[RICHARD L.]

Were those optically enlarged?

Yes, there was one service provider in all of Quebec and I must admit he was using Nikkor enlarging material ...

[tuco]

Yes, there was one service provider in all of Quebec and I must admit he was using Nikkor enlarging material ...

Did the service also make a large format internegative to produce the 8x4 foot image? At some point, pulling the grain apart and increasing the amount of film base seen between the grain from an optical enlargement is not as good a quality as a copy from a 3rd generation image of a lager format, I believe.

[RICHARD L.]

I'm amazed by the negatives/slides I get with the 55-100mm

This zoom is certainly among the 5 best P67 lenses roster. Performance remains constant whether used at f/8, f/11 or f/16 and at 55 mm FL as well as 100 mm FL. A very useful optic !

---------- Post added 06-24-21 at 03:04 PM ----------

large format internegative

They "re-photographed" the negative to obtain a positive "internegative" (the term is not really appropriate but that's what it's called in their jargon). They make billboards along the highways, so they know their way around.

[mikeSF]

I found it (67 105, f/2.4) to be capable, but not particularly exciting, on the 645Z. After a few years, I went ahead and sold it. Maybe it has more magic on 67 format.
YMMV.

[riffraffselbow]

I found it (67 105, f/2.4) to be capable, but not particularly exciting, on the 645Z. After a few years, I went ahead and sold it. Maybe it has more magic on 67 format.
YMMV.

I definitely think what's special about it would only really show up, at minimum, in "real" 645, and is really only 100% there in the full 6x7 format.

It's a medium format lens. they made a bunch of compromises to get that large image circle, and unless you're using it (either with a MF sensor or a T-S adapter) I don't think it's really worth using over a smaller, lighter, faster, sharper, cheaper lens (of which there are many for 24x36 and some for 645)

[RICHARD L.]

I definitely think what's special about it would only really show up, at minimum, in "real" 645, and is really only 100% there in the full 6x7 format.

I beg to disagree somewhat. On the 645Z digital (with only a 33 mm X 44 mm sensor), the P67 lenses perform awesomely. Some of my 67 lenses were "so-so" on the 67 II (notably the 45 mm f/4, the 90 mm f/2.8 and the 165 mm f/2.8) but even these give amazing pictures on digital, as the small sensor only intercepts the absolute best aerial image center.

P67 45 mm f/4 @ f/8


P67 90 mm f/2.8 @ f/8


P67 165 mm f/2.8 @ f/5.6

[riffraffselbow]

I beg to disagree somewhat. On the 645Z digital (with only a 33 mm X 44 mm sensor), the P67 lenses perform awesomely. Some of my 67 lenses were "so-so" on the 67 II (notably the 45 mm f/4, the 90 mm f/2.8 and the 165 mm f/2.8) but even these give amazing pictures on digital, as the small sensor only intercepts the absolute best aerial image center.

P67 45 mm f/4 @ f/8


P67 90 mm f/2.8 @ f/8


P67 165 mm f/2.8 @ f/5.6

Do you have 100% crops? it's hard to judge sharpness from relatively small images like this. Also, I disagree on the 45 f/4 being so-so on 67, at least my copy! It seems sharper than my 55/4, despite the more severe retrofocal design. I've attached a 6x7 photo (taken at, I think, somewhere around f/8, on TMAX, and developed somewhat poorly) and 2 100% (3200 DPI) crops of the V600 scan. The V600's "real" resolution is something like 2000 DPI on a good day, so I'd bet there's more detail here than we can see (at least in the first crop). These 2 crops certainly do agree with you that the 33x44 area is sharper than the full "6x7", but maybe not massively so.

[tuco]

I beg to disagree somewhat. On the 645Z ...

I think Mike is saying modern digital lenses resolve to higher resolution than the 6x7 105mm. And I can see that in his posts vs yours using that lens. And I've heard you say you have a color vision issue so that's why I'm seeing blue saturation that is off the charts in those river posts?

[RICHARD L.]

645Z images have almost "no limit" !

