Color Quality of Schneider Lens?

[paul_ong1]

<p>Hi,<br /> I have been experimenting with attaching a DSLR to my Toyo 45G, and this has offered me to compare the Schneider 210mm and the Nikkor 180mm for DSLRs. I am surprised about how much warmer the Schneider (top photo) is (as well as that it performs better than expected on the small Nikon D70 sensor).<br /> Are Schneider lenses in general on the warm side? Is this because it is designed for film? I use a Fuji instant film back with the Toyo, and those photos do not seem to particularly warm.<br /> You can find the very large version of the comparisons photo at the link below, along with how I built the hybrid.<br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/9476880@N02/" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com /photos/9476880@N02/</a> <br /> Thanks.</p><div></div>

[leicaglow]

<p>That is interesting. I would have placed the Schneider as a bit cooler than Nikkors (at least in the LF comparisons I've done). I've been interesting to see how a LF lens compares when using a DSLR adapter. Thanks for posting.</p>

[franklin_polk]

<p>Maybe the Schneider is yellowing with age? That is a pretty dramatic difference. Probably part of the reason that you're seeing such good performance with the Schneider is that you're using such a small part of its image circle, and its near the center, so you're using the best performing part of the image circle.</p>

[bob_salomon]

<p>Are you using a Skylight filter on the Schneider?</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>"Are Schneider lenses in general on the warm side? " I would be asking the question the other way around. "Are Nikkor lenses in general on the cold side?" My experience is that Nikkor LF lenses tend to be ever-so-slightly more contrasty than the equivelent Schneiders.</p>

<p>There appears to be more going on here than just a difference in lens maker. The Schneider shot looks very natural to me. The other two are abnormally cold and seem to have unnatural color shift.</p>

<p>Whic picture best represents the scene you saw with your eyes?</p>

[bob_salomon]

<p>Why is the 210mm image (top photo) showing a larger area then the 180mm lens (middle photo)?</p>

[paul_ong1]

<p>Michael,<br>

The Nikkor is the 180mm for 35mm film and DSLR. From what I have read, that lens does produce cooler colors, which is also my impression even before the comparison. I think I will also test the Nikkor 70-200mm. The exercise is to mainly for me to get a better sense of my equipment.</p>

<p>Franklin,<br>

It could be aging. I do have some old Nikkor AIS and AI lenses, but I don't detect any dramatic shift in color. Yes, you may be right about the sharpness of the Schneider near the center. Still, surprisingly good performance considering that the Nikkor 180mm is one of the Nikon legend lenses.</p>

<p>Bob,<br>

No filter on either lenses.<br>

Good way to restate the question. Yes, I think the Nikkor for DSLR/35mm tends to be slightly cooler than others, such as the Zeiss.<br>

Hard to say which is closer. In general, I think what I see visually is about 2/5 of the way from the Nikkor and 3/5 from the Schneider. However, it depends on which color is being compared.</p>

<p>Bob,<br>

Because differences in focal length, I tried to resize the Schneider shot down in Photoshop to match the best I can. Guess I went too far. Sorry that it is not perfect.</p>

<p>Everyone,<br>

I think the color difference is due to lenses because the first two were taken with the same D70 and the raw files processed the same way in Photoshop, except resizing (although less than perfect). I can with some color adjustments get the photos close, but still differences. Which is preferred is a matter of personal taste. The lesson for me is that the selection of lens can have a noticeable impact on the final image. I knew that in principle, but this exercise really drove home the lesson.</p>

 

[ernest-b]

<p>A close consideration of these images suggests that, as Brian Shaw noted, there is more going on.</p>

<p>The white chimney and its shadow can serve as a "sundial" to allow a viewer to sequence the three images. (I.e., the point where the shadow strikes the parallel rows of roof tiles, provides an accurate indication of the sun's movement, thus the passage of time, between shots.) The sun was lowest in image #3, higher in image #1, and highest in image #2.</p>

<p>Assuming that these were morning shots, and that the camera was pointed west, this means that image #3 was shot first, then image #1, then image #2.</p>

<p>The shots weren't taken from a single camera position. This is evident by the presence of the foreground bush or tree branch along the left side of image #1, and from the varying position of the more distant foliage against the yellow wall and windows, just above the arch at the bottom center of all three images.</p>

