Alternative to stacking with the HC120II = HTS + Macro Converter + ? lens?

[Alex]

I'm literally out of my depth of focus here (pardon the pun) and would appreciate your experience feedback please:

For 99% of the time I'm using a HC120II for shooting artworks and use Focus stacking for the occasions when I need a greater depth of focus: granted this gives great results, however it does take time to shoot & process. I've been asked to photograph about 70 small items of jewellery (3³cm - 15³cm, metals, stones & chains), with 2-3 angles of each. The idea of shooting & processing 200x odd stacks leaves me rather cold and so wondering about the option of using an HTS adapter. As the 120II doesn't fit the HTS, I'm wondering what lens to use instead.

On the one hand I'd like to go with Jerome's suggestion of the HC50II (as mentioned in his informative HC120 I/II macro comparison test), as I know that the MKII lenses are corrected for longitudinal CA and with such subject matter this is critical.

I should also remind everyone that Hasselblad has another solution for small objects like watches: the combination of the HC-50-II, Macro adapter and HTS. Tilting the plane of focus with the HTS is easier and faster than focus stacking, of course.

On the other hand, would (50 + 25mm (+6mm? macro convertor)), ~80mm get me in close enough for the small scale pieces? Should I look at the 80/100mm x 1.5x + macro convertor and try & correct the Longitudinal CA via DNG in LR/ACR/RT?

Lastly in terms of achieving optimal image quality is it best to first define the required depth of focus, then select the widest aperture able to achieve this.
Do the optics of the HTS first limit one to how wide one can go?

Thanks

Alex

[NickT]

Hi Alex
I agree focus stacking would be a pain! I would use the HTS, multi shot and back off a bit to give you a bit more doc as you have a ton of resolution with 50MP. I use the 80mm all the time with the HTS and have been very happy with the quality at around f8.

Hope that helps.

[jerome_m]

I'm literally out of my depth of focus here (pardon the pun) and would appreciate your experience feedback please:

For 99% of the time I'm using a HC120II for shooting artworks and use Focus stacking for the occasions when I need a greater depth of focus: granted this gives great results, however it does take time to shoot & process. I've been asked to photograph about 70 small items of jewellery (3³cm - 15³cm, metals, stones & chains), with 2-3 angles of each. The idea of shooting & processing 200x odd stacks leaves me rather cold and so wondering about the option of using an HTS adapter. As the 120II doesn't fit the HTS, I'm wondering what lens to use instead.

Do you need to tilt the plane of focus? That is the only benefit of the HTS. If you don't, the 120II is the best choice.

On the one hand I'd like to go with Jerome's suggestion of the HC50II (as mentioned in his informative HC120 I/II macro comparison test), as I know that the MKII lenses are corrected for longitudinal CA and with such subject matter this is critical.

I should also remind everyone that Hasselblad has another solution for small objects like watches: the combination of the HC-50-II, Macro adapter and HTS. Tilting the plane of focus with the HTS is easier and faster than focus stacking, of course.

On the other hand, would (50 + 25mm (+6mm? macro convertor)), ~80mm get me in close enough for the small scale pieces? Should I look at the 80/100mm x 1.5x + macro convertor and try & correct the Longitudinal CA via DNG in LR/ACR/RT?

The 50+6mm macro converter on the HTS will image a minimum field of about 95mmx125mm, bigger than you need. You can add extension rings, but I am not sure about the quality (never tried them on that combination, they only give so-so results on the 80mm).

There is a pdf on the Hasselblad site with computed enlarging ratio, focus distance and imaged field for all lenses with the extension rings.

Lastly in terms of achieving optimal image quality is it best to first define the required depth of focus, then select the widest aperture able to achieve this.

In practice: no. You want to close down a bit more.

Do the optics of the HTS first limit one to how wide one can go?

No. The HTS can be used with the 24mm, which is the widest lens for the H mount. Actually, Hasselblad does not recommend its use for longer focals and indeed the results are poor on the telephotos.


Something else: do you absolutely need to do that job with a MF camera? It would be much easier with an APS-C camera...

[David Hempenstall]

Lowering the magnification (as NickT alludes to) and cropping slightly - as long as your rez/file size holds up to your requirements - will certainly help along with some careful movements and use of your aperture.
And apologies for being pedantic but let's remember that 'depth of focus' is on the chip whilst 'depth of field' is out there around the subject - just to ensure that we're all talking about the same thing... (apologies if I've mis-read something here)

[Alex]

Thanks guys, I've been giving these views & suggestions a bit of thought.

David: Yes sorry as you say: Depth of field - not Depth of focus (my mind was caught up with focus stacking at the time).

Nick: choosing the 80mm over 100mm do you notice any increased ease in use/quality etc?

With the client looking for a 47cm @ 300dpi max dim. size image (subject matter could probably fill 50 -70% of that); Pulling back to increase DoF & then cropping in to the image could (help) work as an option.

