
lens works as designed! You can't be sure otherwise that it isn't a
brand-new "lemon" or abused and returned or demo lens.
Cherry-picking refers to picking
the best lens of a group of lenses. You can do this over time with third
party lenses too. Simply test each lens as you can, and trade-off the
poorer performing lenses for the better ones you locate by on-going
tests.
However, the short answer is that you can't go wrong by using the right
lens hood to reduce or eliminate lens flare. I highly recommend lens
hoods for all of your prime and zoom lenses.
However, very few users actually use a lens hood on a zoom lens. That's
too bad, because zoom lenses have a large number of lens elements
(e.g., 12-16 or more, compared to typically 4-7 for most prime lenses).
More lens elements mean more internal reflections on each surface, and
hence more lens flare.
Lens flare is bad because it reduces contrast. Many folks pay huge
premiums to own the best and highest priced OEM lenses (Nikon, Leitz,
Canon..). Much of this extra money goes to improve the contrast results
delivered on film. But if you don't use a lens hood with your lenses, you
are likely to reduce your contrast significantly.
In other words, your high priced lenses without a lens hood may perform
little better in the contrast department than much lower cost third party
lenses used with a lens hood.
Lens hoods are much, much cheaper than high contrast lenses. So here is a
low cost, simple way to really improve the performance of your lenses!
Simply use a lens hood to improve contrast!
Unfortunately, compendium or accordion style lens hoods for zoom lenses
are typically bulky and harder to use, as well as more costly to buy. Few
people use them. But you can usually use a hat or hand or book or other
object to shade the lens and reduce or minimize visible lens flare in
your photos.
This trick really works! Try it! You will be amazed at what an
improvement this no-cost trick will provide to your shots, especially
when you are shooting in the direction of a bright light source such as
the sun. Convince yourself by shooting a few pairs of comparison slides,
one without any hand-shielding efforts, and the second using our lens
flare shielding trick(s).
| 50% Resolution Losses from Handholding Shots (under 1/250th sec) |
|---|
| From noted Leica lens tester and author - Mr. Erwin Puts - posting:
degradation by a filter: good quality 2% degradation by a filter: not good quality 10% degradation by handholding below 1/125 50% degradation by (slight) defocus 30 - 80% |
The single biggest thing you can do to improve the sharpness of your
prints is to use a tripod, or at least a monopod when taking photos.
The biggest problem with tripods is that they are bulky and heavy if they
are good, and flimsy if they are cheap or lightweight. However, using a
tripod will definitely provide major improvements in the sharpness of
your photographs. Most of us have heavy tripods for studio use, small
compact tripods for desktop use, and lightweight but expensive field
tripods for use on location.
Tripods are just the beginning. You also need smooth action ball-heads
and various other expensive accessories to maximize the ease of use and
benefits from your tripod. But the benefits of using these high priced
accessories may also add measurably to the ease with which you take photos.
However, the magic is in the sturdy tripod. Some tricks like a setup that
lets you use a bag filled with rocks, sand, or water to weigh down a
light tripod may help. Waiting for a breeze to stop momentarily can also
help.
A longer cable release is also needed, preferably with a locking feature.
A short cable release may put stress or pull on the camera in use. You
can use your camera's self-timer (if it has one) in place of a cable
release or mirror lockup on some models. Unfortunately, these useful
features are often dropped on most entry level cameras today.
A monopod is a single legged support with a camera mount at the top.
I am a fan of monopods because they are light-weight and much easier to
carry and use in the field. They are much faster to setup than most
tripods. But there is a definite trick to using them properly, in which
you let the monopod lean into you in a particular stance. Most monopod
users don't use them right, and get less than optimal performance. See
our monopod pages for hints on proper use!
Many photographers believe that they don't need to use and won't benefit
from a tripod if they shoot according to this rule of thumb:
Others, including me, suggest that this rule of thumb is too liberal.
You will usually be better off shooting at the next faster setting, if
you must shoot handheld.
A good project is to explore your range of hand-held shooting speeds, and
compare with a tripod and monopod. Simply shoot a roll of film, shooting
several shots at each shutter speed. You may quickly decide that for
maximum sharpness, the tripod is the only way to go! But you may also
learn if you can shoot sharp photos at slower speeds than average, or not.
Don't be surprised if some of your slower shots are sharper than your
faster shots. Unfortunately, you can't ensure your best performance on
any given shot. Either you have to shoot a number of shots in the hopes
of getting a sharper one, or switch to a tripod or monopod.
I cheat a lot here too. I have become rather expert at hunting up ledges,
tree branches, car doors, or other objects I can use as a brace to permit
shooting at slower speeds with confidence.
You can also change how you shoot. Some folks find they get sharper shots
with the 35mm camera upside down, and the camera against their foreheads!
I found that pressing my arms against my sides, exhaling a bit, then
holding my breath briefly for the shot seemed to help. Others swear by a
tight neck strap, wrapping the excess around the wrist of one hand. So
try different ways of holding your camera, using tests on film, to see
which one works best for you!
Using a monopod properly may extend the range of allowable shutter speeds
downward (slower) by one or two shutter speed settings.
