Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: P45 Question  (Read 7465 times)
RicAgu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 266


« on: November 05, 2006, 05:54:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello All LL'ers

I know Michael is a serious P45 shooter and I would like to know if anyone out there has done extensive shooting at 400 ASA on a P45?  I have a P25 and can't really shoot past 200.  

I like the A75 at 400 but the recuring software issues are not cool.  I plan on switching to Intel machines and do not want to use Leaf 10 and don't see a solution to Leaf 10 in the pipe line.  As JR says his 8.4 is great and it was quick.  But there is no debating the speed of C1 with intel based macs.

Thanks in Advance for any responses.

 
« Last Edit: November 06, 2006, 03:49:31 PM by RicAgu » Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3640



WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2006, 05:29:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Have a look at Irident Raw Developer
http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/rawdeveloper.html
It seems to be able to digest mostly anything and works fast; maybe you can find a way to use it.

As for the shooting speeds Phase are promising higher ISO with the Plus series, but no one has yet reported whether those promises are accurate.

Edmund



Quote
Hello All LL'ers

I know Michael is a series P45 shooter and I would like to know if anyone out there has done extensive shooting at 400 ASA on a P45?  I have a P25 and can't really shoot past 200. 

I like the A75 at 400 but the recuring software issues are not cool.  I plan on switching to Intel machines and do not want to use Leaf 10 and don't see a solution to Leaf 10 in the pipe line.  As JR says his 8.4 is great and it was quick.  But there is no debating the speed of C1 with intel based macs.

Thanks in Advance for any responses.

 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83741\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
James Russell
Guest
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2006, 08:55:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hello All LL'ers

I know Michael is a series P45 shooter and I would like to know if anyone out there has done extensive shooting at 400 ASA on a P45?  I have a P25 and can't really shoot past 200. 

I like the A75 at 400 but the recuring software issues are not cool.  I plan on switching to Intel machines and do not want to use Leaf 10 and don't see a solution to Leaf 10 in the pipe line.  As JR says his 8.4 is great and it was quick.  But there is no debating the speed of C1 with intel based macs.

Thanks in Advance for any responses.

 
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I think all of the talk we see about cameras/backs comes down to personal preference.

We call it workflow, but in reality it's almost a lifestyle decision as shooting and post processing digital can become so overpowering that if your not careful it can take your life away.

Me, I am loathe to learn new software, regardless of brand or ease.  Every minute I spend learning, upgrading, deactivating, is a minute I lose doing things that are much more productive and pleasurable.

I'm unique in that I live in two cities and have computers spread all over the place, so I try to keep my shooting and processing computers portable and simple.

I use the A-22 and the A-65 tethered to V-8 running 17" PB G4's and process in PSCS 1 or the first CS.

My rationale is V8 is fast and runs on proven powerbooks, with no firewire issues or beta testing. Both powerbooks are identical clones of each other and with Leaf software and pscs1 I don't have to call to activate/de activate the software, I don't have to learn new features and everything I use I am familiar with.

Speed and stability is a real concern with the way I work and even though my G4 powerbooks are now ancient in computer terms, they are the most efficient machines I have ever used and don't have the glitches of firewwire power and running emulation of some software.  Everything is native, tested and proven.

Given that, I recently processed 40 images in the latest version of lc 10 and had no crashes or any real problems, other than lc10 is just not as fast as processing in photoshop.  

Yes, C1 is fast on the new Intel machines, but the Macbook pros have firewire issues shooting tethered and using a Phase tethered requires a battery.  Just one more thing to charge, one more thing to remember and one more thing to eat away time.

This past weekend I had an opportunity to briefly shoot a Hasselblad 39 and a Phase P30 next to my new A-65.

Without getting into the details of the shooting or the feel of the backs vs. cameras when I came back to my studio I decided to look at the files to compare.

To see the p-30 file I have to update my version of C-1. try to activate it to a second computer and when I went on the hasselblad site to download flexcolor the software section is blank.

To me this is a real liability to proprietary file formats and the fact I can't just drop a file into photoshop quickly to compare makes me realize that if even if I was so inclined to change brands, I open up the door for one more step, one more download and one more set of possible issues.  

Also to get even close to the same processing speed I have with pscs and the leaf file, I will have to go to two new powerbooks, more ram, more drives, more time to downlaod and configure the machines.

Personally, I think Leaf was smart to early on make an open source file, way before the term dng was ever mentioned.  It works in pscs, CS2 and RD, V8, LC10.

That gives me 5 options and in the case of V8 and LC10 options I can download for free to any computer.

As I've said before as photographers our life, our business is making photographs, not leaning software, not buying, updating computers.

