Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mark Rabiner wrote: > > I returned to the color darkroom today for the first time in several years!! At > the rental lab. > I used to be a rent by the year member and was in there 2 3 times a week. > Now there's more elbow room with everyone at home playing with thier Epsons! > I had specialized in Black and white and got out of commercial work over the > last 3 or 4 years. > Now I'm back doing commercial work and a client I had done a black and white > location job for now wanted color in front of the clean white backdrop. > After shooting some Polaroids with the Hasselblad ELM I shot a roll of 220 160 > VS Portra with the 80mm 2.8 Zeiss Planar on the camera as I had it out anyway. > Afterwards I realized the lens needed to be cleaned but the test negs from the > day before looked sharp enough. > I had eyelashes with full length shots. > Then I shot a second roll of film this time 35mm 160 VS Portra with my M6 and > Leica winder M and the 7 year old 50 Summicron with the detachable hood. > I used Studio strobes against a white backdrop. > I decided to show the clients not only contact sheets but 11x14's before they > even placed their print order. > And I wanted to see how the 80mm 2.8 Zeiss Planar on the Hasselblad stacked up > against our 50 Summicron on 35mm film in terms of 11x14 working results. > And I thought C prints were a much better way of doing this than inkjets which > is putting it mildly. > I don't think inkjets would have told me that much. > I scan my medium format with a 1200x2400 dpi Umax PowerLook III and 35mm stuff > in the 2,700 dpi Nikon LS-2000. > How those numbers translate is over my head but the major consideration to me is > the output. Inkjet spray against a C Print. > Anyway the Leica 11x14's looks "sharper" and in other ways better then the > Hasselblad 11x14's, > The magnifications were different from the two formats favoring of curse medium > format. > About 4.4 X for the medium format and 9X for the 35mm. > But the 35mm looked definitely better anyway! > Now to do it again with a clean Zeiss lens. (Or a dirty Summicron) > Then test the 150 Sonnar against the 90 Elmarit. I used a tripod for both by the > way despite the fast speeds of studio strobes. > Mark Rabiner > I had so many flakes inside that Planar lens that I swear I though I saw a sled > in there with "Rosebud" on it! Did you also make a silver print from each negative? If so were the results the same, ie. the prints from the Leica negatives looking better ( sharper)? If the results were the same I think you can safely assume the difference is in the camera. If not than I suspect the different scanners may be the cause of the seeming inferior performance of the Hassy. John Shick