Original P67 165 mm f/2.8 image shot @ f/5.6 :



Center crop of the same image :



More enlargement on the side:



---------- Post added 06-25-21 at 12:37 PM ----------

ou have a color vision issue so that's why I'm seeing blue saturation that is off the charts in those river posts?

I never dare to change either "color", "hue" or "tint" because I'm concious of my vision limitations. I set my cameras to the "VIBRANT" color palette and I hope for the best (Sorry if it takes really bright colors to impress me). Anyway, I'm extremely satisfied with the images I get from my P67 lenses. They were stored unused for almost 10 years since I stopped taking argentic images and I consider this the worst error I ever made.

Regards

[tuco]

I never dare to change either "color", "hue" or "tint" because I'm concious of my vision limitations. I set my cameras to the "VIBRANT" color palette and I hope for the best (Sorry if it takes really bright colors to impress me).

Regards

But the sky is a an unnatural cyan color whereas the blue in the river a completely different blue than the sky and is so over saturated I don't think Pentax would ever make that a standard camera profile. So some intervention is going on. Just saying and trying to be honest and it's not meant to be a criticism.

[RICHARD L.]

Maybe it's the minus 40 degree cold ... lol !

This watershed is totally pristine upstream as there is no agriculture or industry, only deer and moose. The intense blue of this river surprised me at first but it always comes out this way with either the 645Z, the K1 or the K3. The "VIBRANT" setting may alter the rendition somewhat. The snow, the trees and the rock appear to be O.K. though

Regards

[tuco]

Maybe it's the minus 40 degree cold ... lol !

This watershed is totally pristine upstream as there is no agriculture or industry, only deer and moose. The intense blue of this river surprised me at first but it always comes out this way with either the 645Z, the K1 or the K3. The "VIBRANT" setting may alter the rendition somewhat.

Regards

Can you see the shadows on the snow are extremely blue whereas the shadow on the snow in the lower left corner of the frame has less blue in it on the first one (P67 45 mm f/4 @ f/8)?

[RICHARD L.]

Can you see the shadows on the snow on the right hand side of the frame are extremely blue whereas the shadow on the snow in the lower left corner of the frame has no blue in it?

Yes, I noticed the shadowed areas on the right were deep blue too while the sunlit areas on the left are devoid of this blue cast. Another mystery of the Canadian winter, I hope ... lol !

You know, I do only what I can with what I have. I'm only ever sure of the colors "blue" and "yellow". I mix light green with light orange, dark red with dark green and sometimes even very light pink with very light blue. I hope the camera records what is before me and shows normal people the scene that I shot as it really was. If I lie on my back and fixate the blue sky for too long, I start wondering if it is light red or light blue. Freaking situations sometimes.

Maybe I should stick with Black & White ...

[tuco]

Another mystery of the Canadian winter ...Maybe I should stick with Black & White ...

Well, the odd thing is the pictures have some colors that are not saturated and the snow is pretty neutral. But when it comes to the blues, everything is unnatural. To have that much of a blue cast in nature, should also affect the snow.

Imagine for a moment the deepest blue sky that could ever exist. Maybe one like Neil Armstrong saw when he skipped out of the atmosphere while flying the X-15 (). That is how the shadows on the white snow look. You go from almost pure white to an almost pure blue in a matter of a few inches/centimeters. I don't think that is winter conditions, IMHO. I would rely on manual color balancing the camera with a white card prior to taking pictures and use a more neutral out of camera color profile.

[RICHARD L.]

Imagine for a moment the deepest blue sky that could ever exist. Maybe one like Neil Armstrong saw when he skipped out of the atmosphere while flying the X-15 (). That is how the shadows on the white snow look. You go from almost pure white to an almost pure blue in a matter of a few inches/centimeters. I don't think that is winter conditions, IMHO. I would rely on manual color balancing the camera with a white card prior to taking pictures and use a more neutral out of camera color profile.

Well, this is becoming very painful for me. This is the last you'll be seeing of me on this thread. Adios, muchachos !