With longer and heavier zoom and telephoto lenses, I find a monopod is a
good tradeoff for much more expensive faster glass. If you price a 200mm
f/2.8 lens against a 200mm f/4 lens, you will typically see a 100% to
300% or larger price premium. The premium of a 200mm f/2 lens over a
f/2.8 lens can be equally large.
Using a monopod can provide similar sharpness with a slower shutter speed,
enabling you to get many subjects and photos that you simply couldn't get
handheld with the slower, cheaper, and lighter lens. Granted, a stop-faster
lens may have marginal differences on film in depth-of-field and focusing
ease over the slower lens on a monopod.
My general observation is that many photographers have less than crystal
clear and clean filters on their lenses. Some filters show signs of
excessive cleaning, including fine scratches on the filter. Just as these
fine scratches reduce the contrast when they are on your lens, they also
reduce the contrast of your lens and filter combination. Some low cost
filters may also increase flare and minor optical defects if poorly made
or strained in their mounting.
Yes, if you are in a sandy or salty beach environment.
But if you want protection, I suggest a solid metal or plastic lens cap is
much better protection than an optical filter.
Moreover, if you have a lens hood on your lens, you are unlikely
to get fingerprints on your lenses. I suspect this is really why most
folks prefer to have a "protective UV filter".
Low cost UV protective filters cost under a dollar to make, yet are often
marked up to $15-25 US or more! For more about filters, see our extensive filters pages, including ideas
on how to make your own low cost filters.
You can also see posts on the filters
page of protective UV filter users
who were shocked how well their lenses performed when they removed their
UV filters and shot using the lens only!
At the least, you should test out your filters before using them blindly
on your lenses. Do a few tests on the end of a roll, duplicating the same
shot (on a tripod, preferably). Only make the second shot without the
filter. You may be surprised at some modest or better improvements in the
contrast of your lens when used without the extra layers of that UV filter!
Unfortunately for them, the standard or normal 50mm lens is typically the
fastest, sharpest, and lightest lens you can buy for most camera systems.
Some of us prefer a slightly broader 35mm wide angle lens as our "normal"
lens, but even here, you can buy a rather fast lens for relatively low
dollar outlays.
My pages on Curing Lens Envy go
further into the benefits of using the normal lens when appropriate. My
50mm f/1.8 lens weighs only 4 ounces, is very small in size, uses small
standard filters and a rubber pop-up lens hood, and is the fastest lens I
usually carry.
I could also add that while I have a rather faster f/1.4 normal lens, I
use it much less as it is much heavier. Moreover, my lower cost f/1.8
lens is generally as sharp at the apertures I usually use.
I have more resources on the issue of prime lenses
versus zoom lenses. In general, prime lenses are faster, cheaper, and
lighter than zoom lenses. Most prime lenses are also sharper than most
consumer grade zoom lenses. Some primes are sharper than the high cost pro
grade zoom lenses too! With fewer lens elements, prime lenses have fewer
aberrations to correct, and often perform better in the edges of your
photos too. Finally, prime lenses of similar cost and quality will
generally have better contrast than zoom lenses, due to the fewer lens
elements and internal reflections in the prime lenses versus zooms.
In general, the wider the zoom range of your zoom, the more aberrations
and optical defects you will encounter in its use. So a 75mm-150mm range
zoom may be optically better (for similar cost and quality of build
design) than a 28-210mm ultra-range zoom.
You pay a higher price for this extra range, both in dollar terms and in the
weight and inconvenience of the faster and bigger aperture lens. So
use it if you have got it!
Unfortunately, slow film means you either have to have a high ambient
light scene (e.g., outdoor daylight, beach) or a tripod and the luxury of
a longer time exposure.
In decades past, I used ASA 25 Kodachrome for best color fidelity and
sharpness, and ASA 64 Kodachrome for general shooting. ASA 200 Ektachrome
was my low-light safety film.
Today, films have improved a lot. An ISO 200 film of today is sharper
and better than most of yesteryear's ISO 100 and ISO 64 films. Some
people think today's ISO 400 film is a sweet spot in
current films, representing the best tradeoff of sharpness, color
fidelity, and cost. I think ISO 200 films are surprisingly good and
comparable to most older ISO 100 film favorites.
Today's low-light faster films are very much improved over those of the
past. While more costly for the faster films, you often get surprisingly
good performance.
Surprisingly, today's print films are also very much improved. In the
past, slide film was generally held to be sharper. Today's print film may
be marginally sharper than the equivalent ISO rated slide films. But they
are undeniably better in offering more latitude for exposure variations!
So if you have a prejudice in favor of (cheaper) slide film, take another
look at print film and be prepared for some pleasant surprises!
To put this into context, choosing the right modern film of today lets
you get the same kind of color and sharpness performance that only came
with one stop or more slower films in the past. That means you can shoot
an ISO 200 film today and get similar results to using an ISO 100 film a
decade ago. In effect, your slower lens of today can produce results that
would have required a stop faster or better lens a decade ago.
