Lens comparisons: El Nikkor 80mm, OD. Industries and X135

[msubees]

I did find one photo from the El Nikon 80mm (the N model, which was sold. I failed to do a back to back comparison at the same condition before selling on ebay). this one was done much earlier. but it seems to be sharper and of higher contrast than the old model, perhaps mostly due to the fungus of the later. the N model was quite new and was very clear. I got a 2nd sample of the chrome model, also some fungus but about 30% instead of 90% of the last sample (in terms of haze coverage).

100% crop. not sharpened.

 

While I trust kds's data saying the new model was not as good as the old model, but he perhaps did only one specimen and we are not sure of the sample to sample variation.

 

[msubees]

Yes, I think the X135 has a 42 to Nikon adapter with a lens in it. I also bought a nikon to 4/3 adaptor, which requires that lens to be in between. but also bought one without a lens. in addition I have a M42 to 4/3 adapter.

 

Zach,

 

Your original thread seems to have drifted off topic, apologies for my part in that.

 

Have you sorted out the lens mounting of your X135 to your µ4/3 G5?

 

Your X135 vendor, KDS, has a brief tutorial entitled "How to determine the length of a focusing helicoid" on his blog which might help in determining your set up.

 

John

[JCDowdy]

I also bought a nikon to 4/3 adaptor ............ in addition I have a M42 to 4/3 adapter.

 

Zach,

I assume you mean micro4/3 and not 4/3.

The register depth is different but I don't think a 4/3 bayonet will even mate to a µ4/3 body will it?

But, if it will then would have real problems getting the lens to focus - if at all.

- John

[JCDowdy]

Hey Zach,

One more comment from the peanut gallery.

Since you are into macrophotography you might want to check out one of those M42 to µ4/3 adapters combined with a macro helicoid.

As I understand it, this adapter is designed so that when the helicoid is filly collapsed the M42 lens is at the correct register to focus @ infinity, but it can extend to give ~30mm macro extension.

Kind of kills two birds with one stone! Thinking about maybe getting one myself.

- John

[msubees]

Yes, i meant micro 4/3. Igor has suggested to me one one helicoid with adapter together, I have not bought that one yet. I will have to get it if I get a 35mm (super lentar or another one). I have already spent close to $1000 with all sorts of adapters!

 

the very long helicoid I got (42mm to 42mm though) is very nice and can do 0.5 life size and also to infinity.

[msubees]

i did more testing now that I have the right adapter for my S8612 + UG11 filters for the OD industries lens.

They do not look bad! especially for $10...I might keep it. the draw back is you have to get very close to the object and there is a small range you can focus. the advantage is you can get 3x life size, compared to EL NIkkor 80mm, which does not get 1:1 (but close).

 

garden phlox (actually a Hesperis, Brassicaceae), about 30% of original, so it is quite sharp.

 

a geranium at 100% crop. not bad.

 

100% at the highest mag (3 x life size), here a bit softer, but still passsable.

 

 

ODI as shot (not cropped), not corrected for WB.

 

EL 80 lens, a bit sharper. i had to use all my nikon tubes, and then 42mm to Nikon lens adaptor (to the camera), and 42mm lens to Nikon mount (to extension tube) again to get similar magnification as the last photo.

 

I used both in camera WB (using a piece of white teflon), and then again using Lightroom, just the white background here...but still the white is not white! pinkish? the first photo looked better even though it is a different lens and i used the EL lens during WB set...strange!

 

[msubees]

it appears that my Lightroom shows the raw files as uncorrected for WB, but jpeg was WB-ed using my custom-wb...a bit strange...How do I force it to use my custom WB for raw files also?

[msubees]

 

the above shows JPG/RAW for visible photo (top) and

JPG/RAW for UV photos (bottom), which are quite different for the raw file (not corrected).

 

strangely, I try to use WB selector in Lightroom and it is not consistent. sometimes nothing changes, other times it goes from purple to blue, instead of white!

 

I used Lightroom for D70 and did not have this problem, when I usually used leaves as "white". now I have used teflon and it does not work!

[Andrea B.]

Zach, I'm sorry I don't know Lightroom in order to be able to advise you about the WB issue. I'm sure there's a way, so maybe someone else will chime in.

 

The OD shots are looking pretty good.

 

Here's a WB sample from Photo Ninja with a bit of the Detail slider added to the EL80 photo.

