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

[DaveO]

Zach,

CS5 can't give a white balance to DNG RAW files from my full spectrum Pentax K-5, it never gets rid of the reddish purple cast. Photoninja just gets on with the job and gives good white balanced results.

 

Dave

[Andrea B.]

Let's make this very short and simple.

 

(1) To preserve an in-camera white balance, you must use the raw conversion software supplied by the camera manufacturer.

(2) If you do not use the manufacturer's raw converter, then it is best to choose a raw converter which has a good "click-white" tool.

 

End of Discussion.

 

Neither Lightroom nor Aperture nor Adobe Camera Raw can "properly" and easily white-balance UV fotos.

I've tried using these and other raw converters for my Lumix, Pentax and Nikon UV files but had limited success.

In the past, Bibble (which later became Aftershot Pro) had a good click-white tool. I do not know if has one now.

 

Photo Ninja can "properly" white-balance UV fotos from Lumix, Pentax and Nikon.

This is why we use it.

 

I would not hang so hard to the notion that an in-camera UV white balance must be preserved

by working in Jpeg only (oh arrgh, I could never work in Jpeg!!)

because you can always get the "proper" WB restored in the raw file with a good click-white tool.

 

Indeed, I frequently shoot UV with Monochrome settings and bag in-camera WB totally

because I find Mono very useful for setting/getting a good exposure - particularly in difficult light.

 

IMHO, there really is not anything sacred about in-camera WB for shooting UV.

 

What is "proper" white balance anyway when you are working in FALSE COLOURS ???

 

YMMV !!!

[msubees]

Thanks, Dave, Igor and Andrea.

 

I found that Silkpix can convert raw files into jpeg with proper WB setting preserved. This is done under menu: Development/batch development for selected scene. a bit weird.

I have not tried batch processing yet. but single files can be done.

 

I selected many files and used the same menu setting and it now converts to TIFF or Jpeg...very slow though...but it can be done!

 

I used to simply edit raw and save to jpeg at level 9-10. I was told at this setting, unless I edit it many many times (I rarely go back to reedit, but I save my raw files anyway and can go back to that one, if needed). So i thought, this way might save disk space. No tiff, only jpeg and raw left. I need to delete many many bad images, right now they just sit together...waiting for me to organize them.

[Andrea B.]

These days you can get a 2 Terabyte external hard drive for $100 (maybe less) during sales. So no need to worry about saving disk space in 2014 !!

Save your edited raws as TIFs and you can re-edit them forever. Of if you are so inclined, you can use DNGs instead of TIFs.

[igoriginal]

(1) To preserve an in-camera white balance, you must use the raw conversion software supplied by the camera manufacturer.

 

Apparently. :)

 

You'd think that would dawn upon me, since it makes so much common sense. Alas, shame on me for not realizing the obvious. :)

 

(2) If you do not use the manufacturer's raw converter, then it is best to choose a raw converter which has a good "click-white" tool.

 

Which apparently Adobe products do not live up to. Even as this company has the most expensive editing software around. Shame on them, in this case.

 

Photo Ninja to the rescue, it seems.

[igoriginal]

I would not hang so hard to the notion that an in-camera UV white balance must be preserved

by working in Jpeg only (oh arrgh, I could never work in Jpeg!!)

because you can always get the "proper" WB restored in the raw file with a good click-white tool.

 

It's not that I am irrationally singing the praises of JPEG. It's just that prior to me discovering that there are more reliable RAW solutions out there (for reading custom-white-balance set up, in-camera), I was forced to try my best at nailing my exposures and getting them right, the first time (at the scene), so that I can stave off the need to go to the RAW duplicate, as much as possible.

 

After all, even the JPEGs being cranked out of many of today's higher-end digital cameras are pretty impressive, on their own. We've come a long way. Thus, unless someone is planning to blow up a print to significant proportions (to hang on a wall, or stick on a billboard sign), then I didn't see any reasons to waste additional time fiddling with the RAW equivalents of the JPEG shots, so long as I didn't blow / clip my highlights / shadows.

 

And even now, I still don't see a logical reason for editing every single photo in RAW, unless some serious correction is in order. Especially since these photos are going to be used for web publishing / posting (ex: "formal UV" post), in which case as you have so correctly already pointed out (and a different post / thread) that the human eye will not distinguish between the two at such sizes.

 

Thus, for me, it's all about speed of workflow. As in: "time management." And properly-exposed (and UV white-balanced) images, shot the first time, get the job done. And get it done well enough.

 

Of course, as stated before, this is not possible, with traditional DSLRs which do not have a "shoot-to-set" custom white-balancing tool. In which case, one will have to go on to white-balance correct via the RAW image, regardless of if the exposure itself was appropriate.

