Shooting wide open with my Hasselblad 500cm

[YosemiteSam]

<p>I recently purchased a Hasselblad 500cm and I'm looking for a good option regarding an ND filter. I shoot mostly portraiture and I'm used to shooting with cameras that have a max shutter of 1/4000 of a second, often allowing me to shoot close to wide open in even the brightest conditions. What's my best option to shoot at f2.8 while having a maximum of 1/500 of a second shutter speed? Should I be looking at a 10 stop filter or would that be too strong for portraits? Is there any method to convert exposure readings when using an ND filter? Sorry if this has been asked before, I searched the forums but couldn't find anything that answered my questions. I know nothing about using filters so any help is appreciated. </p>

[Robert_Lai]

<p>Assuming that you're going to use ISO 100 film in broad daylight, then by the sunny 16 rule, you would need for f/5.6 at 1/1000 speed.<br>

In your case, f/8 @ 1/500 (close enough to 1/400)<br>

To get to f/2.8, you need to drop the light by 3 stops. So, a 3 stop ND filter should be fine.<br>

0.3 optical density is 1 stop, so a 3 stop filter may be marked as 0.9 OD.</p>

<p>If you're using ISO 400 film, you'll need to cut the light by 2 more stops, so a 5 stop (or 1.5 OD) filter would be required.</p>

<p>Looking at the listings from B&H, I see that 0.9 filters are quite plentiful. B&W do make a 1.6 OD filter that would probably work for you. Or, a variable neutral density may be worthwhile for you (at greater expense).</p>

<p>The 10 stop filters are primarily to allow very long shutter speeds. Typical uses are for "flowing water" pictures (now so overdone and so cliche), and pictures of bridges, streets which are devoid of people and cars (which keep moving, while the bridge stays still).</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>A three stop ND filter would work in daylight with ISO 100 film. A 150 mm lens is more typical for portraits, with a maximum aperture of f/4.0. In that case, a 2 stop filter would suffice. Buy a high quality filter (e.g., B+W, Heliopan or Hoya) if you wish to avoid problems balancing color. Use a lens shade (compendium shade is best) to avoid veiling flare should sunlight or a bright sky strike the filter, even outside the field of view.</p>

<p>Here's my logic. The Sunny 16 rule is a shutter speed numerically equal to the ISO value at f/16, or 1/125 second. Stepping up, f/4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16 is 4 stops up. 1/500, 250, 125 is two stops down. The net is 2 stops.</p>

<p>Exposure compensation is easy. If you have a 2 stop filter, open the aperture two clicks or decrease the shutter speed by the same amount. You can also adjust the ISO setting of the meter. Two stops is a factor of 4, so for ISO 100, set the meter to ISO 25.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

I used to shoot a lot on the beach in NJ and the most I ever used was 2 stops. First the 80mm is not that sharp wide

open, so I would still prefer f4 or f5.6. Next, consider the 100mm 3.5, that is a fantastic lens. If you're really set on an

80mm wide open, the six element CB is quite nice, but again different from the 7 element CF etc.

Everyone will not agree with what I said, but I have owned a fair share of 80s including two T*, several CF, a newer C, CFi and CB, and have hand printed black and

white for many years so I'm making my opinion based on experience.

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>A CF80 is sharp enough in the center at f/2.8. If it seems a little fuzzy in the corners, that's not such a bad thing for portraits. Chalk it up to "bokeh." Fuzzy, for an Hasselblad, is equivalent to "tack sharp" in most other cameras.</p>

<p>More to the point, an Hasselblad is never as sharp as you expect when hand-held. Besides camera shake, it is hard to focus on or off a tripod. In order to appear brighter, the screen is more transparent then desirable for good focusing. You see through the glass, rather than at the focusing surface. Concentrate on the grid lines (or other structures) in the screen while focusing, and you stand a better chance of good results. A focusing eyepiece, like a stovepipe finder or newer prism establishes the correct surface better than your eye alone.</p>

[david_smith35]

<p>A Hasselblad is no more and no less sharp than any other camera of similar design. Don't believe all the hype.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

 

<blockquote>

<p>A Hasselblad is no more and no less sharp than any other camera of similar design. Don't believe all the hype.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't know about others, but the Hasselblad/Zeiss team is pretty sharp. This is taken with an Hasselblad 555ELD + CF60 Planar on a CFV16 (v1) back. The detail panels are roughly equivalent to a 24"x24" print.</p>

<p>Overview<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18060127-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="600" /></p>

<p>Center<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18060119-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /></p>

<p>Right<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18060121-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /></p>

<p>Top Right<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18060118-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /></p>

 

[AlanKlein]

<p>There's no exact way you can tell how sharp a lens is by scanning it, sharpening in post and then reducing resolution for the internet. Also, resolution depends on the film type as well. (What film did you use?) This shot was done on 120 Mamiya RB67. It's Ektar 25 (no longer made). Ektar 25 film is so fine, my lab told me they couldn't find the grain to focus on for the print when enlarging it to 16x20".</p>

