Jump to content

Trying to mimic my old 6x6 Delta 400 Shots. Any advice?


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’m looking for a little help—and that help may just be advice that what I’m looking for doesn’t exist.

I used to shoot Hasselblad 6x6 B&W (typically Delta 400). Almost all my shots were with an 80mm lens, and most were wide-open or near wide-open at f2.8. Just preference.
 
I (finally) switched to digital because I just don’t have the time/interest in developing/scanning film, and I wanted something quicker so I could get shots of my toddler. Long story short, I tried lots of digital options and only the Hasselblad with CFV 16 back and Monochrom were still fun to use, but the CFV back obviously didn't help with the speed (was actually slower than film!), and had rather poor low light performance. Also, it was hit-or-miss with B&W conversions, (though great for color close-ups!).
 
What I am trying to do is frankly, mimic my Hasselblad B&W images as best as possible, since it’s the style I’d like to continue shooting. And I'd like to do it using a camera that's a joy to use, and I really enjoy my Monochrom (M10).
 
I crop my Leica shots to 1:1. Perhaps that’s probably blasphemy, but it’s what I like and I make it work well with my Leica. To that end, a 35mm lens on 35mm full-frame sensor (cropped post-production to 1:1) best approximates the same angle of view of an 80mm lens on 6x6 film. I tried the Summicron and just wasn’t the biggest fan of how it rendered. Now I use a Zeiss 35mm f1.4, since I grew rather fond of Zeiss with my Hasselblad. I have not tried any other lenses.
 
Problem is sometimes the images are just too sharp, combined with the M10 Monochrom. Previously grain helped mask some of the distractions in the out of focus but-not-yet-bokeh background, especially twigs/leaves. Now I’m often seeing double lines with that somewhat-out-of-focus subject matter and I find it distracting. It's hard to make out when not zooming in/printing large, and I don't feel like a pixel peeper at all, but there's just general feeling of "business" to my eye at least. I do a lot of nature photography and a lot of low DOF, and backgrounds with grasses/pine needles seem to really exaggerate the problem. Adding grain in LR helps, but it’s not quite the same as my film shots, which generally exaggerate the grain in the out-of-focus areas and appears smoother in the in-focus area. In LR, it seems to apply the grain more evenly to both in and out-of-focus areas.
 
You can see an example of an old Hasselblad photo that represents the classic style I usually shot. They have the black border. And the photos in following posts without the border are from the Monochrom M10.
 
I'm guessing it's just a function of too sharp a lens/high resolving sensor as the effect is actually diminished in the photo of my son/father (noticed the most in the pine needles to the left) compared to normal, as that file is lowered significantly in resolution. If that's the only solution then that's the only solution... The picture in the third post is a larger one and the distractions I'm referring to are best seen at the base of the pine tree on the right, though it still doesn't come across great through these web photos. Hopefully others are familiar with the issue I'm describing.
 
I’m hoping for any other ideas on things that might help me reproduce this with my Monochrom. I get that film and digital and 35mm vs medium format are going to be different--just trying to bridge the difference as much as possible. If anyone has other post-production Lighroom/Photoshop techniques they can recommend, I’m all ears.  I’m not sure if a different 35mm lens would make much difference (perhaps something softer?), but I’m open to considering that. You see the photos I'm trying to emulate--I felt they're plenty sharp for my eyes. Unfortunately I live in a remote area and can’t test any lenses out.
 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Edited by CharlieLoon
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion is only AN opinion 😉.

 

...

 

No way to mimic that rendering with Leica gear.

I won't even try 😔.

 

one idea ...

Try to find one or more pictures from your 6x6, the ones that you are proud of,

then try to have "same atmosphere" ( not same pictures ) with new M ...

You would see (or not depending on your taste).

 

Some years ago, as fan of Xpan ( 24 x 65 pano on film with Fuji's 30/45/90 lenses ) for some time then, I wanted to "mimic" the pictures with my digital M pictures,

I failed to convince myself for the mimic's success 😪.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always used 35mm format but I like cropping to a square.  With Digital M camera with 24Mp sensor like M246 cropping square will give you 4000x4000 pixels image which is comparable to a good 6x6 negative scan – 4000/60=66 lines/mm or 1676 lines/inch.

Rather than emulating particular film emulsion, which by the way can be done as there are software packages that can help you do that but I don’t use them so can’t advice you, I suggest embrace output form the digital monochrome camera as-is, film will always be different.