One of the myths of photography is
that your lenses are the real limiting factor in most systems. For most
of us, it is the color film we use. For average contrast subjects (1:6),
most color films deliver a maximum of 50 lpmm. Read that again! If your
super-expensive lens delivers 90 lpmm to film, and the film can only
deliver 50 lpmm, which is the limiting factor? We have a table of film lpmm ratings to guide you!
Again, this trick means you can get photos
similar to those that would be produced by a much more expensive, stop
faster lens. Converting your lens into the equivalent of bigger, heavier,
faster glass for the modest price of extra processing is a bargain worth
knowing about and using!
Combining today's faster and sharper films with push processing gives you
even more benefits, at the cost of processing and minor and perhaps
unnoticeable effects on film.
Many folks believe the common myth of
photography that medium format cameras are impossibly expensive. In
fact, there are many budget medium format
camera systems. A top-of-the-line 35mm SLR system (Nikon) may cost
more than a 6x7cm medium format camera with similar lens setup.
Veteran lens tester Chris Perez was recently shocked to discover just how
much sharpness and performance you can buy for $25 US in an older Kodak
medium format folder. His page (which used to be at
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/bw/house.html before 2/2003) was on "Photography on the
Really Cheap" - and used the larger medium format image size to achieve
results unobtainable on 35mm at any cost. So if you can't get the
sharpness you need with 35mm film, change formats!
Refer to the article for the full explanation of the above ten tips to higher quality...
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Get a real camera (WAS Re: Heres why I use Contax and not Nikon!)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999
"Only me..." [email protected] wrote:
> pwright wrote > >If you really are concerned with sharpness then 35mm is out of the > question. > > You miss the point. It's BECAUSE we use 35mm that we're all concerned > with lens sharpness. You can get a sharp image of a 4x5 neg with any lens.
The difference between a high quality lens and a mediocre one for the 35mm
slr system is so small that it doesn't make any sense unless you use a sturdy
tripod and mirror lock. I have yet to see any lens that was not able to give
publishable quality. If you realy lust after sharpness, medium format (or
larger) is the way to go.
Paal
From: "Kevin M. Bell" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Get a real camera (WAS Re: Heres why I use Contax and not Nikon!)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999
This is a mistaken idea. There is a *huge* difference between the quality
35mm lenses (Leica, Contax/Zeiss) and mediocre lenses. I have the prints to
prove it. I have also seen full frame 16x20 prints from 35mm negs that will
rival prints from a 645 with a "mediocre" lens.
--
Kevin M. Bell
Camera-Collectors.Com
1-877-977-5091
Vintage and Collectible Cameras
http://www.camera-collectors.com
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Get a real camera (WAS Re: Heres why I use Contax and not Nikon!)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999
"Kevin M. Bell" [email protected] wrote:
> This is a mistaken idea. There is a *huge* difference between the quality > 35mm lenses (Leica, Contax/Zeiss) and mediocre lenses. I have the prints to > prove it. I have also seen full frame 16x20 prints from 35mm negs that will > rival prints from a 645 with a "mediocre" lens. > -- > Kevin M. Bell
Absolutely right.
I have a 16 X 20 print slightly cropped from a 35 mm Ilford Delta 100
negative hanging on my studio wall. I have had arguments with people who
insist that it has to be a medium format shot. I pull the negative out of
my file to prove the point that it is from 35 mm.
It was shot hand held, also.
Bob
[Ed. note: another view...]
From: [email protected] (Harvey H. King)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4--cost vs. performance?
Date: 19 May 1999
>Follow-up til [email protected]'s indl�g: >When would you ever shoot at f:1.4? And if so, wouldn't 1.8 do >just fine?
Well, I've been using 50mm f/1.4 almost 90% of time. And I can tell you
that for most of my indoor shot were taken with f/1.4 wide open, shutter
speed either at 1/30 or 1/60th hand held, and using ISO 400 film.
Such allow me barely squeeze the exposure without using flash.
I don't think I can afford to loose another 2/3 stop without using monopod
or flash or other device.
Conclusion: f/1.4 is a lot more versatile than f/1.8, despite that the
difference is only 2/3 stop.
I would also want to point out that the issue which drive the difference
in price is mainly for the extra 2/3 stop. You are NOT paying the extra
for the D vs non-D , nor are you paying the extra money for the difference
in optical quality. In fact, the general conscenses is that 50mm f/1.8 is
a tag shaper than 50mm f/1.4.
50mm f/1.4 is not that much larger than 50mm f/1.8, so the weight
differences is not even an issue.
Rather the extra 2/3 stop worth the extra money is another story.
Perhaps you should look at used market, buying a non-D, or even
a manual focus f/1.4.
One thing you should know, is that both 50mm are good lenses, you
can't go wrong with neither.
I faced the simular delima when I was looking for my 85mm. Weight the
extra 2/3 stop vs. issues such as difference in weight and price
(85mm f/1.4 cost almost 3 times as much as 85mm f/1.8), I choose the
cheaper alternative.