IMO

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

Posts: 336


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2006, 10:29:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hello All LL'ers

I know Michael is a series P45 shooter and I would like to know if anyone out there has done extensive shooting at 400 ASA on a P45?  I have a P25 and can't really shoot past 200. 


 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83741\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Itoo stopped at 200 with P25. Just had a chance to try the P45 at 400 at a church where couldnt use flash.
This is with a Contax 80mm didnt realize it was so slow(1/20) so noise may not  show  that way.
Hereis an out take, butnoise is quite manageable.

thereis NO NR here, even in C1

Victor
« Last Edit: November 06, 2006, 10:45:44 AM by vgogolak » Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3640



WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2006, 11:37:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
To see the p-30 file I have to update my version of C-1. try to activate it to a second computer and when I went on the hasselblad site to download flexcolor the software section is blank.
http://russellrutherford.com/
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83802\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


James,
 May I suggest you put a demo copy of Raw Developer on your Powerbooks ? That thing eats both Leaf and Phase files (dunno  about Leica and Hasselblad), and is fast. I know that it is compatible with your equipment  I agree that the old Powerbooks are really workhorses, and the old 1Ghz 17 has a wonderful screen.

 By the way, what were your comparative impressions of the systems you used side by side ?

Victor,
 Nice image, thank you for posting it.
Edmund
« Last Edit: November 06, 2006, 11:46:24 AM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
mtomalty
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 534


WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2006, 02:05:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hereis an out take, butnoise is quite manageable.

Agreed. The noise is very manageable but you should ensure that someone gets the
priest to get his blood pressure checked. Looks like he's about to blow a gasket in
his head  :>))

Mark
Logged
Willow Photography
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 239


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2006, 02:46:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think all of the talk we see about cameras/backs comes down to personal preference.

And we all now know what you prefere.
In the beginning it was very informativ when you told us what and how you used ( Leaf/Contax. )
Now it is more like reading an ad for Leaf/Contax, because it has been repeated so many times.


We call it workflow, but in reality it's almost a lifestyle decision as shooting and post processing digital can become so overpowering that if your not careful it can take your life away.

Me, I am loathe to learn new software, regardless of brand or ease.  Every minute I spend learning, upgrading, deactivating, is a minute I lose doing things that are much more productive and pleasurable.

I'm unique in that I live in two cities and have computers spread all over the place, so I try to keep my shooting and processing computers portable and simple.

I use the A-22 and the A-65 tethered to V-8 running 17" PB G4's and process in PSCS 1 or the first CS.

I do not think that having to use old software/computer is an advantage. It is more like saying that Leaf is not able to come up with new software that works properly.
 
My rationale is V8 is fast and runs on proven powerbooks, with no firewire issues or beta testing. Both powerbooks are identical clones of each other and with Leaf software and pscs1 I don't have to call to activate/de activate the software, I don't have to learn new features and everything I use I am familiar with.

I used C1 for the first time 5-6 years ago and there have been very little need to learn new
features. You also need to activate the software one time only
,


Speed and stability is a real concern with the way I work and even though my G4 powerbooks are now ancient in computer terms, they are the most efficient machines I have ever used and don't have the glitches of firewwire power and running emulation of some software.  Everything is native, tested and proven.

C1 is pretty fast and very stabble. And when C1 4 comes next year, it will be even faster.
And it works on any machine
.


Given that, I recently processed 40 images in the latest version of lc 10 and had no crashes or any real problems, other than lc10 is just not as fast as processing in photoshop. 

Yes, C1 is fast on the new Intel machines, but the Macbook pros have firewire issues shooting tethered and using a Phase tethered requires a battery.  Just one more thing to charge, one more thing to remember and one more thing to eat away time.


Phase does not need xtra battery to shoot tethered, if you you are not talking about the battery that already are in the back. And that battery is very handy having there if you suddenly want to shoot untethered in the middle of a session.

[/b]

This past weekend I had an opportunity to briefly shoot a Hasselblad 39 and a Phase P30 next to my new A-65.

Without getting into the details of the shooting or the feel of the backs vs. cameras when I came back to my studio I decided to look at the files to compare.

To see the p-30 file I have to update my version of C-1. try to activate it to a second computer and when I went on the hasselblad site to download flexcolor the software section is blank.

With Phase you can use RAW Developer ( if you do not have C1) and as far as I know
you can open Imacon files (DNG) in Photoshop.
But the thing is that, if you have Phase or Hasselblad, you already have the right software
to develop your files. As you have what it takes to develop your Leaf files.


To me this is a real liability to proprietary file formats and the fact I can't just drop a file into photoshop quickly to compare makes me realize that if even if I was so inclined to change brands, I open up the door for one more step, one more download and one more set of possible issues. 