<p>By comparing them, it's clear that the initial shot (#3) was taken from the rightmost camera position; that the second shot (#1) was taken from the leftmost position; and that the final shot (#2) was taken from a point somewhere between the first two.</p>

<p>So---these images were not taken in rapid succession from a fixed position, as would be ideal in a lens comparison. To enable the movement and repositioning of the camera, some interval of time passed between shots.</p>

<p>The movement of the chimney shadow is slightest between the first (#3) and second (#1) shots, although the camera was then being repositioned the greatest distance (rightmost to leftmost). The chimney shadow has moved most, which means the most time elapsed, between the second (#1) and third (#2) shots. </p>

<p>Based on the amount of change in the chimney-shadow's position (one whole tile-row), it's a reasonable inference that several minutes elapsed between the second and final shots, i.e. between the "warmest" (#1) and the "coolest" (#2).</p>

<p>Although no clouds are visible in the first two images taken, by the time the "coolest" image was made--i.e., the last shot taken, after a lag of several minutes--light clouds have moved into the visible portion of the sky.</p>

<p>So when these shots were made, it would appear, it was a "mostly sunny" day, with light clouds crossing the sky (thus randomly passing before the sun).</p>

<p>Whenever direct sunlight is reduced or obscured by cloud cover, the reflected color temperature of photographic subjects goes up (colors get bluer/cooler). Whenever an obscured sun breaks free, the reflected temperature goes down (colors get redder/warmer). This may have been a major contributing factor to the differences in these three images--and possibly a larger factor than lens characteristics.</p>

<p>I would bet that in image #1 the landscape was in direct, full, late-morning sun, and the intensely warm colors reflect that fact. Only a few minutes later, in image #2, the landscape was in weakened sunlight (momentarily obscured by clouds passing before the sun)--while the buildings and trees continued to receive powerful <em>blue</em> illumination from most of the remainder of the blue sky. Image #3 likely received an intermediate level of direct sunlight.</p>

<p>All three images would qualify as EV 15 (bright or hazy sun, with strong shadows). However, when most of the sky is continually reflecting a strong, deep blue light on the landscape, momentary changes between "bright" and "hazy" sunlight (due to passing clouds) could cause big variations in color temperature. This may be what you have captured.</p>

<p>Just a thought.</p>

<p> </p>

[paul_ong1]

<p>Earnest,<br>

You may be right. Certainly, it is very difficult to take all three at the same time and exact location. Unfortunately, I don't have multiple copies of each equipment. I had only one tripod in the field, which was used for the DSLR-4x5 hybrid, and I used a nearby tree to stablize the DSLRs (the second photo is with a Nikon D70 and the third is with a Fuji S5, which render colors differently).<br>

Originally, my plan was just to examine the relative resolution of the Schneider versus a DSLR lens, but I was struck by the color differences after processing the files.<br>

Not sure if it is the timing. I went back to look at the EXIF, so the time for the first was 3:45 pm, the second was about a minute later, and third was actually shot first at 3:26 pm. The shadows change noticely in only 20 minutes because it was late afternoon.<br>

Interestingly, each combination renders the blue in the sky slightly different, which should be less affected by moving clouds.<br>

Anyway, you have good points, and I will have to see if I can redo similar shots again but during a cloudless day. I may also try to go out with just the DSLR and 180mm today, which is cloudy to see if I get a yellow caste. Thanks for the input.</p>

[bob_salomon]

<p>So you never did a white balance if these are all digital shots? Then the test is not valid as different digital cameras seem to have been used as well as different lighting for each shot. Had you done a proper white balance (not a camera selected white balance) or, at the very least included a reference 18% grey card, then judgements about the colors can be made. As it is now the variables seem to be the color temperature as each shot was taken, the individual characteristics of your digital cameras, the color rendition of your lenses, the position of the sun and clouds, the color, if any, from the ground glass or whatever you are shooting with the digital camera.<br>

You are aware that there are adapters that let you:<br>

1: put a DSLR on to the back of any 45 camera with a Graflock back.<br>

2: adapter bellows systems that accept a DSLR on the back and view camera lenses that will fit a 45 Technika lens board on the front, and have full movements front and back.<br>

3: adapter bellows that accepts a DSLR in back and 35mm and MF camera lenses in front either in a tilt/shift version or a non tilt/shift version. This combination is primarily for macro use unless a modified enlarging lens is used for infinity.<br>