Good Luck
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000
From: "Chris Kelly" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Sharpness - Lessons Learned
I recently re-cataloged all my slides, and took a very close look
at many (100's) of them with a 15 power loop. There have been
some definate lessons learned, and I thought I would pass it on
to all of you. Many of you will say Duh, and I would too, but I
was amazed at the effect of the simple things I first learned, and
how much of an effect not using them made.
1) A razor sharp, expensive lens, shot at fast shutter speed in
good light, with slow slide film, is NOT AS SHARP as a cheap lens
shot almost wide open with slow slide film from a tripod. Its not
even close. I know several people are saying "duh" and several
others are saying "your wrong". I have been that stupid lately, and
I am not wrong... the proof is on the lightboard. I go into detail later.
2) Velvia really is that much sharper then Astia, and still makes
a difference over Provia when shot from a tripod. It is just sharper.
I have been reading the thread on the MTF tests, and frankly don't
understand all the math. What I do understand is what I have seen.
Even with a sub optimal zoom lens, when shot from a tripod with a
cable release, Velvia comes out sharper. I can't argue the math, I
can only say what I have seen again and again, from hundreds of
slide across my lightboard.
3) NEVER spread all the slides in the house all over the dining
room table and leave them there for several weeks while cataloging
them. 'Our slides' can become 'your crap' pretty quickly.
Now... back to point number one. I started shooting pictures from
a nature photography standpoint. My books are all nature photo
technique books (now with a bunch on selling stock) with John
Shaw being the most prominent (JS Kicks Ass - no better way to
say it). He says over and over again that using a tripod is the single
best way to get sharp pictures - period. I dragged a semi-heavy
tripod around everwhere (bogen 3221) and used it for everything.
When I was in Italy I shot a "Battle of the Bands" competition using
a Nikkor 70-210 f4-5.6 and a 24 2.8 lens (my 80-200 2.8 snapped
an electrical contact the first day there). I looked like an idiot moving
a tripod around in the middle of a bunch of marching bands, setting up
between each shot, and snapping a shot with a cable release, then
jumping up before I got run over. I was shooting from my knees with
the tripod legs completely in. I have no sharper photos of people.
Since then, the more I shot people, the more I shot without a tripod.
I didn't think it was really worth it, if I kept speed up. Looking back
at the pictures, it IS absolutely the most essential element to sharpness
of anything. I recently purchased a Nikkor 105mm 2.0DC. It is
an increadibly sharp, contrasty lens. It is NOT as sharp, off tripod,
as the 70-210 (a mediocre lens according to the MTF tests) is on the
tripod. I am VERY good at handholding. I was a very good marksman
in the service, and use perfect handholding technique, brace my body
when I can, and control my breathing. It still is not anywhere near the
same.
If you have started moving away from the tripod for "quick people
shots" I hope I have given you reason to re-evaluate the situation.
If you want big beautiful prints off of 35mm then the only way to go
is a tripod.
Good luck.
Chris
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000
From: "David W. Almy" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Erwin, photographic technique
Robert,
Magnificent question. I (obviously) can't answer for Erwin, but would
offer the following suggestions to technically improve imagemaking. Of
course, the aesthetics of photography would take an additional paragraph
or two to explain.
1) Camera movement is the leading cause of image degradation. Use a
tripod and a cable or timer release. Absent a tripod, use a monopod, or
brace against something. Also, master the vibrationless release of the
shutter. HCB trained like a marathon runner to avoid camera movement
from all sources. In general photography, the impact of this issue often
is greater than all other factors combined.
2) Use use film rated at ISO 100 or slower, with Kodachrome 25 the
optimum choice. Films faster than 100 are not fully capable of recording
lens performance at Leica's level.
3) Focus very carefully. Mis-focusing is a serious cause of image
degradation. If there are some in the picture, focus on the eyes.
4) Use a high shutter speed as it minimizes camera and subject movement.
Erwin recommended, if I remember correctly, using at least 1/1,500
shutter speeds to squeeze the most out of the 70-180 to illustrate this
point.
5) If you are using a good SLR, use its mirror lock-up feature whenever
possible.
6) Find and use optimum lens apertures, which with Leica lenses is
hardly ever above 5.6.
7) All films are forgiving to a degree, but mis-exposing and
mis-processing film and prints can seriously degrade image quality. Use
an incident light meter most of the time.
8) Drink single malt to calm your nerves (see 1, above).
Oh, well, that's a start. Erwin will now correct me.
David W. Almy
Annapolis
....
Subject: Re: medium format vs 35mm
From: "Fred Whitlock" [email protected]
Date: Sun, Sep 17, 2000 4:14 AM
I'm trying to think of a technique that will allow 35mm to approach
medium format quality image quality and I'm coming up short. Medium
format simply has more detail. It's the a result of focal length and
angle of coverage of the lenses and, of course, the size of the film.
Technique can't change that. Good shooting.
