Digital BW, The Print

I thought I'd share the early results of an experiment capturing infrared black and white digitally.

I'm using an unmodified Epson R-D1 digital rangefinder camera with a Hoya R72 filter (the equivalent of an 89B Wratten filter) over a few different lenses.

The ISO setting of the camera was set to 1600 (the highest available) and images (exposed at f/5.6 or f/8) were underexposed. The R-D1 allows IE adjustments and I found that +1 usually produced usable images. +2 occasionally produced a better image.

I have published five images here: http://www.leica-gallery.net/dlk/folder-8585.html

All were handheld at 1/125 or 1/250 sec.

All images were initially processed in Epson RAW and converted to TIFFs. Levels, brightness/contrast, and sharpness adjustments done in Photoshop. Most significantly the Noise Ninja plug-in was used to significantly reduce the noise that resulted from the high ISO settings.

I have photographed many rolls of Kodak High Speed Infrared (HIE) and find the results pleasantly similar. The middle image of the five looks almost the same as the HIE image that I made last year.

Next I will use some faster lenses (the five images presented were taken with either the Voigtlander 12mm f/5.6 or Leica Tri-Elmar f/4) so I can drop the ISO to hopefully 400 to see how the images look with much less noise.

Any questions and/or comments are welcomed.

Dave.
-- 
David Keenan, ausdlk@... on 3/26/2006

Why did you use such a high EI with RAW? Wouldn't it have been better
to start out at the lowest speed setting - ie giving the sensor as
much light as possible?

Best,
Helen



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, David Keenan
<ausdlk@...> wrote:
>
> I thought I'd share the early results of an experiment capturing
infrared black and white digitally.
> 
> I'm using an unmodified Epson R-D1 digital rangefinder camera with a
Hoya R72 filter (the equivalent of an 89B Wratten filter) over a few
different lenses.
> 
> The ISO setting of the camera was set to 1600 (the highest
available) and images (exposed at f/5.6 or f/8) were underexposed. The
R-D1 allows IE adjustments and I found that +1 usually produced usable
images. +2 occasionally produced a better image.
> 
> I have published five images here:
http://www.leica-gallery.net/dlk/folder-8585.html
> 
> All were handheld at 1/125 or 1/250 sec.
> 
> All images were initially processed in Epson RAW and converted to
TIFFs. Levels, brightness/contrast, and sharpness adjustments done in
Photoshop. Most significantly the Noise Ninja plug-in was used to
significantly reduce the noise that resulted from the high ISO settings.
> 
> I have photographed many rolls of Kodak High Speed Infrared (HIE)
and find the results pleasantly similar. The middle image of the five
looks almost the same as the HIE image that I made last year.
> 
> Next I will use some faster lenses (the five images presented were
taken with either the Voigtlander 12mm f/5.6 or Leica Tri-Elmar f/4)
so I can drop the ISO to hopefully 400 to see how the images look with
much less noise.

> 
> Any questions and/or comments are welcomed.
> 
> Dave.
> -- 
> David Keenan, ausdlk@... on 3/26/2006
>

Thanks, David, for posting about your rangefinder photography. Pretty 
good hand-holding, I'd say.

If it's convenient, I'd like to see more about your and others' 
rangefinder experiences. Mine stopped long ago when an old girlfriend 
lost my Olympus 35RC. Which I mourned until she recently found it in 
the bottom of her sock drawer. I just had CameraQuest service it and 
hope to find a lens cap for it.

But my current interest is in wide-angle rangefinder work 
specifically. Recently I've been using Canon gear and am happy enough 
with it at the long end. But I am thinking about trying to improve on 
their wide-angle lenses by using the new Zeiss 21mm. Probably on a 
Bessa as an economy, not because I'm allergic to digital cameras in 
general or the Epson in particular.
--
Sam


At 11:48 PM -0600 3/26/06, David Keenan wrote:

>
>I thought I'd share the early results of an experiment capturing 
>infrared black and white digitally.
>
>[snip]
>
>I have photographed many rolls of Kodak High Speed Infrared (HIE) 
>and find the results pleasantly similar. The middle image of the 
>five looks almost the same as the HIE image that I made last year.
>
>[snip]
>
>Any questions and/or comments are welcomed.
>
>Dave.
>--
>David Keenan, ausdlk@... on 3/26/2006

>Why did you use such a high EI with RAW? Wouldn't it have been better
>to start out at the lowest speed setting - ie giving the sensor as
>much light as possible?

I was using slow lenses and I wanted to handhold.

I agree that a lower ISO would result in less noise.

However, I was also considering the HIE film images are inherently grainy -- that is part of their beauty -- so having some noise (ie., grain) in the digital images isn't necessarily something to avoid.

I will post some low ISO tests shots sometime in the future for comparison.

Dave.
-- 
David Keenan, ausdlk@... on 3/27/2006

Sam,

> -----Original Message-----
> ... I'd like to see more ... rangefinder experiences ...
 
> But my current interest is in wide-angle rangefinder work
> specifically. ...
> the new Zeiss 21mm. Probably on a Bessa as an economy ...

I use rangefinders in part due to the superior wide angle lenses.  I've
never been very impressed with retrofocus designs.  However, the rangefinder
advantage might disappear with digital unless sensor sensitivity to the
angle of the light is improved.  See 
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml
Scroll down to the wide angle images.  It's sad.

While the wide angle vignetting can be compensated for electronically or in
Photoshop, it nevertheless exacerbates the limited latitude of the sensors.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

>Scroll down to the wide angle images.  It's sad. 
....
>While the wide angle vignetting can be compensated for electronically or in
>Photoshop, it nevertheless exacerbates the limited latitude of the sensors.

Paul --

Maybe not so sad...

It's true that there is moderate vignetting on the R-D1 with wide angle lenses.

I have the CV 12mm lens with which a few of the images I recently posted were taken which is one of the "worst" offenders.

It also true that the PhotoRAW software application that comes with the R-D1 has a nifty way to easily compensate for the vignetting.

The "but" I'm getting to is that the vignetted images I have taken so far for the most part are far more dramatic WITH the vignetting then without. When processing the images off of the SD card, I will often intentionally NOT correct the vignetting or only do so partially.

Perhaps I am only doing some rationalization here but I consider the vignetting to more of a plus then I do a minus.

Dave.
-- 
David Keenan, ausdlk@... on 3/27/2006

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> Sam,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > ... I'd like to see more ... rangefinder experiences ...
>  
> > But my current interest is in wide-angle rangefinder work
> > specifically. ...
> > the new Zeiss 21mm. Probably on a Bessa as an economy ...
> 
> I use rangefinders in part due to the superior wide angle lenses.  I've
> never been very impressed with retrofocus designs.  However, the
rangefinder
> advantage might disappear with digital unless sensor sensitivity to the
> angle of the light is improved.  See 
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml
> Scroll down to the wide angle images.  It's sad.
> 
> While the wide angle vignetting can be compensated for
electronically or in
> Photoshop, it nevertheless exacerbates the limited latitude of the
sensors.
> 

Paul,

Ken Rockwell has an article on his site about wide angles lens
vignetting. He talks about center filter to correct the natural
darkening of the sides of the image.

Maybe Ansel Adams would have loved this. Did he not advocate the
darkening of the edges of prints!

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/center-filters.htm

Cheers,
André