 

But, not so with mirrorless cameras that can set UV white-balance at the scene. In this case, the JPEGs (and RAWs, when I need more intensive adjustments of other parameters) come right out of the box, already UV white-balanced to the PTFE target. As stated in my previous comment in this tread, the "shoot-to-set" CWB feature of mirrorless cameras is the in-camera equivalent to a white-balancing dropper tool found within a photo editor.

 

Which means that no WB restoration (via post-photo editing) will be necessary, with such a function. And this is what allows me to consistently crank out JPEGS (and RAWs, when required) of UV images which do not need as much UV processing as what would come out of a traditional DSLR.

 

But, then, there are advantages and disadvantages, regardless of what camera platform you use.

 

I just like my workflow improved, by not having to fiddle with UV white-balancing after the shot. And that's my preference, of course. It doesn't mean that everyone has the same tastes and preferences.

 

(NOTE: And now that I am aware that some photo editors will render the "shoot-to-set" CWB settings embedded within RAW images, then this will also improve my workflow with RAW files, as well ... in the event that a more dramatic correction of an image is in order. In either case, though - whether JPEG or RAW - and image taken from a mirrorless camera with a CWB tool means that no UV white-balancing is required nor necessary, in post-photo editing. Since it was already set, in-camera.)

[igoriginal]

IMHO, there really is not anything sacred about in-camera WB for shooting UV.

 

Never said that there was.

 

However, this tool does improve workflow. Because it's like having a "click to set" white-balancing dropper tool already inside of the camera ... so that every image that comes out of it - be it JPEG or RAW - will not require any additional white-balancing work within a photo editor.

 

(Provided the editor reads the custom-white-balanced info embedded within the RAW file, correctly, as set by the camera. Of which, I now have my answer for a reliable editor, thanks to you helpful people. :))

 

What is "proper" white balance anyway when you are working in FALSE COLOURS ???

 

Notice that I put the word "proper" in quotations, deliberately, though.

 

Which should already indicate that I do recognize that there is no absolute proper white-balance setting.

 

Indeed, there is no such thing as "real UV colors", because it is all up for interpretations / tastes. I recognize that.

 

In fact, there is no such thing as "real colors", period, if we really want to get biologically technical. Haha. :)

 

Even the colors within "normal" images (associated with human vision, and how our brains interpret various wavelengths of electromagnetism) are mere illusions, just the same. All colors are interpretations. Be they UV, IR, or even VISIBLE.

 

Alas, though, since I am placing the word "proper" within quotations ... then this should indicate that I am speaking about what we UV photographers have adopted as the most "widely-embraced" or "standard" for UV white-balancing. That being, to obtain a "UV neutral" white-balanced color scheme via a target that can produce this effect, such as PTFE (rather than disproportionately flooding an entire color channel or introducing a strong color cast, as is the case with UV or IR images with no custom-white-balancing).

 

So, this is what I mean by "proper." And I believe that so long as it's in quotations, then is the idea not loosely implied? (rather than stated through absolutism). Unless you have a better word for describing how just about every UV image within our entire formal UV library is strictly adhering to the same white-balancing scheme? :)

 

(Maybe we can call it the "majority preferred" or "mainstream embraced" white-balancing standard? You tell me.)

[igoriginal]

Save your edited raws as TIFs and you can re-edit them forever. Of if you are so inclined, you can use DNGs instead of TIFs.

 

I am right there with you, on that notion. Archiving all edited files in TIFF is the "photography industry standard" (from what I have seen, of many other photographers and their preferences.)

 

However, unlike TIFF (which has remained and will likely remain a universally-supported extension), there is no guarantee that the DNG file extension will truly remain supported in the future.

 

Oh, sure. It is touted as being "the universal RAW negative" by the company which invented it: Adobe. However, if you look around, you will see that no other camera brands (besides the Pentax / Ricoh company, currently) have embraced it as their native RAW extension (as what is implemented by the camera).

 

(All of my Pentax DSLRs are capable of recording their RAW files in DNG! How awesome is that?! That becomes even more awesome, when considering that their medium-format studio models present the the same capabilities! Talk about the ultimate machine! A marriage of raw power and ultimate convenience.)

 

All other camera brands [currently] implement their own, proprietary RAW extensions, unfortunately. Maybe that will change, and they will follow Pentax's lead? I won't hold my breath, though.

 

Secondly, if Adobe ever goes under (or even gets bought out), there is also no guarantee that the DNG extension will remain supported in the future.

 

So, this is why many photographers within the industry still stick with TIFF, as the "gold standard" of saving all edited files for long-term storage / archiving. Nobody should bank on a corporate-tied extension as something that is "future safe", no matter what the corporation claims.