Fred
No, but good technique(s) can get you closer. Here are some not short list
of techniques/tips for closing the gap between medium format and 35mm:
1. Tripod. Use one whenever feasible, for some people they say it slows
them down and improves their ability to compose more precisely but its
bigest attribute is sheerly technical, to reduce camera shake and thereby
reduce the level of unshaprness on the final slide/negative/print. If you
can't use a tripod use a monopod. If you can't use a monopod use a tree, a
table, a person's shoulder, the side of a building, a post, a parking
meter, a camera bag or a jacket as or combined w/ the others as a
makeshift "bean bag," or even a good stance/grip on the camera and squeeze
off your shot (don't jab the shutter release as this introduces more
camera shake w/c degrades image sharpness). Adding weight on top of a
camera or below and tied to the legs and/or center column of a tripod can
also stabilize even further a good solid tripod and make a lighter more
vibration prone tripod a more formidable tool to stop camera shake.
When/where appropriate a camera's self-timer function can be used as a
quick/cheap substitute for a cable release (either one that's broken or
one that you forgot to bring). In a pinch a wider angled lens will enable
you to handhold at lower shutterspeeds. Some rangefinder cameras (or fixed
mirrored 35mm EOS RT cameras) that lack a mirror that vibrates will also
increase your chances of getting a sharp shot w/ less camera vibration at
slower shutter speeds. I have also found that adding a motor drive/hand
grip not only increases ergonomics but the added weight acts like a
"tripod in the air" up to a point (the point of arm fatigue). An F3 is a
solid camera to begin w/ but add an MD-4 motor-drive and you've got the
nearest thing to a gyro stabilizer w/o any moving parts. "Denser"/more
solid/sometimes metal cameras like my Contax 167MT tend to be easier to
handhold at slower shutter speeds w/o a tripod than some more
fly-weight/lighter models - but each camera is different and some you will
be able to hold at slower speeds because of denseness/comfort rather than
weight being a factor - still I do find it easier to shoot at slower
speeds w/ either weightier and/or denser cameras.
2. Flash (as main or fill). Since a flash burst is in the thousandths of a
second it is like/the equivalent of a "poor man's tripod" and can have the
added advantage of not only closing the contrast gap/filling in shadows
(especially in contrasty slide film) or providing illumination where there
is none (some night/low-light shots) but improve the technical level of
your photography immensely when *judisciously* used in the right
situations/types of shots and when a tripod is either not available or
appropriate (PJ and event photography comes to mind). If you have a good
lens, a flash can make the technical quality of that lens seem like agreat
lens as every hair and pore is captured in too vivid detail (this aspect
is better for PJ than it is for flattering portraiture, though soft-focus
lenses and/or filters can take some of the edge off people shots that are
simply "too sharp"). For those of you who think that there is no such
thing as too sharp, you'll love the added punch/shaarpness a flash can use
in improving the technical quality of your 35mm shots and making them look
more like medium format shots. Flash also allows you to stop down the
aperture a bit even in poor light to increase a lenses sharpness(in both
center and edge) and reduce some of a lens's image degrading aberrations
relative to having to use that same lens at a wide open aperture w/c is
usually not a lens's best aperuture
3. Mirror lock-up for those subjects/situations it applies to. No miiror
vibration means sharper images/images less degraded by mirror slap. Usin
longer than 1 second or so shutter speeds (when appropriate) can also give
the mirror vibration time to "die down" in a camera w/o mirror lock-up.
Some cameras have a pseudo/quasi mirror lock-up that locks up the mirror
during part (or all?) of a self-timers pre-fire time.
4. Using a good lens w/ great micro-contrast, low aberrations, good
resolution, etc. (Leica, Contax, Canon L, Olympus, and specific Minolta
and Pentax lenses come to mind. Test, pick and choose what works best for
you and your favorite subject matter and shooting
distances/apertures/other tech requirements. Using a gobo or a lens hood
to block flare can also greatly enhance your lens's image quality/contrast
and improve its look relative to medium format (especially if no gobo/hood
was used in adverse lighting conditions when shooting w/ the medium format
lens). In a pinch (w/o a hood and/or a worthwhile flare blocking hood
available) I use the shadow of my hand (or soembody else's hand as a
"gobo"/"flag" to block off flare producing light from the sun or other
objects that reflect the sun/etc. such as chrome or windows/etc. that are
just outside of frame. Within frame I might try to alter my subject's
angle and/or camera angle when/if appropriate, have a person or object (or
a part thereof) blocking off the offending flare producing light or as a
last resort either see if I can utilize the flare as an artistic element
(easier to do w/ flare spots/reflections/"shapes of the cameras aperture
in the frame used as compositional hexagons or circles to add emphasis to
a point or several points in the composition) or I'll simply re-think the
shot or come back possibly at another time (when/where appropriate) when
the lighting is better.
5. Using that lens at its optimum aperture. In some rare cases lens
aperutres are optimized for at or near wide open use for optimum quality.
Each lens will have its own sweet spots for best aperture(s)/technical
qualitiy and this can be anywhere from one to four stops down from wide
open depending on the lens. Some zooms may need more stopping down to get
the same level sharpness as a fixed focal length lens at the same focal
length -though each lens is unique in this respect (and depth of
field/tolerable sharpness range) may affect your decision I tend to prefer
between f/2.8 and f/5.6 on a FFL of f/2 or faster maximum aperture and f/8
or f/11 on most of my f/4 or slower zooms (but that is w/ my equipment,
yours may/will vary).
