cassidy-photography

[cassidy-photography]

COVID-19 Captures with Hasselblad 503CWD and Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar 4/120 CFi T*

[cassidy-photography]

The advantage of square format or medium format is you can make it 12 X 8 landscape or 8 X 12 portrait.  It is not necessary to retain the quare format.

This started out as a panorama.  I cropped the crap.  This is the original view I had in my mind's eye.

During processing, I noticed a bit of Chromatic Abberation between the leaves and close branches, when the photo was magnified to 300%.  So, I tried to treat for Color Noise, but that didn’t work so applied a Gausian Blur, at Radius 5.0 pixels and then selected Mode: Color

If I had to do it again -and, I might, I would use f/16.0 or f/22.0 to posibly eliminate or minimize Chromatic Abberation.  What causes it?  Components of white light being refracted through a lens, like a prism, and those different frequencies (wave lengths) of light striking the Sensor.

The photo turned out OK, anyway.

[cassidy-photography]

Have faith -in Hasselblad

[cassidy-photography]

This is the first panorama created with my Hasselblad 503CWD.  I just wanted to see if I could improve on my 35mm digital camera results.

This was taken with the Carl Zeiss Distagon 4/50 T* lens

[cassidy-photography]

Shoot out between Nikon D3x and Hasselblad . . .

Let's see a global show of hands how many photographers have wondered or asked the question about what Medium Format 6cm X 6cm lens is equivalent to a 35mm lens.  

I mean there is enough complete bullshit written about it, but here is the proof.  Refer to the above photo and continue reading.

And, the debate and photography forum trolling and those who come across like real effing photography professors offering up mathematical formula and conversion factors, etc. All bullshit!

No?!

One photography website refers to diagonal Field of View equivalent to a 43mm lens.  Yeah, well I did that, or as close as I could to it, first taking a photo with a Hasselblad 503CWD with a Carl Zeiss Planar 2,8/80mm T* CFE normal lens mounted on a tripod.

There are proponents of the Horizontal and Vertical Fields of View school of thought, when comparing Medium Format to 35mm format and will come up with different 35mm lens equivalents.  

And, there are those who merely spout the 80mm is normal for Medium Format and 50mm is normal for 35mm and come up with some factor to apply across the board.

Hasselblad/Carl Zeiss advertise the Angle of View is 52° for the 80mm lens, while Nikon advertise the Nikon 50mm lens has a 51.3° Angle of View.  At 32 inches between the film plane and the subject, I found no comparison in

None of them know what they are talking about and are merely spouting bullshit.

The Hasselblad 503CWD has a sensor size that is 4048 X 4048 pixels with a "Crop Factor" of 1.5, according to Hasselblad literature, meaning it could be equivalent to using a 120mm lens for medium format.  But wait, sensor dimensions are 36.7mm X 36.7mm . . . and 120 film image area is actually 56mm X 56mm, so that is actually a Crop factor of 1.52588555858311 or 122mm focal length equivalent.  

I started out photographing a defined area of small yellow flowers, with the two camera systems mounted on a weighted tripod, one after the other, without moving the tripod.

Typical of my ten years worth of photography experience in Tasmania, every time I take my cameras outdoors, it becomes overcast and the wind starts to blow.

I did manage to photograph using a Nikon 45mm lens and a 50mm normal lens.  You know, compare "apples to apples".  I mean this is the rational that internet professors of photography espouse.  I found the individual flowers were much smaller than with the Hasselblad 80mm lens.  I cannot say that either of the "fields of view" or "angles of view" were the same or comparable, either.  That myth was busted, in my mind.  So, the Hasselblad's "normal" lens definitely does not compare to the Nikon's "normal lens".

Frustrated that I could not continue in the wind, I relocated to photograph the side of a stable.  

This time I used a Nikon Micro-Nikkor 60mm 1:2.8D lens.  If you compare the nail heads and a couple knots in the wooden planks, they are very close in size.  Not perfect, but closer than either the 45mm or 50mm.

What I did not account for was the vertifal shift.  The Nikon D3 sits taller on the Manfrotto tripod than the Hasselblad.  How much taller, I did not measure.  I wanted to change as little as possible, so leaving the tripod set was necessary.  Also, do you have any idea just how difficult it is to get the film plane absolutely parallel to a flat subject, such as the side of the stable?  I actually used a tape measure to measure either side of the lens hood, to be sure.  Not perfect, but should be very close.

