Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Looking at RAW files  (Read 7645 times)
Willow Photography
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


WWW
« on: October 21, 2006, 11:00:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I think I am not the only one interested in looking at RAW files that have
been captured in a real working situation.
Why not have some RAW files uploaded somewhere so
we who are looking to invest in a MDB can have a real
oportunity to evaluate the differences between Aptus, Phase etc.

I think this is the next best to actually test them personally.
For many photographers it may be difficult to test all of them.

By looking at some RAW pictures it will be easier to decide wich MDB to test.


Willow Photography
Logged

Willow Photography
James Russell
Guest
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2006, 11:37:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think I am not the only one interested in looking at RAW files that have
been captured in a real working situation.
Why not have some RAW files uploaded somewhere so
we who are looking to invest in a MDB can have a real
oportunity to evaluate the differences between Aptus, Phase etc.

I think this is the next best to actually test them personally.
For many photographers it may be difficult to test all of them.

By looking at some RAW pictures it will be easier to decide wich MDB to test.
Willow Photography
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The biggest issue, in regards to photos of people/models is releasing the images for such a wide audience.

Also, the images must be shot pristine, as if your shooting transparency film, with nothing out of place, highlights to shadows perfect because the amount of scrutiny the images would receive would be brutal if anything is out of place.

Still, presenting raw images that compare one back to the next, full length to face, flash to continuous light, is something that all the manufacturers seem to be less than good at and probably an opportunity missed.

I've known people to buy one brand of back because that was all they could personally test in their market.

JR
[a href=\"http://www.russellrutherfordgroup.com/]http://www.russellrutherfordgroup.com/[/url]
« Last Edit: October 21, 2006, 11:45:04 AM by James Russell » Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2006, 11:44:54 AM »
ReplyReply

We could use the torrent network to distribute the large files. It will probably be easiest if one person collects the files, 'publishes' them, and then posts the link in a dedicated thread.

I'll volunteer if no-one else wants to do it.
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
pixpop
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2006, 11:47:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think I am not the only one interested in looking at RAW files that have
been captured in a real working situation.
Why not have some RAW files uploaded somewhere so
we who are looking to invest in a MDB can have a real
oportunity to evaluate the differences between Aptus, Phase etc.

I think this is the next best to actually test them personally.
For many photographers it may be difficult to test all of them.

By looking at some RAW pictures it will be easier to decide wich MDB to test.
Willow Photography
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81515\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

in order to compare one mfdb with another mfdb via raw files, is to shoot each raw file under the exact same circumstance (lighting, etc) for each mfdb. otherwise the comparisons and evaluations made, will not be worth very much.

pp
Logged
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 21, 2006, 12:45:51 PM »
ReplyReply

anyone who wants to buy a DMF back should not have any problems actually shooting a couple of files and comparing...like james said, there are so many variables: strobe, HMI, flourecent, skin tone, product,....everybody shoot different and there is no "best Back" and sometimes the canons are better for the job anyway....either way, i can't imagine spending all this money without actually testing the product and comparing...
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4126



« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2006, 01:34:21 PM »
ReplyReply

CaptureIntegration sent me some decent Phase fles. I have distributed one per yousendit.com to several members of the forum who asked me.

I would really appreciate it if someone could send me a Leaf fashion file. I do find it interesting that the members of this forum are so stingy with their castoffs. Are your files really that valuable, folks ?

Edmund
Logged
James Russell
Guest
« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2006, 01:34:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
anyone who wants to buy a DMF back should not have any problems actually shooting a couple of files and comparing...like james said, there are so many variables: strobe, HMI, flourecent, skin tone, product,....everybody shoot different and there is no "best Back" and sometimes the canons are better for the job anyway....either way, i can't imagine spending all this money without actually testing the product and comparing...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I agree you should test them all and as we all know it takes more than a few frames pointed against a wall or at a tree.

You really need to test these systems as you would normally work and in the different genres you work in.

Knowing this I am amased at the number of people that tried one camera back and liked it or liked the fact it was available and bought it, or conversly didn't really understand it so they just sent it back.