6. Slow, fine grain film w/ good edge sharpness helps (slower speed
Kodachromes, possibly Provia F100 (haven't tried this one yet), Astia,
Velvia, etc.) although on occaision I've gotten superb results from faster
films in color slides and black and white if you don't mind a touch of
grain w/c can enhance the illusion of sharpness.
7. Good lighting (back and side lighting tends to emphasize edges and
volume of forms through tonal contrast and separates both planes w/i a
subject (ie. the nose from the cheek and the eyes from the brow and the
front of the face/mask from the sides of the face in a portrait) and
separates the subject from the background giving a 3-d effect w/c makes up
for some lack of tonality in 35mm relative to medium format film).
Hard/direct sources (not bounced or diffused) give an extra feeling of
sharpness whilst using a flash gives an extra punch of sharpness due to
the flash's short duration/action freezing ability at thousandths of a
second - flash (or bright sunlight) is the second best tripod known to man
(perhaps IS or VR technology and/or fast film would be the 3rd and 4th
best tripods known to man ;-)).
8. Low magnification enlargements - optimally a contact print - however
make sure you allow no more than 300 people at a time to view your 1x1.5
inch 35mm contact prints as the heat level/waves given off from their
bodies may cause air disturbances that will diffract the air in front of
your masterpiece ;-). Popcorn and soft drinks of course you charge extra
for, as well as the sugar and salt in these items will alter the metabolic
activity of your subjects and act as mood elevators that will
automatically increase the apparent quality of your 35mm images ;-).
Contact images may not work as well in 35mm (as they do for larger formats
- Duh!/D'oh!!! - (unless you like looking at your images through a loupe
or a magnifying glass) but you can give the impression of medium format
quality by limiting your enlargement magnification in prints from color
neg or slide film, etc. The lower the magnification of the film, the less
apparent the graininess and lack of tonality (separation of tones/3-d
quality) vs. medium format.
Most 35mm shooters are obsessed w/ sharpness, however it (among other
things) is the tonality and level of detail, in my opinion that count for
the most apparent differences between the look of 35mm and medium format
(and 35mm and APS, etc.). A larger film format original means that more
subject detail can be recorded as well as more subtle transitions in tone
(dependent on the lenses/etc.'s ability to deliver a decent image). A
medium format original chrome/neg simply needs less magnification to reach
the same final print size (ie. 11x14", 16x20", etc.), therefore film grain
is less enlarged (compared to 35mm) to make the same sized print and
therefore less grain, more detail and more tonality (in "computereese" all
these things add up to more "information") is preserved in medium format
compared to 35mm at the same print size.
"The Lemonade Effect"...
Think of enlarging an original slide or negative as akin to adding water
to a glass of lemonade (original fim size) to increase the volume of
lemonade (enlarge to a larger print size). The more water you add
(enlarge) the more you "dilute" the technical quality ofthe image and the
less you experience the "taste/flacor" (detail, tonality, etc.) of the
lemonade (the film). If you keep on adding water eventually you taste just
lemony water instead of lemonade and eventually just the water. So,
continuing the analogy, by the time you get up to very large print sizes
like 16x20" and beyond it is very easy to see that the 35mm is beginning
to look a bit "thinned out" in the flavor (graininess/detail/tonality)
department where as medium format w/c has had less water added (read "less
enlarging/magnification") to get to the same final print size is able to
outclass the 35mm in the "flavor department." Remember, what you give up
in quality/flavor (tonality, detail, etc.) at large magnifications w/ 35mm
you gain in final print size/impact - up to a point...
If You Can't Make it Good, Make it Big/Blow It Up...
Eventually, no amount of enlarging will make a mediocre technical quality
35mm image seem impressive, just the oppositte. However, given care, and
w/ the right technique, film and equipment, subject matter, lighting and a
photographer w/ a good eye for composition and/or a great shot and amazing
feats off of 35mm can be achieved. I've seen some Ektar 25 shots off of
Leica M 35mm f/2 Summicron? w/ flash at 4x6' enlargement size and some
Olympus w/ 28mm or 21mm? on a tripod also using Ektar 25 at 20x30" print
size that looks like they at least used 6x7cm film - but these were rare
cases when *everything* technically was done right (I believe the
photographer used mirror-lock up for their landscape shot of a lake, the
name of the Oregon? photographer escapes me though...).
I, myself have enlarged Ektar 25 35mm up to 30x40" w/ merely *excellent*
results. And some of my 20x30" prints off of Kodachrome 64 either look
like superb 35mm or borderline medium format. Viewing distance (between a
viewer and the final print) also plays a factor in the appearance of 35mm
image quality looking close to that of medium format's image quality
(viewing distance actually plays a factor in any format but of especially
w/ 35mm since its a smaller format). That great looking 35mm blow-up at
16x20" or 20x30" seen from 2 or 3 feet away will look merely average or
not so hot at 10 inches viewing distances.