 

For these reasons, I feel safest with TIFF, myself. And it is also an extension that can be easily viewed and printed, from virtually any device. Not so, with DNG. I just haven't seen the DNG extension embraced, like Adobe had hyped (or hoped for). In fact, it remains a minority-used extension, from what I can tell.

 

(Don't get me wrong: Indeed, I wish that the photography industry would agree to adopt an industry-wide, cross-brand RAW standard. And DNG sure would fit the bill, nicely. But ... seeing that Pentax / Ricoh is the only company so far to play along with this cross-platform / open-source idea presented by Adobe - while Nikon, Canon, and the remaining brands have stubbornly clung to their own, proprietary RAW extensions - then this doesn't look well for DNG. But, hey, I hope I am proven wrong. Because an industry-wide, cross-platform RAW extension embraced by all camera brands would make life a whole lot easier for us. It surely would be nice, if all cameras would follow suit and implemented the DNG extension for their RAW files, and not just Pentax / Ricoh. Heck, that may even solve the issues that we experience in various photo editors which do not always properly render the white-balances within the associated RAW images.)

[msubees]

Ok, this graph shows that the cheapest OD Industries beats both EL-Nikkor and (Surprisingly!) X135!

 

I set the transmission at 500 nM as 100%, so ODI actually has 120% at some UV wavelengths, because its transmission actually increased when wavelength was decreased.

 

perhaps a more "fair" lens-to-lens comparison is to set the transmission at 400 to air (no lens), and then read each lens without resetting the blank. The current graph does not represent the actual cross-lens true transmission difference.

 

I now have more confidence of my method and the machine (Perkin-Elmer Lamdba 3B UV/VIS Spectrophotometer) because the ODI measurement yesterday and today match quite well, except 390 nM must be an error (sometimes i read too quickly and there is a delay in the display after the new wavelength is reached), because I measured several times today and the transmission did not change.

 

 

I tried to set 400nm with air as the 100% and then tried to find the highest transmission, I got ODI at 76% and X135 at 68%. so I guess the above graph errors on the safe side. ODI is even better than the graph says :) :)

[JCDowdy]

Zach,

You cannot do this with a single point transmittance calibration.

See my comments on your other Steinheil Munchen Auto-Quinaron 35mm F/2.8 thread.

[msubees]

so does kds do two scanning curves and subtract the air from the lens?

 

Zach,

You cannot do this with a single point transmittance calibration.

See my comments on your other Steinheil Munchen Auto-Quinaron 35mm F/2.8 thread.

[JCDowdy]

No, that is not what I meant. What I mean is run a transmittance calibration scan.

Nothing in the sample beam and nothing in the ref beam. This is saved as a transmittance calibration curve. Then you scan the sample using the cal curve a the reference.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding but you seem to be describing a single wavelength calibration. You can do that if you are only trying to measure a single wavelength, kind of like an old Spec-20.

One would not do a single wavelength calibration if they were going to scan an ABS spectrum either.

 

As for what KDS does I simply do not know.

 

There is an International standard, ISO 8578, http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=15685

What I can tell you is that even a nice old spectrophotometer such as your PE Lambda 3B or my Lambda 6 will not meet the instrumental requirements of this standard. Neither will a diode array spectrometer like the OceanOptics USB series or similar instruments that I know have been used. There are many technical reasons why these instruments are not suitable, which I shall have to fully describe at some point.

 

I am sorry if I seem to discourage you. We all do our best to discover what we can with the tools at our disposal and I certainly applaud that.

[msubees]

John,

 

I will try to do a blank scan later today. I am used to reading ABS, and i know in that mode, it uses the reference slot also (auto-zero will set the 2 the same, setting abs to 0), but for % transmission, I am not sure if it uses the reference slot or not. it does not seem to compare to that at all? I do not have a manual and found only a simple one on the internet.

[JCDowdy]

I will try to do a blank scan later today. I am used to reading ABS, and i know in that mode, it uses the reference slot also (auto-zero will set the 2 the same, setting abs to 0), but for % transmission, I am not sure if it uses the reference slot or not. it does not seem to compare to that at all? I do not have a manual and found only a simple one on the internet.

I am pretty sure it will use the ref side in scanning transmittance mode. The thing is of course the internal light source does not have a flat spectrum, so you must scan the zero if in ABS mode to zero the baseline. Zeroing ABS is essentially same as setting 100% transmission or transmittance of 1.0 you are just flipping the units.

It has been to many years since I converted the old Lambda 6 over to PC control for me to remember the steps to operate with the built in keypad. The control panel module and chart recorder were retired and are long since scrapped.

Keep looking online, you may find better instructions, probably a forgotten page on a academic (.edu) site.