<div></div>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Film! What film? A CFV16 is a digital back for the Hasselblad. The details are 1:1 pixel crops, 600 x 400. The original image is 4080x4080 pixel. The only image reduced for the internet is the overview.</p>

<p>I could dig out a 4000 ppi scan (8200 x 8200), but there's really no point. One digital pixel from the CFV is worth three in a scan any day. You saw and commented on another of my posts which compares a 35mm Ektar scan with a Leica M-9 image. 120 film is still film, and 4000 ppi is still 4000 ppi, regardless of the film size.</p>

<p>No sharpening was applied. If a lens is going to be funky in the corners, it's not hard to see at 1:1. I have plenty of examples in my portfolio and previous posts what most lenses look like at the edges of the field. Using a cropping sensor, like the CFV, doesn't necessarily eliminate corner problems. From Zeiss MTF charts, the microcontrast curve (30 lp/mm) drops fairly steadily from the center out.</p>

<p>I question the competence of a lab tech who can't focus on fine grain. You can see the grain in any film using a reflex magnifier to focus the enlarger. At 10x, you can see the peppercorns in a Velvia slide. It takes extraordinary effort to keep film and paper flat enough to be grain-sharp over the entire print (glass carriers and vacuum tables). And even if you could, enlarger lenses are far from perfect. You're almost better off being a little off when focusing an enlarger, rather than prints that show grain in some parts and not in others.</p>

<p>When I scan, the film is between two pieces of glass about 0.5 mm apart, and the results really are grain-sharp to the corners. Printing from that point does not depend on focusing nor optics.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Ed: The OP was talking about film as were the other contributors, I think. Why are you bringing digital into the discussion using a different camera and no film? I thought your posted samples were from film. Also, your posted samples doesn't look very sharp. The leaves in the last panel appear to show movement so I don't know how they can prove sharpness. </p>

[david_smith35]

<p><em> The OP was talking about film as were the other contributors, I think.</em><br>

That's what I thought.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>A question was raised about the quality of Hasselblad lenses. The best way to demonstrate that, one way or the other, is with a digital camera. Film is definitely the limiting factor for Hasselblad and smaller cameras. Eliminate that factor and you get a better analysis of the equipment. A 555 ELD is the same camera as the 500c/m except for a motor drive - same lenses, same shutter (in lens). I used a 60 mm lens because it is fairly close to the field of view of an 80 mm on a cropping sensor. Both are Planar design and have similar characteristics.</p>

<p>There is no motion in the third panel. The day was relatively calm, and the shutter speed was 1/250. What you see is a fair representation of corner sharpness, which often has a swirling effect. You can see the outlines of the leaves, and the branches (especially the bare ones) are sharp to the nearest pixel. Remember that the detail panels are equivalent to a 12x enlargement on most monitors.</p>

<p>This is what you get with an otherwise superb lens, a Nikon 28-70/2.8.</p>

<p>Nikon 28-35/2.8 at f/11<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18060650-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /></p>

<p>The same scene with a Loxia 35/2 at f/11, both using a Sony A7ii<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18060652-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /></p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Well, actually we're both off base. I just re-read his post. The OP only wanted answers about ND filters - that's all. I don't know how we got off his question to discuss sharpness of lenses. ?????</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Alan,<br>

Yeah, threads tend to meander a bit. I responded to a challenge by Dave Smith regarding the quality of an 80 mm lens, and another comment by Dave Wilson that Hasselblad wasn't any better than others. Even so, it's still pretty darned good.</p>

<p>I learn a lot from these threads, related to but not necessarily restricted to the OP. What I'm trying to establish is that the Hasselblad is an outstanding camera, not just an urban legend but also in fact. I've heard nothing but good about the RB67 (optically, anyway) and the Mamiya 7 is probably one of the sharpest cameras around. I wouldn't want people eavesdropping on a thread to be put off by unsubstantiated opinions (including my own).</p>

<p>Even reduced to WEB size, your photo of the icy branch is so real you could reach out and touch it. That's the magic of medium format.</p>

[AlanKlein]

Yes thanks. Your shot is probably a lot sharper too,

it's just that the Web and scanners do a lousy job.

