In-camera black and white image processing ~ Sony A7

After tone mapping Creative Style Black and White where Contrast [0..-3] a Sony A7RII, I applied a setting to a Sony A7 and went to an exhibition of automobiles.  The event was the avant depart of the Tour Auto 2026.

My setup was the aforementioned Sony A7 plus one of my garbage/trash/crap lenses - Ricoh Riconar 55mm f/2.2 in Pentax K mount.  

I wanted to see if the wide open magik the lens comes with could translate well to cars.  I already knew it would be outstanding at f/8 and f/11.  To confirm the tone map findings I shot RAW + jpg with the following in-camera settings  -

• Creative Style Black and White
• Contrast -1
• DRO 

This recipe matches the in-camera black and white default jpg processing of a Fuji GFX100RF.  I like that "look."

The event was interesting and I had a wonderful time.

Once back home and without reviewing the in-camera output I moved all the jpgs into a separate folder and processed the RAW.  There were a few images I liked in BW and processed those RAWs using my Digital Zone System 0EV as Zone 5 recipe.

On a lark I compared a RAW processed black and white against the in-camera jpg.  Here is what I found -

 

Sony A7 - shutter speed 1/200th sec
Ricoh 55mm f/2.2 at f/2.2 - highlight glow galore

Matrix metering - no Digital Zone System 
spot metering required 

 

To me, all the thinking, wondering, measuring and futzing about is well worth the effort.  Understanding and knowledge is unbeatable.

Onward. 

In-camera black and white image processing ~ Sony A7RII

I enjoy learning about how Sony processes black and white images in-camera.

Using an A7RII I mapped the tonal response as a matrix of settings with tone patches that express the numeric value measured.  

Selecting Contrast [0...-3] and DRO [Off...3] and normal jpg, and then adding as reference points two different tone mappings, which are outlined in 18percent gray - 

• 1EV steps from -2EV to +7EV and letting the highlights linearly roll off to +4EV pure white and shadows to linearly toe to -5EV as pure black (which Sony has chosen as the bottom end of the processing range) - maximum tonal separation by luminance (not color)
• Fuji GFX100RF tonal response mapping - which I particularly like

Here is the (rather giant) map -

Comments -

Looking carefully at the map I see why our visit to Vienna and my use of Contrast -3 "worked" as well as it did.  The shadow tones are fairly decent compared with any of the three references.

If I want the whites to "sparkle", Contrast -1 + DRO1 is quite nice.

If I want "creamier" highlights, Contrast -2 + DRO1 does the trick

 

Image Processing ~ matching tones black and white

Lets say there's a reference image with tones we'd like to match.  In black and white it's as simple as loading that image into an image processing software and measuring the tonal values.

It's then an easy matter of taking those tonal values and processing a different image where shadow, highlight, and various mid-tones match the reference.

To prove this works, I took an image that I like that was made by Clarence White of Eugene Debs.

As can be seen, this is a Pictorialist era work.

For the exercise I'm embarking on here, there are three things to note from the above photo.

• Tonal placement
• Image softness
• Image tint 

For tonal placement I measured portions of this reference image (desaturated to eliminate the tint making it easier to directly note the tonal values).  The dark areas raise up off pure black to 2Bhex/43dec.  The light tones are suppressed with a maximum value of ADhex/173dec.  This is a rather narrow tonal range by modern visual practices/expectations and I find the old Clarence White image to be quite beautiful.

To emulate the sense of softness I used an ISCO Iscotar 50mm f/2.8, racked the focusing ring on the lens to it's closest point, then used a focusing helicoid to effectuate the final focus.  The ISCO is a Cooke triplet first element focusing optic.  The first element focusing introduces aberrations as it's focused on close subjects.  In miniature formats this lens and the effect of the first element focusing is an approximation of how soft focus lenses behaved on larger formats.

Borrowing the tint of the reference image is as easy as opening two images in the Gimp and using the Sample Colorize tool. 

As for the subject matter I guess I should apologize.  He's not the best of models, but I take what I can get.

Here are the steps used to mimic the reference image of Eugene Debs.

Load the new image into image processing software - enabling demosaicing (of course), auto-select camera color management - turning OFF tone curve - which leaves the image looking very flat.