A sample file can go a long way towards giving a person that knows there way around photoshop an idea of what happens when a file is really worked hard.  It also allows them to copy the file 400 times drop them in a raw convertor and attempt to batch process and learn a little about the software and the software options that are available.

It always surpises me that the mfdb makers have online files that are essentially head shots.

Almost any digital file holds up well that close.  Before I bought I tried like crazy to get a full length subject file that let me check detail such as eyelashes and they just didn't exist.

A few years ago Imacon had some sample files that the reps were showing,  that were so bad, that it turned me off on the product.  I never thought about an Imacon when it came time to purchase, which might be wrong of me, but still it's hard to erase what you've seen.

Still, the manufacturers are somewhat behind in providing files that offer  a good idea of what is basocally out there before they invest the time and the rental costs to try these cameras.

IMO

JR
[a href=\"http://russellrutherford.com/]http://russellrutherford.com/[/url]
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4126



« Reply #7 on: October 21, 2006, 01:49:05 PM »
ReplyReply

James,

 Could I please have one of your beautiful Aptus 65 or 75 files, pretty please ? As you know I kind of know my way around Photoshop

 Up to now I have only seen ugly Leaf files and my mind is almost made up -

Edmund
Logged
Willow Photography
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 21, 2006, 05:06:13 PM »
ReplyReply

I think people are making this more difficult than it is.

I do not need any scientific comparison of the backs.

 I just want desent, good and well exposed ( or for that matter bad exposed )
RAW files so I can see how the back produce under different  and
realistic shooting conditions.

It doesnt have to be the exact same situation with each back.

So far we have seen test done by Michael, but he is a nature photographer.
That doesnt give me much information concerning skintones and transitions
in shadows and highlights for a fashion shot.

I understand that people are a little afraid of showing RAW files. I am too.
I do not like to show images I havent finished PP in PS either.

Maybe we can share images anonumius :-)...

willow.no
Logged

Willow Photography
yaya
Guest
« Reply #9 on: October 21, 2006, 05:18:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
James,

 Could I please have one of your beautiful Aptus 65 or 75 files, pretty please ? As you know I kind of know my way around Photoshop

 Up to now I have only seen ugly Leaf files and my mind is almost made up -

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81536\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Edmund there are 2-3 decent A75 files on our website. Upper body length that were shot on an H1.

I have similiar files that were shot on the same camera/ lens with the P45. Email me if you're interested.

Yair
Logged
MarkKay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 587


WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 21, 2006, 05:20:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I have a few aptus raw files I am happy to send.  I have using the hassy H2 and view camera.  Just email and send me an FTP site

Quote
Edmund there are 2-3 decent A75 files on our website. Upper body length that were shot on an H1.

I have similiar files that were shot on the same camera/ lens with the P45. Email me if you're interested.

Yair
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81559\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 21, 2006, 06:06:28 PM »
ReplyReply

So what we really need is someone who can swap backs on the same camera, and post the files for us to make up our own minds. They could try a few people, shots plus a night street scene, landscape, etc

Is anyone in a position to do this?
« Last Edit: October 21, 2006, 06:06:57 PM by foto-z » Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 21, 2006, 06:36:50 PM »
ReplyReply

the point is that everybody shoots differently and everybody wants different results...all the backs can give you decent results, but one might be the most suitable for your look/what you want...so you can look at all the files you want, it will tell you that all DMF backs give you great resolution, great color and a generally better file then a DSLR...
edmund: i actually looked at the aptus files on the leaf website, downloaded them and played with them in different converters...i actually went back to my own older valeo files, because i just did not like what i got from these files...none matched a situation i would like to have seen or i would shoot in....i could not believe how much better i liked my old valeo files....does not mean the aptus files are bad...they just did not match how i shoot...
the only time i ever got files that represented what i really wanted to see was years ago, when i asked for and received a DVD from imacon with files that came from settings i could have shot in...i did not like the way the files handled color....went with a valeo instead...tried the H2D some time later and it confirmed my first impression of imacon files...but i could really get a good idea of what to expect...
the files michael has on his DVD are completely useless to me...not only because there is no skintone, there is very little shadow with detail in it...and i know that there is no problem with resolution with any of the backs....
for me comparing backs is fairly easy, i can put them on a camera in a store and shoot the salesperson under neon lights, it will give me a good reference point, because sometimes i shoot just like that...
i think that the back makers can't win, because no matter how much they put out there, it won't make everybody happy....the worst nightmare is that people, who have never worked with (sometimes) very sophisticated software, that takes months to really fully understand and get used to, simply butcher these files, try different converters and base their decision on that....