Edit

Visual effect as illustrated in your film examples could be aproximated with normal 50mm or longer (75mm, 90mm) lens by selecting similar close focus point and wider apertures.

Getting less sharp image with Mono camera is actually easy.  Just use higher ISO value which is good with all Mono models.   By your examples shooting in the woods and assuming handholdable shutter speeds and aperture not fully open will need higher ISO to counter dim light.

I am no editing expert but post processing Mono RAW file in Photoshop ACR or equivalent Lightroom (I think) you can get desired effect.  You can start playing with sliders.  Working top to bottom you can start by adjusting exposure, contrast, lights, darks, or play with histogram curve also adjust sharpness.

 

Edited by mmradman
Added paragraph
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking up for books etc yesterday on precisely the same theme of the OP's question. Going to be trying more use of older pre ASPH lenses on my M10M and hone skills in Silver Efex as a starter. Will be interested to see other comments.

Keep going backwards and forwards on film M's and having got rid of them all.....just last week picked up a M6 classic so I have the option of really going for the film look at times!  Every time I convince myself it's only digtal for me I come across a youtube clip like this where his photos at the end just inspire to create that look.

 

Edited by Phil_P
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 hours ago, a.noctilux said:

My opinion is only AN opinion 😉.

 

...

 

No way to mimic that rendering with Leica gear.

I won't even try 😔.

 

one idea ...

Try to find one or more pictures from your 6x6, the ones that you are proud of,

then try to have "same atmosphere" ( not same pictures ) with new M ...

You would see (or not depending on your taste).

 

Some years ago, as fan of Xpan ( 24 x 65 pano on film with Fuji's 30/45/90 lenses ) for some time then, I wanted to "mimic" the pictures with my digital M pictures,

I failed to convince myself for the mimic's success 😪.

It may very be I can't reproduce the effect, but I'd like to try my best! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, mmradman said:

I always used 35mm format but I like cropping to a square.  With Digital M camera with 24Mp sensor like M246 cropping square will give you 4000x4000 pixels image which is comparable to a good 6x6 negative scan – 4000/60=66 lines/mm or 1676 lines/inch.

Rather than emulating particular film emulsion, which by the way can be done as there are software packages that can help you do that but I don’t use them so can’t advice you, I suggest embrace output form the digital monochrome camera as-is, film will always be different.

Edit

Visual effect as illustrated in your film examples could be aproximated with normal 50mm or longer (75mm, 90mm) lens by selecting similar close focus point and wider apertures.

Getting less sharp image with Mono camera is actually easy.  Just use higher ISO value which is good with all Mono models.   By your examples shooting in the woods and assuming handholdable shutter speeds and aperture not fully open will need higher ISO to counter dim light.

I am no editing expert but post processing Mono RAW file in Photoshop ACR or equivalent Lightroom (I think) you can get desired effect.  You can start playing with sliders.  Working top to bottom you can start by adjusting exposure, contrast, lights, darks, or play with histogram curve also adjust sharpness.

 

Good point about the longer lenses, but then I'd be losing the perspective I prefer (80mm with 120 film, 50mm with 35, but then 35mm when 35mm cropped square). I typically do shoot wide open at 1.4, so not much room to improve on that (or increase ISO a whole lot here in Sunny CA). But in some circumstances (indoors/late in the day) I have more wiggle room.

I'm going to try seeing if some different lenses can give me a better starting point. My 35mm ZM 1.4 seems too sharp/clinical. It's ironic that my Hasselblad Zeiss lenses (at the time considered sharp) are now more "painterly" in comparison. I'd like to try a 35mm summilux pre-asph, but don't have access to one, but I can try some Voightlanders (35mm f1.2, 40mm f1.2) and see if those help get me a little closer to where I'd like to be.