 

Using Channel Mix, turn the image into black and white.  It looks gawd-awful, right?

 

Continuing with Channel Mix, emulate a late-1800's emulsion sensitivity filter - 0% red channel, 25% green channel, 75% blue channel.  It still looks gawd-awful.  I know, there's zero helping the model.

 

Find the lightest tone and move curves until that tone measures ADhex/173dec.  Maybe if one squints real hard things might be looking a bit better.

 

Find the darkest tone and move the curve until it measures 2Bhex/43dec.  OK, now we're beginning to see the full disaster the model brought to imaging.

 

By inspection, move the bottom of the curve until the dark tones look like the reference and add a slight vignette (if the lens hasn't already done that itself).

 

Tone the image by sampling the reference and... well... pretty close but no cigar.  It's too sharp.

 

Nice, but too sharp 

 

Comparison to reference 

Using the fact that soft focus lens spherical aberration returns a depth of field that anastigmat optics don't, I slightly defocused myself by moving behind the optimal point of focus.  In doing this there is still an underlying "sharpness", but diffusion that comes from spherical aberration transforms the images into something that more closely matches the Clarence White, Eugene Debs reference.  In fact, if one reads Kodak's instructions on how to use the 12inch Portrait lens they made in the late 1940's it clearly states that focusing on the tip of the nose and letting the depth of field build from there will yield better results.  Rather like the Heinrich Kuhn "Tiffenbuilder" - aka: Depth of Field Builder lenses of earlier era and design.

Here are a couple examples of letting the depth of field build itself.

 

Pretty decent sense of softness, eh? 

 Now 'er cook'n with gas!

OK.  I'm done.  Enough is enough already.  Again, sorry 'bout the model.  Some things just can't be helped.

Lenses ~ going small

Two Flickr friends have me falling down yet another Wabbit Whole.

It started with trying to find soft focus lenses for 35mm format that are more controllable than the special purpose built optics.  Chetworth del Gato and I had been talking about old large format soft focus lenses work.  To mine this vein of potential richness it was a matter of trying to find lenses that might exhibit similar properties optically and mechanically.

Once on the soft focus for miniature formats path it became evident there was a whole field of lenses I'd avoided and/or, knew nothing about.  Bonzo Din suggested I consider a lens or two of a specific kind and the next thing I knew I was enjoying learning about and understanding German lenses built during the 1950's for the 35mm format. 

Here is where I'm currently at -

Clockwise from bottom left...
- Staeble Choro 38mm f3.5 - 3 element 3 group
- Staeble Telon 85mm f5.6 - 4 element 3 group Antiplanet
- Roeschlein Telenar 135mm f5.6 - 4 element 4 group
- Steinheil Cassarit 45mm f2.8 - 3 element 3 group Cooke 

As can be seen, these are m39 thread mount lenses made for the Braun Paxette series of cameras. To illustrate just how small that 35mm lenses can be I added the NEX5T/Pentax-M 28mm f2.8 kit as size comparison to the first image shared above.  

NOTE: The m39 Paxette have a 44mm ffd, and NOT the 28.8mm of the more commonly known m39 ltm Leica Thread Mount.  These are the smallest lenses currently in the Toy Box.  

In terms of sharpness and character...

- Staeble Choro 38mm f3.5 - Sharp in the center at f3.5 with softness increasing towards the edges.  Sharp at f11 across the field. Decent chromatic aberration control and excellent field flatness.  Rumored to be better than the first Leitz 35mm f3.5 tessar formula, which also was best at f11.

- Staeble Telon 85mm f5.6 - Sharp.  Period.  Well, OK, perhaps not clinically sharp wide open, but close enough.  Quite the surprising lens, actually.  Field flatness and chromatic aberration are well controlled.  If there's a downside it is the lack of decent flare control.  Shooting toward off-axis brightness very quickly shows the challenge.  So this is pretty much a Sun Over The Shoulder kind of lens.

- Roeschlein Telenar 135mm f5.6 - Sharp in the center from wide open. The edges never really clean up, even at small apertures, where chromatic aberration, particularly in the out of focus areas, is some of the strongest I've ever seen.  Though I must admit that my Nikon Nikkor 10.5cm f2.5 "tick mark" behaves rather similarly towards the field edges, and I LOVE that lens.  Perhaps I'll come to appreciate this tiny Roeschlein, too?

