What's new
Medium Format Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Hasselblad CFV Digital Back CONTINUED

Great shooting Jurgen and Wilko!
happy.gif


Mark V raises a good question and I agree with his observation of the CFV images having wonderful colour tones and a certain creaminess. I think we will find that Marc suggests the Zeiss glass plays a role in that because I recall him once commenting that the CFV is so good that one can fully appreciate the Zeiss glass (or words to that effect).

Jurgen's junkyard "orange and blues" image is terrific. And I agree with his comment about 100VS - I no longer use Provia or Velvia since I discovered 100VS.

Wilko's CFV truck shot shows (on my screen anyway) similar bits of blues and orange when I look closely.

Significantly though I think I recall Jurgen telling me that this "orange and blues" shot is a 6x9 frame and from his Fuji 6x9 rangefinder camera and not a Hasselblad/Zeiss shot - wow!

So, it might also be said that the CFV sensor made by Kodak, displays Kodak trannie traits of 100VS - nice!!
happy.gif


Dos anyone else share that view? Jurgen, you use both the CFV and 100VS, have you seen such a similarity?
 
Yes , Simon ,

The "orange blue" image was taken with a FUJI GW690III with EBC FUJINON 3,5/90mm and KODAK E100VS .
That Kodak film is great . The colours are not as saturated as with VELVIA .
KODAK claims , that the E100VS has a true sensitivity of ASA100 , but I found it is rather ASA80 .
I shot 2 rolls of film , prior to my shooting with the CFV BACK , which failed , but could not be recognized as failing before offloading the images .

I find the colours from the CFV not as saturated as with the E100VS (good so) but they have a very nice tonality and the characteristics are as already described by other posters in this thread .

All other images I took on the second shooting where on E100VS as well .

Wilko

I love your truck image .
z04_whip2_1.gif

How many horsepowers does that machine have and whats the maximum speed
happy.gif


Jürgen
 
I remember some while ago, when portrait photogs compared prints between the RB67 and Hasselblad, they said that those from the RB were "creamy" and that those from Hasselblad were "clinical".
Those that liked "creamy" was because the skin showed a creamy quality as oppossed to "clinical" . Clinical was sharper but rendered blemishes more pronounced.

I was wondering what exactly creaminess meant now?
Film-like?

Regards

Eduardo
 
Eduardo, I understand the comment. I also use a RZ Pro-II and the results are similar ... however, I wouldn't call the Hasselblad "clinical" as much as "snappier".

It also depends on which lens. the 150 feels less so than the 180 to me, which is why I have both lenses. Even with the consistancy of Zeiss, different lenses have slightly different characteristics.

Also, the Mamiya lenses tend to feel a bit warmer compared to the more neutral or even cool color tendency of the Zeiss glass ... something I've also noted when comparing Leica M to the Zeiss M mount lenses. Perhaps that contributes to the term "clinical also?
 
Eduardo Cervantes (Uaiomex) wrote on September 20:

' 2007 - 1:38 am,I remember some while ago, when portrait photogs compared prints between the RB67 and Hasselblad, they said that those from the RB were "creamy" and that those from Hasselblad were "clinical".
Those that liked "creamy" was because the skin showed a creamy quality as oppossed to "clinical" . Clinical was sharper but rendered blemishes more pronounced.

I was wondering what exactly creaminess meant now?
Film-like?

Regards

Eduardo'
Click to expand...

If someone told me that their girlfriend had a "peaches and cream" complexion, I would think "wet and fuzzy"!

Perhaps, softer focus versus sharper focus? I thought photographers wanted a sharp focusing lens and then would put on a Softar or defusing filter when needed for portraits. Really, would you take a soft lens and put on a sharpening filter? That stuff is for the PhotoShoppers!

Steve
 
Eduardo, I must agree 100% with Marc's comments - about the relative characteristics of the Hasselblad/Zeiss optics and his reference to Leica lenses as well.