[msubees]

Andrea, Thank you! I tried using my old photoshop to open the DNG file and my photoshop (CS3) is now too old, does not have a WB selector during opening...Tried using Lightroom to open the DNG file...no go either...original was orange-ish, if I used that pinkish area (my teflon!) as "white" the photo then came out to be the same as the one I posted earlier (slight pink). So I may have to buy your software! or CS5.

[igoriginal]

Zach,

 

My experiences thus far (even though I haven't tried every form of photo-editing software, yet), is that when I open my RAW file in Adobe software (or even after converting it to the DNG version of RAW, alternatively), it does not do a very good job of retaining CWB (custom-white-balanced) settings, "as shot" by my camera, for UV-only photos.

 

This is not a problem restricted only to you, alone. This is an issue that continues to exist across many forms of software, and not just Lightroom.

 

The problem has to do with the fact that these photo-editing software programs do not "understand" these CWB zones stored in the RAW files when it comes to UV / IR photography, because these WB settings are "outside the bounds" of what the software is normally designed for (or what it "anticipates" working with). Which is why it has so much trouble retaining your CWB, for UV-only (and even IR) photos, when it comes to RAW files.

 

For this reason, why I usually (but not always) only implement JPEGs for my UV / IR work (even though I have all of my cameras set to "RAW + JPEG" dual-image shooting mode, just to be on the safe side of having both at my disposal).

 

Now, I will say that my Photoshop Elements software has a manually-operated "color cast removal" feature, using a dropper-style "click to white-balance" tool, to manually make corrections / alterations to the WB. But this can still be a tedious process, even in this case. Because you have to search like mad to find an individual region (or even a single pixel) within the entire image that will work with this dropper tool to bring out the "UV neutral / gray" backgrounds that are the "standard" for UV-only photographs.

 

However, taking your UV-only photos with a piece of PTFE somewhere in the frame as your floral shots (or even blurred out somewhere in the background) will dramatically improve your work-flow and / or the "success rate" of this dropper white-balancing tool. Adobe Camera Raw has a very similar "click to white-balance" dropper tool, by the way.

 

Otherwise, this why I usually only bother with JPEGs, when working with UV-only shots. Because only JPEGs preserve the precise custom-white-balance settings, as shot at the scene (when implementing the highly robust "shoot-to-set" CWB settings for mirrorless cameras, in particular).

 

This is because the custom-white-balanced settings are "processed" right along with the JPEG image's processing itself (unlike RAW files, which are "non-destructive or "non-permanent" with the information which is associated with them). Indeed, the CWB settings for JPEGs are "burned" into the additional processing step of creating the JPEG, in camera.

 

Granted, if I absolutely have to go to RAW (should I drastically under-expose or over-expose my image, or botch something else up, and thus need to improve my chances of restoring / retaining highlights / shadows / dynamic details that would otherwise be destroyed or clipped, if working with JPEGs), then sure, I will put up with all of the additional (and annoying) problems associated with how photo-editing software deals with reading RAW files with respect to the software's inabilities to preserve UV custom-white-balanced settings, as set by the camera.

 

But, otherwise, if my JPEG images are "dead on" (and I try to do my best to make that happen, so that I do not have to deal with the clumsy process of RAW manipulation of UV-only photos), then JPEGs serve a clear advantage here: They retain the precise custom-white-balanced settings, as shot at the scene (since the WB parameters are included with the JPEG processing, in-camera, as shot).

 

Bottom line: As far as I have seen, there is no "easy solution" for forcing photo-editing software to "properly" reproduce the "unexpected"

WB settings associated with UV-only photographs, as embedded within the information associated with RAW images. There doesn't seem to be any reliably consistent process for recalling UV custom-white-balanced settings, as shot, with regard to RAW files. And that is simply because photo-editing software was not designed with UV (or even IR) photography manipulation in mind, to begin with.

 

Maybe that might change with software in the future, of course. (Maybe some sort of software "plug ins", or likewise. Designed for UV / IR photographers, by UV / IR photographers.)

 

(NOTE: I still have not tried this "Photo Ninja" thing. So, I guess my opinions are limited to the existing software which I have tried.)

[JCDowdy]

(NOTE: I still have not tried this "Photo Ninja" thing. So, I guess my opinions are limited to the existing software which I have tried.)

 

They have a free demo: http://www.picturecode.com/download.php

[igoriginal]

JCDowdy,

 

Thanks!