All of these are far better solutions to hanging a DSLR behind a view camera and far easier to use in the field without the vibrations that your system is capable of producing.</p>

[ernest-b]

<p>Paul,</p>

<p>That all tracks. I'd guessed that these were morning shots, with the camera pointed in a southwesterly direction. </p>

<p>Since in fact you made them in the afternoon, with the lenses pointed northeast, the implicit "sundial" sequence was the same but in reverse order: first image #2, then #1, then #3. </p>

<p>So your first shot, not your last, was likely affected by a cloud passing before the sun; followed by the lag of twenty minutes between #2 and #1, and the brief pause between #1 and #3.</p>

<p>Anyway an interesting exercise, and good fun. Good luck with your continued testing.</p>

[paul_ong1]

<p>Bob,<br>

Yes, I did a white balance when converting all of the digital photos. I first let Photoshop do it, and then I cross checked with using the white chimney. Slight difference between automatic and manual, but very similar results in terms of the difference in color produced by the two lenses.<br>

The first and second shots were made with the same DSLR (Nikon D70), the first attached to the Toyo with the 210mm Schneider, and the second with the Nikkor 180mm. So, I can rule out difference in the way the digital camera renders color. (Also rule out difference in in-camera processing since I am using the raw with same steps in Photoshop.) The third is with the Fuji S5 just to cross check.<br>

Yes, know about the adapter on the market. Did a fair amount of research. I opted to build my own because it gives me greater flexibility in rotating the DSLR and flexibility for rapid change. I also like to make things, so a double bonus of constructing my own. The DSLR is solidly attached to a light-proof mounting plate that is secured to the back standard. Tested for any light leaks by taking long exposures with the lens cap on. The products on the market that allows sliding is not really a plus because I can use the Toyo's shift and rise in the back standard. I can shoot at infinity with the 210mm with all technical controls. I have a 75mm that I used for table top photos and perspective control. I am in the market for a in between focal length enlarger lens that will allow me to shot at infinity. Unfortunately, the Schneider 90mm only works for macro. You can see how this was constructed at<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9476880@N02/sets/72157621949266496/<br>

I also moved up to a heavier tripod to reduce any vibration. And it is heavy.</p>

<p>Ernest,<br>

Again, thanks for your input. Actually, I filled the 20 minute lag with taking other shots.While I have not processed all of the raw files and I have delete some, the JPEG versions of the other photos also show difference in color between the Schneider and Nikkor.<br>

I will most like go out again this afternoon after doing some shopping, but do not want to pack up the Toyo-DSLR into the car and set it up in the field. So, I will take the Nikon DSLR with the 180mm to check if I get a yellow caste given that it is partially cloudy today.<br>

Yes, the exercise has been fun, and also educational.</p>

[bob_salomon]

<p>Paul, An incamera white balance with a baLens will be more accurate then doing it raw and then in PP. Plus it is much faster and once you do it for a light setup for a given camera it is the same for any other lens. In addition there will be more shadow detail when you do it at the source. With a baLens you are reading the color of the light falling on the scene rather then the color bouncing off the scene. Plus you don't know what color that white chimney really is. Any of the three shots could be the correct white and it is just as possible that all of them are inaccurate.</p>

[paul_ong1]

<p>Bob,<br>

OK, will give it a try. Price seems reasonable.<br>

I use raw because it enables me to recover highlights (very bright day so large dynamic range, and parts of the JPEG are blown out). Can I apply the JPEG's temperature and tint to get the right white balance?<br>

Yes, I don't know if the chimney is pure white, but I used the same spot to set the white point for all three photos. I did this to facilitate the color comparison.<br>

Also, no luck in going out to reshoot with clouds. They all burned away by mid-afternoon.<br>

<br /> Thanks.</p>

[bob_salomon]

<p>Paul,<br>

If you use the baLens you can modify the image anyway you want weather it is a raw or a jpeg. But your colors will all be identical for the actual colors in the scene.</p>

[ernest-b]

<p>Just want to correct a bonehead error in my own second post, where I wrote:<em></em></p>

<p><em>Since in fact you made them in the afternoon, with the lenses pointed northeast [sic]...</em></p>

<p>Actually the camera would've been pointing north<em>west </em> when these were taken. If the images had been taken in the morning, the camera would've been pointing southwest.</p>

<p>By contrast, in any view facing east (NE/E/SE) the sun would be located on the right side of the image, with shadows falling from right to left.</p>