- Steinheil Cassarit 45mm f2.8 - I used this as a soft focus lens for two months in Italy. First in Napoli and then in Rome.  It's underlying sharpness mimics that of large format film soft focus lenses quite well.  Bright areas glow correctly.  Sharp in the center from wide open.  By f11 it's sharp across the field.

At first I wondered if there was something wrong with this Cassarit as the "glow" remains pretty much constant across all apertures.  Bonzo Din's Cassarit doesn't do this, but there's someone  using a Sony A7 that showed two slightly different versions of the Cassarit, both of which do exactly the same thing mine does.  So who knows? 

------------ References ---------------

Lists of Paxette lenses - incomplete

Fitting a m42 adapter for Paxette use 

My own blog post on adapting Paxette lenses to mirrorless cameras 

Manual Focus forums has slightly different information 

 

Things that caught my attention ~ Winter in Italy

While away this winter my mind wandered and stumbled and came upon a few things.  

While not immediately photography related, I find the process of musing over these topics informs and directs how I approach the craft.

 

~ Culture Defined

The first is a renewed appreciation for how received culture impacts my view of, well, just about everything.  

Culture is delivered/given to us.  We consume it.  We participate in it - for or against.  It's something I seldom think about but (all too often passively) agree/disagree bound by limits set by culture itself.  

Which led me to a question: Can I think beyond those boundaries?  What would it mean if I did?  How would I see the world differently?  How would I behave in the future?

Fortunately there are plenty of hints and ideas.  

 In Europe Antonio Gramsci and Stuart Hall explored how the control of a small class of people defines culture for the rest of us.  In the US there are Howard Zinn, David Graeber, and Noam Chomsky who looked at the imposition of culture through politics and money.  In literature we have the example of Cervantes in the early 1600's and his hero, Don Quixote.  More recently we have Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Jack Kerouac, all of whom looked at culture from various perspectives.

What I do, what we all do, in photography and art is caught up in culture as we experience it.  How we see.  How we react.  How we do.  All of it.

 

- The Renaissance

European art experienced a "rebirth" starting in the late 1300's.  I wondered, a "rebirth"?  What was the first "birth?"

Our trip to Napoli and Rome helped me see.

Renaissance paintings commonly show we humans as we are.  Architectural features correctly rendered.  Compositions and subject are proportionally correct.  This was obviously different than the iconography of the Eastern Roman Empire what were simplistic with subjects and elements disproportionately distributed.

What came before? 

In Napoli we visited a museum that holds many wonderful fresco that were taken out of Pompeii.  One room is filled with what I found to be incredible examples of correct human shapes, an correct architectural proportion and perspective.  All pre-dated the Renaissance by 1500 years.  It was instantly clear to me that Roman artists knew quite well what they were doing.  This had to be a bit of the first "birth."

Similarly, with sculpture I've marveled at the incredible beauty of Bernini's figures, Michelangelo's sculptural stout firmness and power, and Canova's exquisite line and execution.  For me many of their works have the power to emotionally move me.  

It turns out so can classic Greek and Roman sculpture. The Capitoline Museum and the Villa Doria-Pamphilj in Rome house early works that I've found to be absolutely exquisite.  The Greeks and Romans led the way and I finally understand what is meant by "Renaissance." 

An incredible world of art existed many centuries prior.

This made me wonder if everything had been forgotten and needed to be re-discovered?  Or if everything remained in the continuum of art but had to be left out due to the demands of those who employed artists? 

 

- Caravaggio 

One artist is credited with the introduction of "chiaroscuro" lighting.  

It's the kind of light that, if we are speaking in photographic "Zone System" terms, moves skin tones from Zone 6 up to Zone 7 or even 8 and takes the shadows and moves them from Zone 4 down to Zone 2 or 1.  

At the Doria-Pamphilj we saw several of Caravaggio's early paintings.  They are quite "classic" with open shadow details and muted highlights. They could've been executed by any of the early Renaissance masters as they fit the general style of the time.   The arc of his work spans from early flat, calm paintings to later contrasty drama.  His later works are what we tend to know him by, and I was quite surprised to see examples of his earliest paintings.