 

So, since there is a "free demo", I take it that there is a "full version" that will cost $$$?

 

What would be the full price of the software?

 

And how many days do you get to try the demo, once it's installed? I would rather wait to try it, once I have more time to actually play around with it. Otherwise, a demo that is based on "limited days of use" would be wasted.

[msubees]

Igor, I checked the web and the full price is $129. I can get it for 50% off at a university.

 

I remember ViewNX2 handled D70 UV photos fine. I can change WB correctly (posted here previously). ViewNX is free but works only for Nikon cameras. I wonder if Panasonic has some software to handle raw files? Usually each manufacture has their own (e.g. Nikon and Canon), and free software. Mine is used so I am not sure if a new one comes with it. it should be downloadable.

[msubees]

Igor,

 

I downloaded the software. It sees my raw files correctly! Now Shame to Adobe for not fixing Lightroom to do this right.

 

Another thing I found today: DNG files of UV files are smaller than Panasonic raw files (12-14 Meg vs. 19 meg), but IR files are much larger (40-60Meg!) compared to the original. A bit strange? IR should have just as much info as UV if the CCD is seeing both almost monochrome. both should be smaller than a regular color photo.

[igoriginal]

I downloaded the software. It sees my raw files correctly! Now Shame to Adobe for not fixing Lightroom to do this right.

 

Which software exactly did you download, which is allowing you to retrieve the correct CWB, as shot by the Panasonic?

 

Photo Ninja? Or Panasonic's own RAW software? (Which I had bundled with my G5, when I bought it brand new).

 

I believe that Panasonic uses "Silkypix" for its RAW platform, but I could be wrong.

 

Anyway, what exactly did you download, that is now reading the embedded CWB correctly?

[Andrea B.]

Panasonic offers some version of Silkypix as a raw converter - perhaps Silkypix Developer Studio ? Surely it must be downloadable ? [ADDED LATER: I didn't see Zach's last post about downloading Silkypix before I posted this.]

 

Photo Ninja is a very good raw converter with an excellent white-balance tool, but PN can make only global edits. You have to save any PN raw conversion as a TIFF and open it in another editor to perform any necessary local edits. I happen to love PN, but some may consider it a little pricey given its limited capability. OTOH, you can create and store PN presets which make converting and white balancing a UV photo easy and fast.

[msubees]

looks like I am just re-discovering what others have found a long time ago: :) :)

 

http://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php?/topic/238-white-balance-wb-and-raw-development/

[msubees]

Igor, I downloaded PhotoNinja...sorry. I was not clear. My thoughts are always jumpy while yours are "silky" :) :)

[igoriginal]

OTOH, you can create and store presets which make converting and white balancing a UV photo easy and fast.

 

You shouldn't have to white-balance a UV photo, post-photo shoot, when a mirrorless camera like the Panasonic is used. Because the desired white balance was already established, prior to the shot. Mirrorless cameras such as the Panasonic / Olympus Micro-4/3 have a "shoot-to-set" custom white balance memory. It's like a "dropper tool / click-to-set" equivalent, within the camera, itself. (The Panasonic actually has two CWB memory allocation spots, in fact. At least with the "G" series Panasonics, anyway).

 

(When I view the RAW file duplicate of my JPEG UV photograph using my "Windows Explorer Preview" window to look at photos, the custom-white-balance within the RAW file is read correctly, and appears identical to the JPEG. Which demonstrates that the issue lies with Adobe editors and their inability to properly read the CWB associated with the RAW file.)

 

The trick, then, is to get the RAW editing software to properly recognize the custom-white-balance already embedded in the RAW image, as set by the camera.

 

And, it looks like Photo Ninja does this (as was reported by Zach). Which is great! Because what that means, essentially, is that the only thing we Panasonic and / or Olympus UV photographers have to worry about at this point is how we want to play around with the sliders (clarity, sharpness, brightness, saturation, contrast, etc.) The desired UV white-balance was already applied (and saved), in-camera. Which will then apply to every subsequent UV photo, from that point onward.

 

Awesome!

[igoriginal]

Igor, I downloaded PhotoNinja...sorry. I was not clear. My thoughts are always jumpy while yours are "silky" :) :)

 

Thanks, Zach!

 

Well, I will certainly download that demo of Photo Ninja.