Also to get even close to the same processing speed I have with pscs and the leaf file, I will have to go to two new powerbooks, more ram, more drives, more time to downlaod and configure the machines.

It will always be some updates when you buy into a new system.
You also had to do that when you bought Leaf. Or if I changed from Phase to Leaf.


Personally, I think Leaf was smart to early on make an open source file, way before the term dng was ever mentioned.  It works in pscs, CS2 and RD, V8, LC10.

That gives me 5 options and in the case of V8 and LC10 options I can download for free to any computer.

As I've said before as photographers our life, our business is making photographs, not leaning software, not buying, updating computers.

IMO

JR
http://russellrutherford.com/
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83802\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Willow Photography
damien
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 111


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2006, 03:39:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Not sure I like the red text, it's a bit shouty.  Even though I'm a Phase One shooter I'm with James on this one. I wish the P25 was an open source file able to go straight into Pshop. C1 is great but I never archive my raw files because they are useless to anyone else. Instead I get into Tiff or jpeg for every image I want to keep. It's a drag but vital for long term compatability.

Damien.
Logged

www.lovegroveportraits.com
www.lovegroveweddings.com
www.lovegroveconsulting.com
H1/P25 -35mm,80mm,100mm,210mm
Nikon D200 - 17-35,28-70,70-200VR all at f2.8
Canon 5D - 16-35,24-70,70-200IS all at f2.8
Ex Rollei 6008 kit, Hass V kit, Mamiya 645 pro TL kit.
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3640



WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 06, 2006, 03:41:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83853\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Willow,

James has his opinions, but he backs them up by showing his images which I've always found more interesting than his equipment.

As for the new Powerbooks, there really seem to be some software and hardware compatibility issues, and I wouldn't trust one in production *in photography* for at least 6 months to one year. In fact, if I used an Intel Powerbook today, I think I would put Windows on it because that would make the software layer reliable. The launch of Photoshop on Intel Mac is going to be very interesting to watch from a safe distance.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Willow Photography
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 239


WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 06, 2006, 04:04:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not sure I like the red text, it's a bit shouty.  Even though I'm a Phase One shooter I'm with James on this one. I wish the P25 was an open source file able to go straight into Pshop. C1 is great but I never archive my raw files because they are useless to anyone else. Instead I get into Tiff or jpeg for every image I want to keep. It's a drag but vital for long term compatability.

Damien.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83870\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Just to make it clear -  it was not my intension to attack or discredit James in any way.
I love his pictures and think he has been one of the most valuable and
informativ member on the forum.

English is not my nativ language and in that way people can misunderstand me and the color red is random picked. Pretend it is blue  

But what I DO mean is that James is praising a workflow that he has to adapt to because Leaf is not deleavering software that is up to date. I find that strange.

But I also should have wanted to have the possiblity to open Phase1 files directly in PS.  


Willow
Logged

Willow Photography
Mark_Tuttle
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 06, 2006, 05:23:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not sure I like the red text, it's a bit shouty.  Even though I'm a Phase One shooter I'm with James on this one. I wish the P25 was an open source file able to go straight into Pshop. C1 is great but I never archive my raw files because they are useless to anyone else. Instead I get into Tiff or jpeg for every image I want to keep. It's a drag but vital for long term compatability.

Damien.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83870\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Haven't you tried using ACR?  The last several versions have allowed Phase One RAW TIFFs to be opened and manipulated, then opened in Photoshop.  It may be that you need PSCS2 to use the last several versions, which is why it isn't accessible to James.
Logged

Mark Tuttle
MarkTuttle dot Net
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #11 on: November 06, 2006, 05:36:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not sure I like the red text, it's a bit shouty. 

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83870\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't mind the red, or pretend blue, at all.  The color seperates the new text from the old very nicely. But then, sometimes you need to shout to be heard.
Logged
vgogolak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 336


WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 06, 2006, 10:09:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Agreed. The noise is very manageable but you should ensure that someone gets the
priest to get his blood pressure checked. Looks like he's about to blow a gasket in
his head  :>))

Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83843\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Dear Mark,

Actually, he looks just like that, I think it is a skin condition. Compare to other skin tones, that are a bit cool due to the fact that web srgb conversions from prophoto are not that good.

here is another example. Very severe. Somethimes you take what you can, VERY dark corner, back lit all the ad stuff. Here I show the original, and then adjust to bring out some shadow detail, exactly where you would expectnoise to REALLY be a problem. It is there,but not much, and the third image is simple 30 sec in an NR program (noiseware pro, which I really like) and it is quite manageable.

These arent great but then one tends to use 400 in the bad situations.