And, one last point, the Hasselblad 503CWD is a 16 megapixel camera versus the Nikon D3 12.1 megapixel camera.  My Nikon D3x is 24 megapixels.  So, what to do to make this a more fair comparison.  I did an up-res (increasing resolution) of the 35mm image to be the same as the Medium Format, but it made no difference.  As one final attempt to make everything eual, I increased the Height of the 35mm image from 2832 pixels to 4080 pixels, same as the Hasselblad, which then increased the Width of the 35mm image to 6132 pixels, then, and only then did the individual flowers begin to approach the size of the image taken with the Hasselblad.  But, what Sensor size or focal length would that have to be to approach equivalent values, but still not Field of View or Angle of View?  Some bits overlay nicely, but others don't.  So, no solution.

Outside of labratory conditions, not a bad result and a reasonably fair test.

So, for those who want to compare Medium Format to 35mm, don't waste your time and further, don't give too much credit to those charts and mathematical equations offered to prove how smart the internet photography professors are.  

In conclusion, there is <b>no comparison</b> to be made between Medium Format cameras and lens combinations to 35mm full frame cameras and lens combinations.

In fact, I set the exact same measured exposure settings and color temperature settings, and each camera rendered a different image.  I had to change color temperature, tint and exposure to make one photo look similar, to the other, but not exact.

Medium Format camera systems and 35mm Format camera systems are as different as individual photographers, standing side-by-side attempting to take the same photo.

I may attempt to continue lens comparisons, just to see how close I can come, but I may need to use a zoom lens.

UPDATE: Today, I made a New year's Resolution to prove myself wrong or that I don't know as much as I think I know.  But, I discovered I was wrong about being wrong . . .

I decided to use a Nikon D3x (6048 X 4032 pixels or 35.9mm X 24mm Sensor Size) with a 50mm "normal" lens compared to a Hasselblad 503CWD with 80mm "normal lens", this time I tried to be as accurate and as measured/methodical as I could be.  Same result as before . . . No way could I perfectly match various points, and I found the 80mm Red Dot was slightly larger than the 50mm Red Dot, only slightly, but still did not account for being unable to overlay the nail heads precisely.  Each lens centre was measured to be 107cm above the ground.  Each forward leg of the tripod was 104cm from the base.  I put the Red Dot right in the centre of the View Finder.  Results were essentially the same as yesterday's test with the D3.  I assumed using a 24 megapixel camera versus a 12 megapixel camera would make a significant difference.  The Field of View or the Angle of View or expected coverage, for nearly the same subject image size was just not the same.  So, the "normal lens" fanatics and the horizontal Angle of View Cohort . . . Keep guessing.

Next, trying a Nikon ED AF-S Nikkor 28-70mm 1:2.8D lens, with focal lengths tested 45, 65, and 70mm, considering what I surmised yesterday about using a focal length between 60 and 70mm, but that test also failed.

Again, I must conclude, there is no real viable comparison to be made between a Medium Format camera and a 35mm full frame camera lens.  What I found particularly astounding was that setting the same Color Temperature in both cameras, with the same Exposure rendered a different color picture, different tone.  Comparing Medium Format to 35mm is like comparing apples to oranges.

The proof is above.  For the doubting Thomases, as a final test, I introduced lens corrections and straightening.  And, it made nil difference.

[cassidy-photography]

Iris Diptych

Two photos of the same flower.

On a windy day, on uneven ground, with the Hasselblad 503CWD lens pointing straight down at the top of the Iris Flower, viewing through a Waist Level Finder where every movement causes the subject to move on the Focusing Screen in the opposite direction to what you intend and doing it close-up to the point that milimeters of movement matter and result in large movements on the Focusing Screen . . . I am guessing I spent 1.5 hours trying three different lenses (50mm 80mm, and quasi-macro 120mm), with and without Extension Tubes (16E, 32E), found Color Temperature varying between 5,400 to 5,800°K and Exposure varying, and used a Kodak Gray Card (old school, method just in case) as clouds passed overhead . . . I almost gave up.  Everything came together for a brief moment, whenI took the above photos.  I also used a Carpenter's Level across the bottom of the Hasselblad Lens Shade to level the camera, which is very important for Close-up/Macro-photography.

In the Hasselblad Phocus software, I increase Expose Value 0.50 and picked a spot on the Kodak Gray Card, and adjusted Color Temperature to 5,500°K and Tint to 21 . . . to get RGB128/128/128

I have not sharpened the image.  In Photoshop CS%, I used Color Efex Pro to set Tone of the image on the left and have not done any sharpening.

I did a Full Screen Preview of both images side-by-side and made a screenshot and cropped the resultant black frame.

That's all there was to it.  

One must have patience and passion for photography and for the photographer's subjects.

Once I gave advice to a fellow Captain, when we were flying the Boeing 737NG Flight Simulator for recurrent training and assement for requalification, when he encountered Severe Windshear and caused the aircraft to become inverted, very close to the ground.  He commented, "Oh oh.  We're dead."  I grabbed the controls, rammed the Thrust Levers full thrust, all the way to the audible metal stops, and shoved the Yoke full forward.  We climbed away from the ground, through the Wind Shear, into clear air at 3,000 feet, while inverted.  I rolled the aircraft right side up and handed controls back to the other Captain and asked him, "Are we dead?!"  Followed by the very best advice I could render, "Never give up flying the aeroplane."