The 180mm is Zeiss' most modern design and benefited from that making it very "snappy" - it resolves the finest facial characteristics even including "microscopic" facial hair (can be a nasty surprise to women!) as well as skin blemishes. Many portrait shooters that prefer the 180mm focal length will add a Softar 1 to help avoid such blemishes showing up so clearly.

In fact (like Marc said), I got the 150mm for situations where avoiding such characteristics is important (as well as other purposes it fills). It is far "kinder" especially to women.

And in addition to my Hasselblad kit, I have Leica M gear. I agree with Marc's comments about the Leica glass similarities (although Leica's design objectives/approach differ to Zeiss'). The current ASPH Leica M lenses have that "snappy" characteristic too. In fact some Leica owners have current lenses as well as duplicated 2 generation older versions for when they want different traits to show though.

In fact my 1960s Canon (Leica M mount) 50mm f1.2 has very creamy characteristics, while it is still relatively sharp (lower contrast). I love what that can do with portraits in the small format.

"Creamy" ? What does it really mean? Maybe it is a chosen word to try to make an opposite of "snappy". It does not necessarily mean soft IMHO, just less "brutal" In addition to contrast being a feature of "snappy" lenses, resolving power is too. I'll be interested to hear the opinions of others.
 
To mirror Simon's comments, I have the Leica M 90/2 and the current M 90/2 ASPH. When shooting any woman over the age of 12, the older 90 is employed. The 90 ASPH is akin to the Zeiss 180/4 in that it is a brutally honest optic. Results from this lens as with the V 180/4 with certain portrait subjects can actually be insulting : -)

With-in the Mamiya RZ lens systems there are some truely remarkable optics. One of my favorites is the 180 SF or soft focus ... it is similar to the old Imagon type lenses where you remove the front assembly and place one of three internal diffusion apertures depending on what f stop you are using. Absolutely nothing like it that you can screw on the front of a lens including the Zeiss Softar, nor is it reproducable in PhotoShop. Beautiful.
 
I suppose this issue of "snappy" lens characteristics also gives rise to digital sensor traits. In fact pre-digital discussions about lens performance / resolution of fine details / contrast / sharpness was a little easier then. We all worked from the same base - film [yes, there are different emulsions, but IMHO, in general (excluding some niche and rather unique emulsions) emulsions had similar resolving power] - digital sensors have added a new variable.

So, I have commented in the past that so many digi-cameras and even MF backs seem to my eyes to produce a "plasticity effect". Now I don't liken that to the term "creamy" because in the situation of a creamy appearance one can still make out the resolution of super-fine detail. But in the case of some sensors' "plasticity", one cannot - there is just a "mush".

The CFV has impressed me because the images I have seem members here post show no such plasticity to my eyes. Do users feel it resolves superfine detail well?

So in some respects (and of course I recognise that there are a number of excellent digital sensors in the market today that can resolve super fine detail if the lens delivers that to them), digital portraiture (of women especially) can have an advantage because it will be kind to the subjects.

I used to scoff at the comments on forums about the Sonnar 180 f4 - "too sharp" some would cry. "For God's sake get a life", I would respond! But one day I did portraits for a previously retired 60-ish female singer who was making a comeback. Fortunately I recalled the comments about the Sonnar 180, so borrowed a Softar 1 and 2. The shots taken without a Softar could not be published! The Softar 1 shot got centrefold positioning in the musical's program.

Interestingly I also shot some images of her with a Canon 1V and Canon's brilliant (argued to be as good as excellent prime lenses at each main focal length) EF 70-200mm f2.8 (to get some candid images) - it did not resolve as much detail as the Sonnar 180mm.

Like everything in photography: "different horses for different courses"!
happy.gif
 
Simon wrote:
"The CFV has impressed me because the images I have seem members here post show no such plasticity to my eyes. Do users feel it resolves superfine detail well? "
..........

For this and other remarks that's why I thought that creamy now means film-like.

Which in a way it emulates the old meaning, as being opposite to clinical.
Digital can easily get harsh, especially when overdone. And overdone is so easy to do.

The CFV, looks very film-like to me. A lot more than any dslr or the Mamiya ZD. (well, at least on the Internet)

Marc is right. I've never had a truly succesfull soft focus portrait in PS. The same applies to the Orton effect.