But who views a large print at 10 inches? I do, and others who wish to
really mull over and take in the details in a large print image we like.
There is no "average" viewing distance, each person will have their own
preferences and needs. Also, I tend to look for finer detail, and expect
to get it, in most landscape shots, whereas in PJ (where a subject may be
moving and my eye is caught by details/parts/subjects in the image but not
the ultra-tiniest of details) or in rather static portraiture, I don't
find it as much of a necessity because if I see their crows feet and pores
chances are I've already seen more than I want to see. I geuss I have
different standards of technical quality (detail, tonality, graininess,
etc.) in one subject matter or type of photography relative to another.
But, again, that's my preferences.
But all these are mentioned as being non-direct comparisons between both
film formats and obviously 35mm will suffer in large enlargements compared
to 6x7cm and even 645. On its own however, 35mm, w/o comparison to an
image from medium format, at large enlargements can more than handle large
blow ups, it all depends on your technique, choice of materials, what your
minimum level of technical quality is (mine is rather high), viewing
distance and this preference/experience will vary from individual to
individual. For 35mm film 8x10" prints and less in size seem optimum for
giving the impression of medium format quality, though I've seen 35mm give
medium format a run for its money up to 16x20" print sizes when you have
nothing else from medium format to compare it to and especially with the
right lighting, film (in the case of the 16x20" shots I've seen Astia's
lower contrast de-emphasizes grain and gives the impression of a finer
grained film and possibly a larger format used) and the right...
9. Subject matter. Macro shots and landscapes work best but only to
smaller sizes where grain and tonality are not stretched beyond the
breaking point (see above). I've seen some flower macro shots from 35mm
that rivaled 4x5" in quality (shapness/lack of graininess at longer
viewing distances (3? feet or more) off of Astia (who's low contrast
de-emphasizes its already fine grain). What I say about these flower shots
is based on both viewing distance and the detailed subject matter and the
lighting and the fact that the flower was shot against a dark/black
background and the fact that it was near other macro flower shots from
4x5" film at 16x20." Perhaps the fact that the 35mm shot relied more on
detail whereas the 4x5" shot relied more on color areas had an effect on
the impression it made to me. Perhaps this example is a special case, but
in any case it blew me away...
10. Higher shutter speed (adds to sharpness by reducing the subject's
motion blur and/or camera shake if not on a tripod/monopod/etc. - naughty,
naughty! ;-).
Anyway, some things to think about, but lastly, more important than
technical quality is the creative quality level of the image itself and
some of the best images can be technically poor or borderline and forgiven
their shortcomings because of their interest/excelllence otherwise (Robert
Capa's shots of the dying soldier (camera/subject motion blur) and the
D-day invasion w/ the soldier(s) in the waves (grainy,etc.) comes to mind
(as well as Eddie Adams' executuion shot in the streets of Saigon. Not all
of us can or want to shoot wars, bombings and other dramatic subject
dependent photography. However the double whammy impact of a great
creative image tied inextricably into w/ great technical is always
something to "shoot for." :-).
Vivas to one and all and...
Viva!
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000
From: "Natasha" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: medium format vs 35mm
> > I'm not a slave to print format either. Still, you have to work > hard at > > your technique in 35mm to approach medium format quality. The > person with > > the 6x7 won't have to work as hard (not counting carrying the 6x7 > camera, > > lenses, and tripod of course!). > > > > Mac
Some good points I read recently:
>The question is: Can I get results similar to calendars and postcards >with a 35mm camera or do I really need to step up or adjust my sights? >Are there a lot of professionals using 35mm for magazine type work, or >are they mostly medium-format and large-format shots?
You have already had lots of good advice; I will try to avoid repeating
too much, but some overlap is inevitable. You seem to have a very self-
critical approach; this is no bad thing, as the biggest barrier to self-
improvement is not having high standards. The important thing is not to
be disheartened, as it is possible to get results, and every person now
able to get good results went through a stage of getting bad results
first. Most of us probably still know we could improve our work with
more effort and skill. I also agree with the respondents who advised you
to read as many books on the subject as you can.
It is possible to get large, sharp prints from 35mm film; the limit with
the best technique is probably 12 x 16 inches (which is a common size in
the UK, but I believe it is rare in the USA - if you are based there,
you should probably substitute 11 x 14 inches). There are different
approaches to achieve this; here is mine.
First, recognise there are two barriers to quality in the taking stage:
grain and sharpness. Grain comes entirely from the film and its
processing, not the camera. You will get the lowest grain at any given
speed from transparency film, and the previous advice to use Fujichrome
Velvia (ISO 50) or Provia F (ISO 100) is correct. Transparency film
does need exposure to be spot on, so you will need to shoot a test roll
with exposures meterd by your camera, bracketing from say -1.5 to +1.5
stops in half stop intervals. You may need to use manual exposure,
compensation or manual ISO speed setting for this, depending on how your
camera works. A 36 exposure roll will allow you to cover 5 varied
subjects, but do include some in bright sunlight and dome in overcast or
shade.