<p><em><br /> </em></p>

[massimo_de_cristofaro]

<p>Hi Paul,<br>

there have been many considerations on those color differences.<br>

But: do you have a memory of what were you seeing?<br>

This is a matter on wich I come often in thos subjects: there is a "culture" of vision and of photography vision.<br>

I remember that when using the "ever blessed" Kodachrome, there was a slight deception, because images looked like they were not colored enough. But they were the rightest images you could have!<br>

This was because ALL photographs we see have always more contrast and more saturated colors: Ektachrome had even more etc. Moreover, films were always enhancing general light caracteristics; instead our brain tends to level and to bring images to "normal" colors.<br>

I think that you should try again maybe with some confrontation color pattern, and/or a film camera too.<br>

Moreover, there is also the consideration of the electronic rendering: they could interpret a certain "overall" color balance: once I did 4 rapid shots of the same grey cloud over a green string of trees, and in all the shots the same greys and greens were all different. Then there is the rendering software...</p>

 

[dave_parry]

<p>Paul if you want to do a rock-solid comparison simply of the relative colour balance of the lenses I'd set up a shot of something fairly neutral like a sheet of newspaper indoors. Light it with flash at a fast shutter speed to cut out ambient light - leave the flashgun at a fixed location, preferably off camera. Use the same camera for each shot, and shoot jpg then you know your RAW software isn't going to try and alter the white balance on the sly. pick a white balance setting and leave it there (doesn't matter which one as its just a relative comparison, but I suggest sun or flash on the D70). As you're indoors with flash you don't have to worry about the light changing or working fast/rushing/making mistakes. Good luck.</p>

[bob_salomon]

<p>" but I suggest sun or flash on the D70). As you're indoors with flash you don't have to worry about the light changing or working fast/rushing/making mistakes. "<br>

That is only as long as the capacitors are fully charged and you are shooting at the same flash duration for each shot. Unless you have high end flash your ready light may come on when the capacitors are only at 80% of full charge rather then 100%. It can take several more seconds for the flash to go from 80 to 100% charge. Then the flash output needs to be stabilized for consistent results and again, that will be on better AC flash units. Otherwise you may be getting inconsistent and colder colors from that flash.</p>

[paul_ong1]

<p>Massimo,<br>

Thanks for the interesting comments. From my old film days, I realized that what film captures is not the same as what we see, and I think it applies to digital photos also. I think I mentioned earlier that my original intent was to compare the resolution of the Schneider. The color difference became apparent after reviewing the photos. I guess for now, my goal is not to capture the most accurate or balanced color, just to determine if the Schneider is indeed warmer so I have a better sense of how my equipment function (its personality). You are right about that is is hard to reproduce the same colors, even with rapid shots of the same objects. And of course, software adds an additional element. Hope to implement some of the suggestions here, but I am only a weekend photographer.</p>

<p>Dave,<br>

Good suggestions. May take a little time to implement because my current project is using the Toyo with the 90mm to do some building shoots to explore a little more of perspective control and altering the focal plane. I am only able to spend at most one day a week on photography because of work and family duties.</p>

<p>Bob,<br>

I think I have a good flash, the Nikon SB900, which has extensive manual controls over output. Also good point about making sure that the capacitors are well charged. Even better is that my brother has fairly good studio strobes (don't know the brand).</p>

 

[bob_salomon]

<p>"explore a little more of perspective control and altering the focal plane"</p>

<p>I think you mean alternating the plane of focus (Scheimpflug) rather then the focal plane. </p>

[paul_ong1]

<p>Bob,<br>

I stand corrected. Sorry about the careless use of terminology. Thanks.<br>

When I was learning about technical control, I saw an outstanding example of the two used together. The photographer used perspective control to bring in more of the foreground close to his feet without distorting the distant mountain and then used the Scheimpflug effect to bring both into focus. I am sorry that I did not save the link on this, but I want to see what it takes to duplicate this.</p>

[bob_salomon]

<p>The reason he didn't "distort" the mountains is that he used front tilt or swing for Schemipflug control. If it was done by a back tilt or swing then it would have changed the shape of the subject while also doing Scheimpflug. So just do the tilts and swings on the front after leveling the camera to the subject. Use front or rear shifts or rise/fall to position the subject where you want it as long as the lens covers the displacements you use.</p>