However... his lighting (as important as it is, what with the immediate impact it had on European painters during Caravaggio's lifetime) is most definitely _not_ the thing I find the most interesting about Caravaggio's work. 

When we were in Napoli we visited a chapel in the Pio Monte della Misericordia where a Caravaggio hangs over the altar.  It's titled "The Seven Works of Mercy."

At first I wasn't sure what to make of it since it failed to conform to expectations I had about, what?, I don't know, just about everything.  The lighting was harsh and slashing, which I expected from Caravaggio.  

There was something else going on in there.  After a minute or two a 5watt bulb turned on in my mind.  I had to stand and look and experience and appreciate what he'd done.  He'd broken one of the prime "rules" of painting.  *snap*  As if it were a little twig to be played with and disfigured. 

All the important action was pushed to the edges of the frame.  The center, ah, yes, the center contained shockingly nothing of interest, and in that light it could be seen as nothing more than a black space, dead center, a black nothingness.

Could it be that Caravaggio's greatest contribution to art was his sense of composition?

Oh my.  There could be freedom in this.  Maybe.  Yes.  Likely so.

Things are shifting. 

Lenses ~ finally found one

I swore I'd never ever own another Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f/2.8 (nor a f/3.5 for that matter).  

In my hands they've never ever been any good.  Terrible wide open.  Maybe OK if you squinted hard at f/11.  Edges never cleaned up.  

After struggling with the famous name optic I wiped the thought of ever trying to own another one from my mind and moved on.

 

 

Sony A7RII, Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f/2.8 

Went to a swap meet recently and tried to sell a few of unloved/unused lenses.  Met a little success, but not to the degree I was hoping for.

Stumbled around and looked at everything I could.  Had everything I wanted or could find.  Did as many deals as I could.

Being human can be "interesting."  Bright shiny objects attract, right?  And here I was thinking/hoping I was immune. 

 

Sony A7RII, Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f/2.8  

Casually looking through a milk crate of m42 lenses my eye was drawn to a bright shiny object.  *natch*hooked*  The front cap was made of beautifully machined aluminum.  The rear cap was beautifully machined from, well, more aluminum.  The lens barrel was, oh yes, machined from beautiful aluminum.  The knurled focusing ring was honed from beautiful aluminum. 

Instant lust swamped my being.  I had to have it.  Whatever it was.

Taking the front cap off I saw it was a Zeiss Jena 50mm f/2.8.  Removing the rear cap I confirmed it was indeed m42.  Lenses were clean and clear.  So...

OK.  How much is this?  It didn't matter. It was going home with me.  Here's my wallet.  Take whatever you need.

Swapped a Ricoh 55mm f/2.2 Pentax K mount for it and a couple Euros and the deal was done.

 

Sony A7RII, Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f/2.8  

As the endorphin rush subsided and my emotional chemistry returned to near normal I remembered: These lenses are horrible.  I've owned far too many of them and know this as deeply as anything I've ever known.  Just awful.  Even with a famous name engraved around the front ring.

Ugh.  Would I ever learn???  I could always use it as a paper weight.  My mother collected them.  Maybe it was in my blood.  Paper weights.

To confirm how horrible it was I put it through it's paces.

f/2.8 Center is... hmmm... wot's all this then?  This one is sharp in the center wide open.  Never saw that before.  Seriously.  Cheap supposedly worse Meyer Domiplan triplets were _always_ better than any Zeiss tessar I tried. Edges, not so much, as expected of early tessar... forgivable perhaps... and... again... not nearly as bad as the dozen or so others that've passed my way.

f/4 Field of sharpness expands from the center but doesn't yet cover the field in Glorious Sharpness on Full Frame. Still, impressive.  Maybe this could be the Sweet Aperture for portraiture? where edges typically go soft in the Old Style.

f/5.6 Huh.  Not 1/2 bad across most of the field, though, actually, the edges are still a touch soft.  Eminently usable. Eminently.

f/8  Holy Flipp'n Moly dear Molly.  So _this_ is why people talk about Zeiss Tessar so lovingly.  This looks like an nicely corrected modern lens.  OK, then.  Early 1950's traditionally designed optics can still do it.  Glorious Sharpness with a sense of depth and heft.

f/11 As good as anything in the Toy Box.  Still ever more Glorious Sharpness with a sense of depth and heft and... and... OK... I'll stop now...