Jerome, as per why I was thinking of using the HTS's tilt - when tilting I'd image that it'd be easier to increase the depth of field as per Scheimpflug's principle - no?
Jerome: "Easier" is a nice word  - what approach would you use with an APS sensor?   

Alex

[jerome_m]

Jerome, as per why I was thinking of using the HTS's tilt - when tilting I'd image that it'd be easier to increase the depth of field as per Scheimpflug's principle - no?

Scheimpflug does not increase the depth of field, it tilts the plane of focus. It is useful, but only if your subject is reasonably flat and at an angle (I think Nick uses the HTS to photograph pizzas). It will not necessary help if your subject is not flat.

Jerome: "Easier" is a nice word  - what approach would you use with an APS sensor?

Quite simply: the smaller the sensor, the more depth of field you have in practice. With a smaller sensor, you may have the depth of field you need at f/16. It is worth borrowing a camera and macro lens to try.

[Hassilistic]

Hi Alex,

My personal set up is HC50+Macro Converter+Extension Tubes+HTS.  Benefits as follows:
- Greater focusing range when combining 50mm+Macro than without Macro.  Superb when shooting smaller jewellery items.
- Extension tubes give me control on how much magnification I get simply by combining tubes or removing some.  And would yield higher results than the 120mm 1:1 magnification (as is).
- Larger field of view is available for when you need to get more items in the picture.
- The ability to have all that Macro power and Tilt/Shift at the same time is mesmerising.
- Plenty of room for experimentation

PS. HC80mm+HTS does give you equivalence to 128mm/f4.5 but you lose magnification.  But as NickT mentioned, it is a lovely combination for larger items.

PSS.  The is no loss in quality when using Extension tubes, just be sure to place in the correct order of things.

PSSS. Do take into account the size sensor format be it [44x33 or larger], as that will affect field of view size.

PSSSS.  Keep in mind when using the HTS the sweet spot changes, .. I no longer use an f stop smaller than 11, no matter what lens I use with it.

Good Luck,

[Alex]

Thanks guys,

I was all ready to go out and hire kit in for a crash course in using the HTS over weekend and have now found out there aren't macro converters to rent in London - just lots of P1 hire houses

An HTS with a 50mm isn't going to do that well on the closeups without the converter: I was looking forward to trying out Hassilistic's "Club sandwich" macro setup 

Jerome's suggestion though about APS sensors got me onto the comparison trail:
At a given distance, aperture and field of view a D7200 would give me a 21cm depth of field, compared to the larger sensor of the H4D giving me 7cm. Theoretically the D7200 would really need to open up another Fstop though to give comparable diffraction.

At the other end of the scale I could shoot my H4D200 at double that given distance on the 6 shot setting and crop the output file by 50% which would roughly give the same size image as the D7200 and get a similar (24cm) depth of field.

So I wonder: if I were to employ the HTS with the HC50II at the distance I'd theoretically frame an HC150 from (100% greater magnification), and crop the 200MS approximately 50% (still achieving the client's file size requirement), could I dispense with the need for the macro converter whilst still getting me the DoF?

Isn't this similar is what you (Nick) suggested at the outset.?

.. Definitely need some sleep

[jerome_m]

PSS.  There is no loss in quality when using Extension tubes, just be sure to place in the correct order of things.

I have not tried extension tubes + the macro converter, but there is loss of quality on the 80mm + extension tubes, especially on the sides.

[Alex]

Thanks Jerome for suggesting to trying out the APS sensor route; I tried it with good results and it cut down the need for focus stacking to only 6 pieces. Cheers!

I would have loved to have tried out Hassilistic's route of HTS + 50mm, but without access to the macro adapter to rent, it would have been too large an expense for a one off type of kind of job for me. When one show's up s/h I'll give the combination a try.

Alex

[Dustbak]

I use the HTS with the HC50II and macro adapter very often. I now prefer it over the HC120II. The image quality is excellent. The 50 holds its contrast much better than the HC120. To get more DoF I back off a little which makes a big difference. I rather enlarge with more DoF.

If you get the chance, do test this setup. I think you will not be disappointed.

[Alex]

I now prefer it over the HC120II. The image quality is excellent. The 50 holds its contrast much better than the HC120.

This is very interesting to hear (local contrast), as the only lenses I currently use are a 120II for paintings and sculptures (stacked) artworks and a 35-90 + 28 for more spacial views.
What do you feel are the limits of movements and apertures (open & stopped down), with your setup in macro and at greater distance? How are the corners when un-shifted?

Thanks,

Alex

[Dustbak]

I use the full tilt with the 50 without issues. I do not shift that much and most of the time not the max distance but I have not seen image degradation. With the macro converter the 50 turns into a lens that is scaringly close to perfect. Initially I could not believe the mtf that HB gave with the converter but I feel the lens with converter is indeed even better than without the converter. I cannot say much about the corners, I did use the 50 with the H4D60 but most of the things I photographed did not get into the far corners. I currently use it with a H5D40 which has a smaller sensor so I use more of the center of the lens than the corners.