The lesson in that story is  -the same tenacity, passion, belief in oneself, in one's skills, and sense of survival can be applied to getting the photograph you want.

A gentle reminder about copyright and intellectual property- Ⓒ Cassidy Photography (All images in this Flickr portfolio)

http://cassidyphotography.net

[cassidy-photography]

Model: Aimee

[cassidy-photography]

Synchronized pair of Rosella birds in my yard.

Taken with Hasselblad 503CWD and Carl Zeiss Sonnar 5,6/250 T* lens

I have not used my 250mm lens in a very long time.  I saw my opportunity, today.  I only had time to quickly assemble and handhold the camera, focused using a Waist Level Finder (hard, due to constant movement), and release the shutter.  I didn't even have time to use a light meter for the exposure, I just took my best guess.  By the time I dashed to grab the tripod, the birds moved.  Timing and luck prevails.

A gentle reminder about copyright and intellectual property- Ⓒ Cassidy Photography (All images in this tumblr portfolio)

[cassidy-photography]

Hassel-blossom

Photo taken with Hasselblad 503CWD

[cassidy-photography]

Does it need a caption?

How about Bushmills on the rocks?

[cassidy-photography]

Gowen Brae, Tasmania

[cassidy-photography]

[cassidy-photography]

Photographed with:

Hasselblad 503 CWD Carl Zeiss 4/120 T* lens

[cassidy-photography]

Title: Got Time?

I made this clock out of three.  The clock that has the nicest case, the clock works were not functioning, due to missing components, though sold as complete.  The clock that had these works had an unattractive case and broken glass.  Then there was this case.  It had a solid front, but I cut the centre out of it, because I liked the ring of numbers and the look of the brass clock works, visible through the hole.

I tried very hard not to lose anything or bend anything or break the glass.  I did manage to misplace or lose one tiny nail for the clock face.  I had to reset and reorient the chime and shorten the column length and adjust it so it would chime correctly and make a nice tone.

The hands came from one of the other clocks because the hands for this clock works were missing.  Unfortunately, I could not source another set of hands.  The hole for the centre shaft for the minute hand was oversized. I felt frustrated, because I did not discover this until the clock was completely assembled and they were the second to last part assembled.  I put the glass bezel on last, very, very, very carefully.

How I solved the problem for mounting the minute hand onto the centre shaft was to used a soldering iron to melt a sufficient quantity of lead solder into the hole, let it cool, shaved it and shaped it to fit the centre shaft.  A truly tedious process.

It is the first clock I have ever worked on.

Someday, I would like to strip the gold paint off the clock and have it painted a cream white colour with black numbers.  I can try that myself or perhaps have it done professionally.  Or, I could just paint the numbers.

I saved the other clock cases and works.  

I have been wanting to take this photo of the huge round clock face with the square format Hasselblad for a long time.  Tonight was the night.

A French-style steel #12 5.25mm square socket clock key is used to wind the spring on the left for time and the spring on the right for the chime.  It is made in England.

The pendulum swing and pace is adjusted by a set screw at its base.  Twisting the screw to raise the pendulum make the pendulum swing faster.  It must be adjusted up or down for the clock to be accurate.  

I sanded the case, to remove all the old dry and flaking shellac, exposing the bare wood.  I removed the base trim pieces and replaced them with new pieces.  The whole case was hand rubbed with beeswax, just to protect the wood and bring out the natural colours of the wood veneer.  This job was done before the clock works were installed.

Photographed with:

Hasselblad 503 CWD Carl Zeiss 4/120 T* lens

[cassidy-photography]

8 X 12 Crop of a 6 X 6 image of Rocco photographed with:

Hasselblad 503CWD Carl Zeiss 2.8/80 Planar T*

[cassidy-photography]

As it appears crudely made, I am surmising it is from the 19th century and earliest settlers to Van Diemen's Land, when Hollow Tree Road was probably not much more than a muddy horse-drawn wagon track. 

Hasselblad 503 CWD Carl Zeiss 4/120 T* lens with Hasselblad Extension 32E ISO 50 1/8sec. f/32.0 Colour Temperature 5,300˚K tripod, mirror up cable release

[cassidy-photography]

31 March 2018, 13:01 50 ISO 1/125sec f/11.0 (metered) f/16.0 (set) 5,370°K (metered) 5,400°K (set) 23.5°C Clear Sky

Hasselblad 503CWD Carl Zeiss 2.8/80 Planar T* Hasselblad Extension 16E

Mirror Up Cable Release Tripod

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEMCeymW1Ow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8ASku7_rnM