[david_smith35]

<p>Well, these threads regularly stray off topic which sometimes makes them interesting reading.<br /> I was merely trying to correct the somewhat exaggerated claim that (it wasn't a challenge)<br /> <em>Fuzzy, for a Hasselblad, is equivalent to "tack sharp" in most other cameras.</em><br /> It implies that only a Hasselblad is capable of sharp images, which is obviously not true.</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>I responded to a challenge by Dave Smith regarding the quality of an 80 mm lens, and another comment by Dave Wilson that Hasselblad wasn't any better than others.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You swapped around their surnames accidentally there.<br>

In fairness, Edward, David Smith was merely responding to your provocative claim that -</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fuzzy, for an Hasselblad, is equivalent to "tack sharp" in most other cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The thread wouldn't have veered off but for that comment, which couldn't be let hanging there. I'd have reacted to it in the same way, if David hadn't done so first.</p>

<p>Anyway, seeing as we did veer off, I have a couple of follow-ups...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I used a 60 mm lens because it is fairly close to the field of view of an 80 mm on a cropping sensor. Both are Planar design and have similar characteristics.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The CF60 lens is a Distagon design, not a Planar. The the 74.9 mm flange distance of a Hasselblad does not allow a 60mm focal length lens which is not a retrofocus design.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You can see the outlines of the leaves, and the branches (especially the bare ones) are sharp to the nearest pixel.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you recall what f-stop you used for the CFV 60mm lakeside shot? I agree with Alan that it does seem a little less than tack sharp, so maybe there was some diffraction effect. I use the same sensor in a Kodak digital back on my Mamiya 645AFD and I definitely have some sharper results than that. Here's an example from a similar setup to your shot: tripod, 55/2.8 manual focus lens at f/8 or f/11 IIRC, landscape scene. No sharpening, de-noising, clarity, HDR or any other trickery:<br>

<img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img661/1300/VPkeuM.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Centre at 100%<br>

<img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img537/5985/VPSiQs.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Left edge at 100%<br>

<img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img910/4802/5lQ0en.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Right edge at 100%<br>

<img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img540/5130/YzlCn7.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>You can see colour moire in the grasses and stems, which is a sign of true sharpness at the single pixel level in the RAW file. Ordinarily I would suppress this in my processing, but I left it in for this illustration.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>I'm not sure why there's an argument concerning the sharpness of Hasselblad lenses when using film. They're ok, but not transcendant, and certainly no sharper than Mamiya. And I've never seen a Bronica photo that lacked for sharpness.<br>

People who are that obsessed about absolute sharpness and being able to zoom in on every tiny detail of a photo probably shouldn't be using medium format film in the first place. People think that they'll get 4x5 results when they won't. Medium format is better than 35 mm. Period. Don't expect miracles, just fine grain and good detail. My Pentax K3 out-resolves my Hasselblad by a wide margin--forget the number of pixels and theoretical file size because the photos simply look sharper.</p>

[lee_j1]

<p>To answer the original poster regarding shooting f2.8 in bright conditions: Shoot slow speed film, or pull your film, or even overexpose your film (-ve film will soak up a couple of stops if you're really struggling to shoot wide open). Other options include ND filters as you've suggested, extension tubes and close up rings (which you need to compensate exposure for as they lose you light).</p>

<p>If you're really serious about shooting wide open with the blad in bright conditions then get a 200 or 2000 series body, which will allow you to shoot up to 1/2000. I have a couple as my walk around cameras and shoot Portra 400, this gives me the flexibility to shoot between f2 and f8 depending on the conditions. My usual aperture for shooting is f4 or f5.6 to give me enough depth.</p>

<p>On that last point - you might want to reconsider shooting wide open depending on what type of portraits you're shooting. If you have full body then you might find eyes are in focus but hands are not. If you're doing tight head shots then you might find eyes are in focus but nose is not. It depends on exactly what you're aiming for. If you shoot a full body at f4 or even f5.6 you will still find the background is blown away by the depth of field drop off.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

The Bronica PS 80 snaps into focus wide open better than the Hassie 7 element CF and similar. So does the CB by

design. The CF is certainly sharp wide open but not like when it's stopped down even a little. That was my point.

[brandon_ward]

<p>This is a late response, but does the OP know how shallow DOF at f/2.8 on a 6x6 frame will be? I know the application is portraiture, but it's important to remember that DOF at 2.8 will appear to be REALLY REALLY shallow for someone if they are coming from 35mm or FX/DX formats. </p>

<p>Something to think about, as is the point about focusing ability and screen brightness. I don't own a 'blad but I do have a Bronica ETR and Mamiya 6 and the Bronica's screen is a bit dim - tough to focus and keep critical sharpness when handheld. If shooting 100 speed film handheld in diffuse shadows, your shutter speed will also be low, which can have an impact on apparent sharpness due to mirror slap or camera shake (I say this not from a pixel-peeping or dictionary basis, but from a "How does my print look?" basis).<br>

I guess my question is - what lighting will you be shooting portraits in where the max shutter speed is an issue? Bright sunlight + portraits is typically (typically) not a great combination. And, will the camera be handheld or tripod mounted? <br>

Regarding, DOF, the rule of thumb I've heard (and can vouch for) is that if you're coming from a smaller format, you typically will need two stops smaller aperture to get similar DOF. E.g., f/11 in medium format renders closer to f/5.6 in 35mm to the eye. Something to think about. </p>

<p>Ah, meandering posts. We love them just like photo.net. </p>

<p>OP - have you explored your new camera and lens? Can you contribute a follow-up to this thread? </p>