Have the film processed at a decent quality lab (one which does a good
volume of E6 processing for professionals is best); ask for normal
processing. Then examine them critically (see next para on loupes) and
select the brightest setting that shows detail in the highlights (i.e.
no burned-out white patches). You will have to use a bit of judgement
here, no film can cope with bright specular reflections from metal or
glass without burning out. The chosen setting will be the one that works
for *your* meter in *your* camera used how *you* use it. You will have
to get used to the vagaries of the meter, since many meters are fooled
by the inclusion of too much sky and can easily underexpose in these
conditions.
If you use Velvia or Provia F, exposed according to the above test and
processed normally, you should easily get 11 x 14 prints without
obtrusive grain. One advantage of using transparency filmn is that you
can look critically at your first-generation results from the camera and
check quality directly (buy a *good* quality loupe and light box). Then
you need only get the very best of frames printed. At first you can have
these hand-printed by a lab, but if you want to chase the ultimate
quality you will probably end up printing your own. There are two types
of prints direct from transparencies, RA-4 and Ilfochrome. RA-4 is
cheaper and easier to find services; Ilfochrome is probably easier to do
at home, has enormous permanence and, IMO, gives sharper results; it is
the process I use (go for the super-glossy prints, not the ordinary
ones).
The other problem is optical sharpness. This is mainly down to the
camera and lens - the film will affect sharpness, but the 2 films
suggested will not cause any grief at these sizes. The three causes of
unsharpness, ranked most common first, would probably run: focus error,
camera shake, lens resolution. Focus errors should also be the easiest
to deal with in normal outdoor photography. Check your camera's
autofocus carefully. Find a subject with a succession of receeding
objects - a white vertical post fence or such. Select one in the middle
(preferably with some distinct marking to make it obvious), place the
autofocus on it, then check carefully that this one is sharper than all
the others. Take some test photos, setting maximum aperture, and check
that the photo confirms that the selected - if one of the posts nearer
or further away is sharper than the key post, your autofocus is missing
the mark. You may need to use manual focussing if so, and for landscapes
and cityscapes this is not much of a burden.
Camera shake is widespread. The obvious drunken blur is not the main
problem (we all have them occasionally by twitching or stumbling) - it
is the very slight fuzz that can only be seen by the most critical
examination which is the most insidious. The normal advice to avoid it
for hand-held shots is to use a shutter speed of at least 1/focal length
of lens - i.e. for a 200mm focal length, use 1/250 sec. I think this is
optimistic, you are more likely to get acceptable large prints if you
use a shutter speed at least one step higher than this, i.e 1/500. For
static subjects there really is no substitute for using a tripod.
*Don't* waste your money buying a lightweight one. For real sharpness,
it needs to be rigid, and rigid means (unfortunately) heavy, unless you
can spring about USD 400 for a carbon fibre one. IMO, any tripod below 3
figures will not do the job. The "Groucho Marx" principle applies (any
tripod you would like to carry round all day is too flimsy). The
Manfrotto 055 is the mid-size tripod I use for 35mm and medium format,
it is fine, other good makers will have similar quality models. With a
tripod you can use 1/16 sec shutter speed and f/11 with Velvia in the
shade on a dull day, get bags of depth of field and grain- and shake-
free photos.
The last issue is lens resolution. I very much doubt, if you take care
of all those other issues, that lens quality will be your limiting
factor. Clearly, cheaper lenses tend in general to be lower in quality,
especially at wide apertures, than expensive ones, but in most cases
your existing lenses stopped down 2-3 stops should be fine. *If* you
have taken care of the other factors, and still think you would like
more quality, try hiring a couple of high quality lenses for a couple of
days, and use them with all the other improvements above. If that does
it for you, then you know what you need to do - save up. If that *still*
does not give you the quality you want, then you will have to consider a
move to a larger format.
This need not be so terrifying in capital outlay - you can buy a decent
used rollfilm or 4x5 camera for probably USD500-1000, including lens,
and the tripod you have bought above will serve for a year or two; what
will really hurt is the cost of materials - about 4 times the cost of
35mm per shot for 6x6 to about 20 times for 4x5! If you need to do this,
come back in due course with a question on the appropriate sister ng's
(rec.phot.equipment.medium-format and rec.photo.equipment.large-format).
You probably should try to persevere with 35mm for a while before moving
up, because if you can't get the best out of 35mm the odds are you will
just spend 5 times as much money not getting the best out of the larger
format.
I have concentrated on colour as the implication was that was what you
were using, but you might find the skills come cheaper if you work on
b&w, doing your own processing and printing; you would learn more for
less money this way. I appreciate not everyone can do this though.
Sorry if this is too long*, but that is the nature of the search for
quality; even now I feel I have only scratched the surface.
* "I have made this letter longer than usual, only because I have not
had the time to make it shorter." (Blaise Pascal, French philosopher,
1623-1662)
--
David Littlewood
London
Energy Consultant and Photographer
The filter myth.
degradation by a filter: good quality--> 2%, not good quality-->10%.
degradation by handholding below 1/125: 50%
degradation by (slight) defocus: 30 - 80%
.....
Erwin
[Page created 3/16/99]