Where is my CFV2? Aaaarghhh!! Nikon and Canon are seducing me like in a Homer's tale.

Eduardo
 
It is funny, Eduardo, why no one has used the name 'Siren' for one of these ultra-lustful items...

I think that 'plasticky' is the accepted term for the pro-DSLR look for portraits etc. Although I think it can be 'waxy'. Makes people look like...well, wax models.

But I have never quite understood how much of this, if any, is inherent in the technology or the look de jour generated afterwards only. I am vaguely curious to know.

I can vaguely remember years ago seeing a brochure for the very first Canon 1D something or other, and being struck by that look, which when over-done is simply terrible. I pulled out a Reala brochure to compare, and the latter had a MUCH more natural, vibrant look and better colour to me.

Mind you, Hasselblad use images of (more sophisticated) models that are hardly 'Natural Colour' for their H digital pages on the web site. Pasty faced, but perhaps not 'plasticky'.

Nick
 
"Waxy" is definitely a better description of the end effect than "plastic", Nick. This is not to be confused with a soft effect like that produced by a Softar filter. Plastic is a better description of the process that nets the waxy look. Digital files are very plastic in that they can easily be manipulated endlessly.

One contributing reason that digital images are so frequently overdone ... my term is "Photoshopped beyond perfection" ... is that so few digital shooters know what a print should look like. They never worked in a darkroom, and few of the newer digital Rebel users ever had a film camera beyond a P&S with a plastic lens.

The fact that you can boost saturation beyond the luminance tolerance in an image is also a contributing factor. People push the "punch" not inherent in the image and wax happens.

Sharpening is another digital bugaboo. Despite being relatively proficient at Photoshop, I sometimes end up with an image looking like a hard copy of a still capture from a video camera. Fortunately there is a delete key, and I know how to use it : -)

Then there is the whole can of worms when comparing CMOS sensor cameras to CCDs and the additional complication of various levels of anti-aliasing and IR filtration.
 
Just take a look at TV sets.
90% percent of them are oversaturated and all of them (practically) are way off color, usually they all render skin orange to purple.

Maybe the networks are to blame too.

No wonder nobody knows now, what color is human skin in a photograph.

So easy for photographers to get away with lesser prints (not me).

Hollywood still does a pretty good job with most movies. They still shoot film. Too bad, video is coming soon to the "silver screen". I imagine movie people going overboard with colors and such. and once more the bar will be degraded. Till one day, in the year 2030, mankind will reach the natural look of film through perfected digital technology and PP self restrain.

Eduardo
 
Eduardo,

I agree many new technologies bring changes that are not allways an improvement.
BTW over 30 years ago a movie for cinema showing was recorded on video and later transferred to film.
It was done because many effects were too difficult to record on film.
Video was an easier medium for that purpose.
I was invited to see the first showing of this picture.
The result was quite good.

The bottleneck for digital in cinemas is not the technology but money.
Money that movie theatres do not have to convert to digital.
As long as this situation does not change Kodak and others will continue to produce film.


Paul
 
Hey everyone, I am a new member here.

About 3 weeks ago I finally decided to go MF Digital with a Hasselblad 503CWD.. So far I am loving this thing to death. Makes me wonder why I sold my old hassy so long ago. Hopefully I will be posting up some shots.
 
Welcome Bryant --

Although I still hope to own a 503CWD in the near future, I can say that this is a great group and I have learned much...just need to save a few more bucks to make the leap! Look forward to your posts and your images...best regards -- Bishop
 
I got a M8 6 months ago and I reciently compare to my Hassy with film. With the digital issu I'm allways surprised about the realy short deep of field that mean that for portrait, there are allays big differences between the 2 eyes. Sometime its' realy difficult to get "natural" pictures.
What about Hasselblad with digital versus film.
 
Wow... Talk about sharp. Like honestly, when i cropped to 100% on this image, I was amazed. Never thought a digital image could look so good straight from a cam.

33769.jpg


33770.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top