someone here said they don't understand why people are so stingy with their files....what i don't understand is why anyone would want to see what i shoot and make their decision based on that....that is crazy to me....stingy is to not go out and rent the backs for a day to actually make a desicion you can feel good about! plus, if you are a serious buyer, i don't see why a dealer would not want to give you a demo...even better....go to NY and check them all out at photoexpo...

all the technical data is easy to get a hold of, all the nuances, the looks are what makes the investment worth the cost! and that you can't judge from someone else's file!
just because soandso shoots with thisandthat does not mean it will work for you....
there is an quote (don't know who said it): only mad dogs and helmut newton go outside at noon....it worked for him...nothing has changed, film/digital it is just a tool, and to get the look you want, you can read all the comparisons and tests, in the end you have to get your hands dirty.....

a couple of months ago leaf released a pdf with a test they did comparing their backs with phase backs...i haven't seen that pdf in a while, i guess it got pulled...was fun to read and look at though...you would not believe it, the leaf files won every single comparison! what a surprise! it was proof that you can do a lot of things to a lot of files to get the results you want....
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4126



« Reply #13 on: October 21, 2006, 06:37:57 PM »
ReplyReply

An unnamed fashion photographer who is active on these forums has sent me some Aptus 75 files WHICH I CANNOT REDISTRIBUTE. PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME FOR THESE FILES.

They are stunning. I had seen some of this imagery before at web size - in full rez it is breath-taking. I'm not naming him for fear that he will be submerged with requests.

But anyway, thank you -

Edmund
« Last Edit: October 21, 2006, 07:15:50 PM by eronald » Logged
padey
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


WWW
« Reply #14 on: October 22, 2006, 08:18:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Looking at images on a computer never did anything for me.

I compared DSLR, scanned blad trannys and DMF images and any well composed, well exposed shot using top shelf glass didn't really look that much different.

When they were printed however, the difference was very noticeable.

Secondly, nearly all the great photographers that I respect can make any piece of hardware dance for them. They each have their prefered back, but equipment is only one thing, craftsmanship is far greater.
Logged

[span style='color:blue']
Andrew

www.catoandpade.com.au[/span]
josayeruk
Guest
« Reply #15 on: October 26, 2006, 03:54:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
An unnamed fashion photographer who is active on these forums has sent me some Aptus 75 files WHICH I CANNOT REDISTRIBUTE. PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME FOR THESE FILES.

They are stunning. I had seen some of this imagery before at web size - in full rez it is breath-taking. I'm not naming him for fear that he will be submerged with requests.

But anyway, thank you -

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81566\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Edmund,

This maybe so...

..and I think all MFD manufacturers are pretty good at their art by now.  Would you be dissapointed with Image Quality from any of the big four?

Personally after having a few demos of differing backs image quality is the last thing to seperate them.

Warranty?  Backup?  Service?  Software?  Is the sales guy good looking    ?  Upgrades?  Ease of Use?  Reliability?  Integration?  (Ooops H3D can of worms opened!   )

Its no point having a lovely image if it involved three crashes and a nervous breakdown to produce it.

Go test them yourself Edmund, its the only way.  The L/H/PO/S rep might be an a-hole - would you want to drop 20,000+ brazillian escudos with them based on somebody elses images?

Errr... no.