 

But, once that demo has been run out ... I will consider first trying Panasonic's own propriatary RAW editor, since it was already bundled for free. No point in paying a single dime for a Photo Ninja upgrade, if Panasonic's own RAW editor turns out to correctly read the CWB settings, as set in-camera.

 

I should have thought about that! Duh. (Sometimes, the bundled software does deserve a good look-over.)

 

Guess I will have to do a comparison between the two. Hmmm. :)

[igoriginal]

I remember ViewNX2 handled D70 UV photos fine.

 

Were you aware that Nikon's most recent ViewNX editor is based on the Silkypix platform? Indeed, it is (or so I have read.)

 

Which makes me that much more curious, to pull out my CD ROM copy of the Panasonic version of Silkypix (bundled for free), and give it a shot. Because if it happens to preserve the camera's CWB settings embedded within the RAW file, pertaining to the UV photos, then I now would have a free solution to this.

 

No expensive Photo Ninja upgrades, if that holds true.

 

(Fingers crossed.)

[msubees]

I downloaded Silkpix also (i can only use it for 30 days! even though I have a camera). and it does see the raw files correctly. however, I do not know how to save a raw into jpeg or convert it. the menu does not have a save function (it has "save development parameter", which I am not sure if it is saving the raw into jpeg or not. I doubt it).

[igoriginal]

I downloaded Silkpix also (i can only use it for 30 days! even though I have a camera).

 

You must have downloaded the Silkypix "stand-alone" editor, which is a more robust and professional version, compared to the Panasonic version bundled for free with all Panasonic cameras.

 

And that's why it will require you to pay for it, to get the full version (once the demo time runs out). Not so, with the Panasonic down-scaled Silkypix software. It should be available for free. Period. No time restrictions. (Although it will only work for Panasonic-branded RAW files, of course.)

 

(And I only care about using an extra editor to have my UV RAW images rendered corrected with the custom-white-balance, as set by the camera. From there, I plan to just save the file into a lossless equivalent, such as TIFF 16 bit. And then get back to working on all other aspects of editing within my Photoshop.)

 

however, I do not know how to save a raw into jpeg or convert it.

 

I would never save my RAW files into lossy JPEGs for further editing and / or master archiving (except for web publishing / display / posting, down-stream of the workflow). Wouldn't that defeat the purpose? Otherwise, you could just start with your JPEG duplicate, straight out of the camera, silly.

 

I highly suggest you save all of your RAW files into TIFF 16 bit / lossless, for long-term archiving. Yes, a TIFF is a big file. But, it's also easily archived, viewable on demand by any simple means / previews, and easily editable from any editor.

 

(As an example: I have a copy of a simple, shareware, piece o' crap photo editor released from back in 1995, saved on a 3-1/4 floppy disc. And even it can read my TIFF files created as of today!)

 

For my addiction with big files ... I have 2 hard drives, 4 terabytes each, set up in "raid 1" (mirroring), for backing up my master archive of every digital photo I have taken, since 1994. I prefer large files. I won't settle for less. And all of my work is saved in two format duplicates: one is in TIFF 16 bit, and the other in PSD (Photoshop Document "project", which is saved as a sort of "work in progress", in case I want to return to my work and continue where I left of). Although, I also keep my original RAW files, as well. So, in reality, I have a "triple-file" archiving approach. Yes, it's probably redundant. But that's just me. :)

 

Another thing is that TIFF can also save multiple layers (and keep each one non-destructively separate, for future manipulation, if so desired) and other additional information, if need be. (So can PSD). However, TIFF remains the "universally adaptable big file", as far as I am concerned. I feel safe with it, even heading into the future. There is nothing "proprietary" about this large, lossless file extension. Not so, with many RAW file extensions associated with different camera models / platforms.

 

(I am sure that I will have to eventually step up to an 8 terabyte raid system, and so on, and so on. As I continue to build my collection. But, hey, prices come down in lock-step with technology, too.)

[igoriginal]

the menu does not have a save function (it has "save development parameter", which I am not sure if it is saving the raw into jpeg or not. I doubt it).

 

Hmmm.

 

Ok. I am in desperate need of going to bed. But I am most definitely installing my Panasonic-bunded Silkypix tomorrow, and see what the deal is, and what you are talking about.

 

(Maybe your "demo" version of the Silkypix stand-alone "pro" version doesn't allow for saves into other file extensions?)

 

Meanwhile, I will check tomorrow, and see how the Panasonic-bundled free version behaves.

 

Night, all.