The other edge of the coin is yes, I do need to accept the Monochrom (and digital photography in general) for what it is. It took me years, but I finally accepted I don't need to use an optical waist level finder to compose an image--that was my primary barrier to moving away from the Hasselblad. I am guessing much of my preference for my film shots is also intertwined with nostalgia for the past and the memories of the trips I documented with the film. Back then it was 50/50 divided evenly between nature shots from solo trips, and shots of my wife (usually on trips!). Now with full-time work and a kid, there are less opportunities for those trips I used to take so much, and less opportunity to pull the camera out on them. I'm trying to get my toddler interested in photography though, so that may help!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to suggest the Voigtländers, especially the non-aspherical. Judging by the view in your tree and path scenes, the 35mm is wider than the view with Hassy, so try a 40 or 50mm. The Zeiss 50mm planar f2 as well as the 1.5 (use the electronic viewfinder for focus shifts). Or even the R60 macro lens with adapter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Purely from the point of view of Lightroom's grain simulation. I also found that while the grain might look more or less right the photos were still too sharp to look like faster film. I spent some time playing around an discovered that the "size" slider has most effect on sharpness. From value 30 upwards it starts to soften detail quite a bit. I use Grain: 40, Size: 40, Roughness: 100 to get something that looks like HP5+ to me (approx).

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sandokan said:

I was going to suggest the Voigtländers, especially the non-aspherical. Judging by the view in your tree and path scenes, the 35mm is wider than the view with Hassy, so try a 40 or 50mm. The Zeiss 50mm planar f2 as well as the 1.5 (use the electronic viewfinder for focus shifts). Or even the R60 macro lens with adapter

Perhaps I can try out the non-aspherical lenses too, but the reviews I've seen of them suggest they're a bit more niche and I haven't been as impressed by sample photos of them.

The angle of view should be the same for the 35mm with my square Monochrom crops compared to an 80mm on a Hasselblad (technically 34mm is the equivalent focal length), but I'm not focused as close in the monochrom shots so it probably comes across a bit wider. The longer focal lengths would definitely give a shorter DOF of course. 50mm is the equivalent focal length if I wanted the same horizontal angle of view when shooting uncropped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, convexferret said:

Also, while others are suggesting trying other lenses I think that you'll find that any lens from the last 70 years looks way sharper on digital than on medium-speed film. You're not likely to see much difference.

You're definitely right about the lenses being sharper on digital. I can even tell a difference between the zeiss distagon on the original Monochrom vs the M10 Monochrom. I felt the original Monochrom handled it better (for my style).

Thanks for the tips on Lightroom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the differences you point out between your Hassy and your Leica photos can be explained simply in terms of sharpness. The Distagon ZM is a very different design than the Planar you were using on your 6X6. The character of the bokeh will be different. The Japanese call that double line rendering "ni-sen bokeh," I believe (two-line bokeh). It is an effect of the lens design, and not the sharpness of the lens. The examples you post of the Distagon seem to have the two-line bokeh, albeit mildly compared to some examples I've seen. Still, some may find it bothersome.

I'll add my voice to those who suggest you might check out other lenses. If you can find a 35mm lens based on the double-gauss design (the design of the Planar), you might approach the type of rendering you want, even with a sharper lens/sensor combination. Or perhaps something based on the Sonnar design. At this point I have left my depth, and you will need to talk to someone more knowledgeable than I.

Best of luck.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bcorton said:

I don't think the differences you point out between your Hassy and your Leica photos can be explained simply in terms of sharpness. The Distagon ZM is a very different design than the Planar you were using on your 6X6. The character of the bokeh will be different. The Japanese call that double line rendering "ni-sen bokeh," I believe (two-line bokeh). It is an effect of the lens design, and not the sharpness of the lens. The examples you post of the Distagon seem to have the two-line bokeh, albeit mildly compared to some examples I've seen. Still, some may find it bothersome.

I'll add my voice to those who suggest you might check out other lenses. If you can find a 35mm lens based on the double-gauss design (the design of the Planar), you might approach the type of rendering you want, even with a sharper lens/sensor combination. Or perhaps something based on the Sonnar design. At this point I have left my depth, and you will need to talk to someone more knowledgeable than I.

Best of luck.

You're probably right, but I do think sharpness/resolution plays a role. The M10 resolution is so high it's going to capture the "two-line bokeh" much more clearly than film would, where the grain and lower resolution blurs it out a bit. I've been fiddling with the grain in LR and it does help mask some of it.

The Planar design has apparently been my favorite in hindsight, as 95% of my Hasselblad film photos are with the 80mm Planar, the other 5% are with the Makro-Planar. I never particularly liked the 40 or 50mm Distagons. When I bought my CFV back I had to use a 60mm Distagon to mimic the same field of view of the 80 Planar and I just never liked it as much as the 80.

Are you aware of any 35mm double-gauss designs with a large aperture?

Edited by CharlieLoon
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Are you aware of any 35mm double-gauss designs with a large aperture?"