Jo S. x
Logged
josayeruk
Guest
« Reply #16 on: October 26, 2006, 03:57:48 AM »
ReplyReply

....Plus are you confident you can use every piece of software from the big four and get the best from the raw file conversion with no guidance??

Have a proper demo and let the sales guys talk you through their processes.

When was the last time you bought a car (equivalent cost!!    ) based on your mate telling you it is fabulous.  You would drive it first of course.

Jo s. x
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4126



« Reply #17 on: October 26, 2006, 07:11:37 AM »
ReplyReply

So far so good:

 I have looked at files and at my own images shot at demos. Here it's only about image quality and not about other important issues that Jo summarizes ( software, reliability etc).

 I have looked at imagery from Phase, Leaf and Hasselblad. With various cameras. I did a few shots of my own during various demos.

 - Camera/lens choices influence the imagery strongly, more than digital back choices. The backs all work.

.- There is indeed a strong quality gain in going from full-frame digital to an MF back. It is equivalent to going from 35mm to 6x6. Colors are better, the look is cleaner, tiny pieces of an image can be cropped and enlarged. Also, new generation backs really do show perceptively more detail -I'm surprised- but not necessarily a better look.

 - Hasselblad-lensed imagery I don't like *on skin*. I took my own images with Hassleblad/Leaf, and Hasselblad/Hasselblad and someone sent me some with the H-39 back. I think it's not the back, it's the lenses. As far as I'm concerned the look of the lenses seems to be as important as deciding which back to purchase. From the images I've seen so far, Contax is great for fashion. Mamiya looked ok.

- In summary, for fashion shooters I'd say the camera is more important now than the back, the backs are mature. For architecture guys it's a totally different ballgame of course, but these guys choose their cameras first, and their backs second, anyway.

Edmund

PS, I looked at my screens, enlarged a couple of image crops very strongly on paper to confirm, ran some images past a pair of female eyes, on screen and on paper The color of every back was ok or easily fixable.The skin texture with the Hasselblad lenses was bad. Used Raw Developer, Capture One, PS CS, PSC2, an Eizo CG210 reference monitor, an EyeOne pro and ColorEyes, a DTP70  and Monaco Profiler to calibrate my Epson 2400 for the prints.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2006, 07:26:18 AM by eronald » Logged
josayeruk
Guest
« Reply #18 on: October 26, 2006, 07:57:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So far so good:

 - Hasselblad-lensed imagery I don't like *on skin*. I took my own images with Hassleblad/Leaf, and Hasselblad/Hasselblad and someone sent me some with the H-39 back. I think it's not the back, it's the lenses. As far as I'm concerned the look of the lenses seems to be as important as deciding which back to purchase. From the images I've seen so far, Contax is great for fashion. Mamiya looked ok.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82335\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Also be aware Edmund that a 22MP back will certainly have a different 'feel' to a 39MP - even with the same manufacturer.

So I would have to (Politely   ) disagree with you about the skin referring to Hasselblad as I have found the opposite to be true.

How much sharpening did you apply???  If it was anything more than a value of 80 in FlexColor then that is waaaaay tooo much for portraiture / fashion.  I would go back to the raw files and look again.  Also have you got the latest version of FC??


Ta,

Jo S. x
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4126



« Reply #19 on: October 26, 2006, 08:19:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Jo, I have no problems with the Hasselblad back. It's the HC lenses I don't like. In fact some of the worst results I had were with an Aptus on Hasselblad. As for sharpening, the results with the Hassleblad lenses look bad even when blurred rather than sharpened.

Edmund

Quote
Also be aware Edmund that a 22MP back will certainly have a different 'feel' to a 39MP - even with the same manufacturer.

So I would have to (Politely   ) disagree with you about the skin referring to Hasselblad as I have found the opposite to be true.

How much sharpening did you apply???  If it was anything more than a value of 80 in FlexColor then that is waaaaay tooo much for portraiture / fashion.  I would go back to the raw files and look again.  Also have you got the latest version of FC??
Ta,

Jo S. x
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82340\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad