the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / The Last Word / Testing handholding

Testing handholding

March 9, 2014 JimK Leave a Comment

In the fall of 1958, when I was a photographer for my high school newspaper, I borrowed a Linotype font chart from the newspaper office, taped it to the darkroom wall, lit it with two blue-dipped photofloods, metered it with a Weston Master II, and made a bunch of handheld exposures at various shutter speeds with my Nikon S2 and a 5cm f/2 Nikkor, the only lens I had for the camera, which I’d used an entire summer’s wages to buy used from a real, salary-earning newspaper photographer.

The objective of my test was to see what shutter speeds were useable. I didn’t know about diffraction except as an abstract concept in physics, and I’d never heard of a variable neutral-density filter, so I just stopped down as I slowed the shutter speed. I blew a whole 36-exposure roll of Plus-X on the project — $1.15 down the drain. I souped the film in Microdol, washed it for a few minutes, blasted it with 180-degree heat in the film dryer, cut it into strips of six, and printed a bunch of frames with an Omega D2 enlarger with a condenser head that emphasized the heck out of the grain. I brushed identifying marks on the single-weight Kodabromide F exposed papers with fixer before I dropped them into the Dektol so I could keep track of what was what. I dried the prints on a ferrotype plate so hot that it sizzled – a minute or less per print; these weren’t going to have to last very long.

Then I sat down with the 8x10s and tried to figure out what the smallest font was that I could read at each shutter speed. It was a humbling experience. All my friends said they could handhold at speeds slower than I had just demonstrated to myself that I could, although, to be fair, their standard was a 3×5 inch image with a 133-line screen (we didn’t print on newsprint).

Enough nostalgia. More than fifty years on, a lot has changed, but much is the same. The Imatest MTF testing that I’m doing to gain insight into my ability to handhold the a7, a7R, and D800E is not so different in concept from the Linotype font shots. Both measure resolution. The Imatest analysis provides more objective and repeatable results, and allows a wider variety of criteria – MTF50 is just a starting place. The font target actually required more accurate alignment. I’ll get to that soon.

In order to make sense out of what I’m doing with Imatest in this exercise, and how it differs from the usage of the program that has been described on the Lensrentals web site and in places on the Imatest site, I’ll talk about how a lot of people use the program, and the way I’m using it.

The SFRplus charts that Imatest recommends you use for most purposes have similar patterns at various places. If you fill the frame with the chart, the program can perform many different analyses on one shot, and can, by analyzing how various measurements change at various locations on the captured image, map resolution as a function of position in the image, measure lens distortion, and the like. You need to make sure you’re aligned properly or perspective distortion can be confused with lens distortion, and having a plane of focus that’s not the same as the target plane can make it look like you have a lens with a decentered element.

That’s one of the reasons that a tripod is recommended for this kind of testing. Camera shake can mask the resolution limits of the lens. That’s another reason to use a tripod. But having to make only one shot and getting many measurements is a big time-saver, and you’re doing a lot of testing, it’s a convenient way to work.

That’s not what I’m doing. I am using a SFRplus target, but I am not filling the frame with it. On the contrary, with the size I print it and the distance I’m using with 55mm and 58mm lenses, it sits forlornly alone in the center of the frame.

_DSC2050

Not only that, I’m not using the whole target for the SFR analysis, just the square in the middle, immediately to the left of the Siemens star that I use for focusing. With the focus point and the measuring point so close to each other, alignment is not at all critical – I’ve checked – and the variations in position associated with handheld shooting has virtually no effect on the results. You could say that I’m not getting many measurements out of one shot, and you’d be right. But that’s not my goal in this handheld testing.

The Last Word

← Handholding the a7 and a7R, part 3 An accidental handholding test →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

March 2023
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
« Jan    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Sony 135 STF on GFX-50R, sharpness
  • K on Sony 135 STF on GFX-50R, sharpness
  • Mal Paso on Christmas tree light bokeh with the XCD 38V on the X2D
  • Sebastian on More on tilted adapters
  • JimK on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • Kyle Krug on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • JimK on Hasselblad X2D electronic shutter scan time
  • Jake on Hasselblad X2D electronic shutter scan time
  • Piotr Chylarecki on Who am I?
  • JimK on Who am I?

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.