I believe the first version of the Leica Summicron 35mm was a straight-up double-gauss. And Erwin Puts suggests that all of the pre-ASPH Summicron and Summilux lenses were double-gauss variants. Quoting from his M lens compendium:

"The direct comparison between the first 35 mm f/1.4 Summilux-M and the most recent one with one aspherical surface (1994) shows progress on two different levels. The immediately visible progress is a very marked improvement of image quality. The more subtle and far-reaching innovation is a radical departure from a classical Gaussian design. The original Summicron and Summilux designs are variants of the Double Gauss concept, pioneered a long time ago." 

The context is Puts's distinguishing the ASPH lenses from their predecessors, so I'm pretty sure that by "original designs" he means pre-ASPH lenses as a category. And to my untrained eye, the diagrams for the latest non-ASPH versions do look to be based on the double-gauss design. Now what differences the variations contribute to OOF character of the lens, I'm not qualified to speculate. If you could borrow or rent a sample of the Summicron or Summilux pre-ASPH and give it a try, you could see for yourself whether either lens can satisfy your criteria for OOF rendering with the camera you are now using for which--I'm sure you're right--sharpness plays its role.

Good luck with this. I'd be interested to know what you find. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, bcorton said:

"Are you aware of any 35mm double-gauss designs with a large aperture?"

I believe the first version of the Leica Summicron 35mm was a straight-up double-gauss. And Erwin Puts suggests that all of the pre-ASPH Summicron and Summilux lenses were double-gauss variants. Quoting from his M lens compendium:

"The direct comparison between the first 35 mm f/1.4 Summilux-M and the most recent one with one aspherical surface (1994) shows progress on two different levels. The immediately visible progress is a very marked improvement of image quality. The more subtle and far-reaching innovation is a radical departure from a classical Gaussian design. The original Summicron and Summilux designs are variants of the Double Gauss concept, pioneered a long time ago." 

The context is Puts's distinguishing the ASPH lenses from their predecessors, so I'm pretty sure that by "original designs" he means pre-ASPH lenses as a category. And to my untrained eye, the diagrams for the latest non-ASPH versions do look to be based on the double-gauss design. Now what differences the variations contribute to OOF character of the lens, I'm not qualified to speculate. If you could borrow or rent a sample of the Summicron or Summilux pre-ASPH and give it a try, you could see for yourself whether either lens can satisfy your criteria for OOF rendering with the camera you are now using for which--I'm sure you're right--sharpness plays its role.

Good luck with this. I'd be interested to know what you find. 

Thanks. I haven't been able to find any pre-asph summiluxes as I've been looking the last few weeks (mostly because it'd be more compact than the Distagon)--they seem in short supply on ebay unless you go international. Considering both the high cost and the unlikelihood of being able to return them (as opposed to buying a new lens from B&H, testing it, then returning it if unhappy), I'm hesitant to acquire one unless I can get a used copy from B&H or KEH, or another place with good return policies.

I got a chance to try out the Voightlander Nokton 35mm 1.2 today. It's different than the 80mm Planar but quite pleasant. Definitely softer than the 35mm ZM distagon, but I think much more pleasant (at least for my style). I do want to also test out the 35mm 1.4 though, as it looks like it's a slight derivative of the double-Gauss design. I haven't been too impressed by most images shot wide open I've seen, but it's worth a try.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, CharlieLoon said:

Thanks. I haven't been able to find any pre-asph summiluxes as I've been looking the last few weeks (mostly because it'd be more compact than the Distagon)--they seem in short supply on ebay unless you go international. Considering both the high cost and the unlikelihood of being able to return them (as opposed to buying a new lens from B&H, testing it, then returning it if unhappy), I'm hesitant to acquire one unless I can get a used copy from B&H or KEH, or another place with good return policies.

I got a chance to try out the Voightlander Nokton 35mm 1.2 today. It's different than the 80mm Planar but quite pleasant. Definitely softer than the 35mm ZM distagon, but I think much more pleasant (at least for my style). I do want to also test out the 35mm 1.4 though, as it looks like it's a slight derivative of the double-Gauss design. I haven't been too impressed by most images shot wide open I've seen, but it's worth a try.

I belive Voigtlander VM 35mm f1.4 Mk2 is close copy to Pre-ASPH Summilux 35mm. very compact and much cheaper new than most Leica secondhand lenses.  It comes in two multicoated flavours, Single-coated and Multi-coated.   For those based in USA and who wish to buy new with return policy it retails on hometurf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...