 

PS

I found this: http://technology.niagarac.on.ca/sop/Lambda3BOperatorsManual.html

[msubees]

I did a blank "scan" and after auto-zero at 400nm, I obtained 97.3 to 97.5 from 320 to 390 nm, and 94.5% at 310% nm and 94.7 at 300. so basically it is quite consistent from 320 to 400 with less than 3% error. I played with 2 glass vials in the 2 slots and it seems to use both.

 

does this mean I can put one (X135) at the ref slot and one (say ODI) at the measurement slot and get a curve? that curve would reflect the difference between the two?

[JCDowdy]

I would leave the ref side open.

[msubees]

This is a 100% crop of a photo taken last night of a dogbane, by the cheap OD Indusrtries lens. F11, 1 Sec flash by Canon 199A (fired by hand). it is just as good as my Nikkor EL80, it seems (but that one was out of focus so I cannot post one here to compare).

 

http://ww3.beetography.com/var/resizes/old-lens/Steinheil-35mm/P1110506-dogbane-UV-100%25.jpg

 

Visible photo of honey suckles. F11, natural light. 100% crop.

 

http://ww3.beetography.com/var/resizes/old-lens/Steinheil-35mm/P1110493-DOI-honeysuckle-vis-100%25.jpg

 

non cropped UV shot of honeysuckle, very similar to one taken by Nikon EL 80mm. F11, Flash fired by hand, 1 Sec.

http://ww3.beetography.com/var/resizes/old-lens/Steinheil-35mm/P1110494-DOI-honeysuckle-UV.jpg

[JCDowdy]

Zach,

I suspect a good many old enlarger lenses will perform fairly well for UV-A.

Andrea has posted recently on a Rodenstock and many others have been mentioned as well if you look around.

I suspect, given the known UV-A sensitivity of some printing papers, UV-A capable vintage enlarger lenses are likely be more common than accidental UV-capable camera lenses.

EL-Nikkor's claimed corrected UV-transmittance in advertisements of the time. Other enlarger lens manufacturers were doubtless aware even if they didn't make such claims.

Good find!

JD

[msubees]

John,

 

Yes, indeed, it seems to be useable, which I am a bit surprised. The only complain is the aperture ring is too loose and I have to make sure it does not change when I screw/unscrew filters to it. Nikkor EL does not change because it is much tighter.

 

Zach

[Andrea B.]

The Nikon ELs were (new ones still are) corrected between 380-400nm. So we might find some CA below 380nm given that we commonly use broadband filters like the Baader-U or the Precision-U.

 

I'm not quite sure how that CA would work out in practice - that is, what the CA would look like in the false colours we record? If uncorrected wavelengths land in the same channel in UV work, then CA could render as lack of sharpness couldn't it? Rather than a differently coloured fringe?

 

Colour fringes of various types in UV is not something I'm familiar with. I should make an experiment on this someday when I find the time. "-)

Does anyone have some time they could sell me?? :)

[nfoto]

Fuzzy fringes around objects are not unusual to observe when you shoot with s non-specialised lens in UV. This in particular is seen when the lens is near its widest apertures. My Kuribashi/Petri 35/3.5 has this and I've seen it elsewhere.

 

Whether this is true CA (a strange expression for false colours!) or spherical aberration, or a mixture, is not easy to decide. However, as the fringes tend to be milder or even disappear when you stop down, I'm not too worried about the real issue as long as I know it can be combated.

 

In a properly balanced false-colour UV image, the fringes usually take on a greenish colour. At least they do so with my lenses.

[JCDowdy]

I have sen some false olive drab CA with some lenses that otherwise seem to have fair UV capability but not the EL-Nikkors as I recall.

Sometimes the really bright false UV yellow takes on a glowing appearance that defies focus unless further stopped down.

If this false UV-yellow is due to reflection in the 350-360nm range then that would fall below the EL-Nikkor correction range and 330-345nm reflections registering as false UV-greens would be even farther off the corrected band.

Heresy, I know............

[msubees]

info removed....

[Andrea B.]

Sometimes the really bright false UV yellow takes on a glowing appearance that defies focus unless further stopped down.

 

You could try setting the camera to B&W and see whether it makes focusing easier. I often shoot UV in B&W and convert back to colour later in the converter/editor.

 

*****

 

Zach, it does look like the Rodenstock and EL-new are leaking light.

[JCDowdy]

You could try setting the camera to B&W and see whether it makes focusing easier. I often shoot UV in B&W and convert back to colour later in the converter/editor.

 

That is not something I would have thought to try - thanks. I can get focus, what I meant was I can't get rid of the yellow glow by focusing and must stop down to get it to go away. My feeling is that what I am seeing is CA of the brighter false UV-yellow because dark centers and other false tones look crisp. For a lens like the EL-Nikkors which is only partially UV-corrected what would CA from shorter wavelength UV (below correction band) look like?