Found a keeper.  Finally.  When I least expected it.  Why did this take so long?  Oh well.  There's no use asking questions with no answer to.  

Did I mention the lens comes with a many bladed aperture?

 

 

Sony A7RII, Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f/2.8  

---------- Resources ------------

Does the tessar layout predate Zeiss' patent by 1/2 a century? 

Notes on the Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar

Notes on the humble tessar - with design suggestions  

Lenses ~ adapting m39 Paxette

As a placeholder to a longer conversation...

Leica Thread Mount lenses (m39 LTM) ~

• m39 - 39mm diameter by 1mm thread
• FFD of 28.8mm precisely

Paxette lenses ~ 

• m39 - 39mm diameter by 1mm thread - same as LTM
• FFD of 44mm  - which means Paxette will NOT work natively on LTM adapters, event though the threads are the same

 

 Sony A7RII, Staeble Choro 38mm f/3.5
Tiny little lens, plenty sharp stopped down

So the question arises of how to adapt m39 Paxette to digital mirrorless?  Here are three solutions.

Modify m42 adapter ~

As previously noted, the ffd of Paxette is 44mm.  m42 has a ffd of 45.46mm precisely.  Using this knowledge, here is one solution for adapting Paxette lenses.

• m42 adapter
• Remove the front m42 ring 
• Remove 1.5mm off the rear surface of the ring (machine or sandpaper grind)
• Reinstall the ring into the adapter 
• One each m39 to m42 ring for as many Paxette lenses as are on hand
• Mount m39 to m42 stepup ring on the Paxette lens
• Mount the lens on the m42 adapter 
• Mount m42 adapter on camera
• Take photographs 

The downside of this is one is limited to focusing distances as set by the lens. 

m39 to m39 extension tube on LTM adapter ~ 

Another approach requires a specialty extension tube.  Here's that solution.

• m39 Leica Thread Mount (LTM) adapter
• 14mm m39 to m39 extension tube 
• One each m39 to m42 ring for as many Paxette lenses as are on hand
• Mount m39 to m42 stepup ring on the Paxette lens
• Mount the lens on the m39 extension tube
• Mount extension tube on LTM adapter 
• Mount LTM adapter on camera
• Take photographs 

The downsides of this is one is limited to focusing distances as set by the lens, and the precise extension of 14mm is difficult to find.  I know of two possible suppliers but I'm not sure the part is always in stock. 

Adapt a m42 close focusing helicoid ~

A third approach is proving to be rather flexible. 

• m42 close focus 17mm-33mm helicoid adapter
• One each m39 to m42 ring for as many Paxette lenses as are on hand
• Mount m39 to m42 stepup ring on Paxette lens
• Mount the lens on the m42 helicoid 
• Mount helicoid on camera
• Take photographs 

Simple.  Direct.  Inexpensive. Flexible.

Using a helicoid allows for flexible focusing.  There's no need to measure the adapters for infinity.  Just turn the adapter threw to find the focus point.  And the lenses own focusing ring is still available for use as well.  Lastly, because everything remains m42, this approach is good for Pentacon/Pentax mount lenses and even provides a bit of close focusing capability.

  

 

Sony A7RII, Staeble Telon 85mm f/5.6
Smallest 85mm I've ever seen, plenty sharp 

Why all the Monkey Motion?  

There are more than a few tasty German optics with many aperture blades (think: beautiful out of focus rendition at all apertures) to be found in the Paxette family lens tree.

• Carl Zeiss - 50mm tessar 
• Enna - reportedly excellent, though I've yet to try them
• ISCO - nice, simple optics from a Jos Schneider division
• Roeschlein - I'd not heard of this company until recently
• Schacht - decent contrast and resolution selection of lenses
• Staeble - another decently sharp/contasty selection of lenses
• Steinheil - my current favorite for in-camera soft focus/pictorialist-like work

 

 

Sony A7RII, Steinheil Cassarit 45mm f/2.8
Tiny little lens, pictorialist effects at all apertures
with underlying "sharpness" that'll cut the
paper it's printed on

------------ References ---------------

Lists of Paxette lenses - incomplete

Fitting a m42 adapter for Paxette use 

Manual Focus forums has slightly different information