[BTW these appear justfine in exposure on my screen. They were converted i C1. It seems that goingfrom C1 to PS is not a happy trip, and conversions down to sRGB tend to be cool and DARK! Does anyone else have this problem? It is as if PS ignore it when I sayconvert! although the conversion looks just fine on the PS screen.
This is NOT true, if I convert say a DNG file in ACR. The DNG from C1 has this same problem but if I start in PS and export sRGB itis just fine, bright, and correctly balanced.]

Victor
« Last Edit: November 06, 2006, 10:13:37 PM by vgogolak » Logged
vgogolak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 336


WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 06, 2006, 10:17:14 PM »
ReplyReply

BTW, here is a screen snap of the last image inphotoshop.
Wierd, no?
Logged
James Russell
Guest
« Reply #14 on: November 07, 2006, 01:11:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
low that he has to adapt to because Leaf is not deleavering software that is up to date. I find that strange.

But I also should have wanted to have the possiblity to open Phase1 files directly in PS. 
Willow
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As I mentioned I tested the A-22 on a Contax, tethered, a P-30 on a contax untethered and a 39mp H3.

Initially in each manufactuerer's proprietary software the files look very different, in color, tone, smoothness, sharpness, but if you want you can make virtually all the files look identical.  Some are easier to hit some are harder but all can be moved around a great deal.

The one thing I could not do is make the P-30 and the blad file match the Leaf file in pscs.

Whether this pertains to the the Leaf file or photoshop I don't know, but I do know pscs gives you another option that all of the manufacturer's should think about and an option that doesn't take a convertor or an upgrade to make the file readable.

As far as using pscs1 because the leaf software is defecient is really not the case as I use V-8 all the time without issue and even lc10 is getting better, (though still needs improvement).

I use what I use because i like it, but most importantly I use my current workflow because it's stable and cost effective.  

I'm not cheap, far from it, as I currently own about $80,000 in retail price of digital cameras, backs, lenses, bodies etc., but going to the next version of powerbooks to even get close to the speed I currently have with pscs is just another added $7,000 to what somedays seems like a never ending cycle of upgrades, downloads, authentication and more time.

If the new intel books provided proper fiewire power and ran an version of cs natively maybe I'd find the investment worthwhile, but as of today that is not the case.

As far as the insinuation what I posted smacked of advertising that is very far from my intentions, but then again that is really not worth the time or effort it takes to explain my intentions.

JR
[a href=\"http://www.russellrutherfordgroup.com/]http://www.russellrutherfordgroup.com/[/url]
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3640



WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 07, 2006, 01:51:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
BTW, here is a screen snap of the last image inphotoshop.
Wierd, no?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83929\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Victor, pm me your skype ID, and tell me a reasonable time, and I maybe can have a chat with you and help you with your color problems.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3640



WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 07, 2006, 01:55:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As I mentioned I tested the A-22 on a Contax, tethered, a P-30 on a contax untethered and a 39mp H3.

Initially in each manufactuerer's proprietary software the files look very different, in color, tone, smoothness, sharpness, but if you want you can make virtually all the files look identical.  Some are easier to hit some are harder but all can be moved around a great deal.

The one thing I could not do is make the P-30 and the blad file match the Leaf file in pscs.

JR
http://www.russellrutherfordgroup.com/
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83941\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

James,
 Could you expand a bit on the above, please ?
 It seems a bit contradictory.
 Were you able to get good skin texture out of the H39 in the end ?
Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
James Russell
Guest
« Reply #17 on: November 07, 2006, 09:54:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
James,
 Could you expand a bit on the above, please ?
 It seems a bit contradictory.
 Were you able to get good skin texture out of the H39 in the end ?
Edmund
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You can make all of these files look similiar.  Some take more effort, some take less depedning on the genre, the light the . . . everything.

Don't take this as an endorsement for any of the backs, just take it for what it is a comment about using three cameras on one session with the exact lighting.

Actually you can get the Canon file close to the look of these backs but once again that doesn't mean the Canon file is as good because in many ways it's not, though in some instances where a 35mm camera is needed the Canon would be the choice.

Personally I can see owning two backs from two of the manufactuerers if only for the immediate workflow, or the immediate look, depending on what you shoot.

If I was only able to own one back then my choice would be different and I would chose the back with the most options or the back that specifically suited my needs.

IMO

James
[a href=\"http://www.russellrutherford.com/]http://www.russellrutherford.com/[/url]
Logged
khwanaon
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 08, 2006, 10:30:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Itoo stopped at 200 with P25. Just had a chance to try the P45 at 400 at a church where couldnt use flash.
This is with a Contax 80mm didnt realize it was so slow(1/20) so noise may not  show  that way.
Hereis an out take, butnoise is quite manageable.

thereis NO NR here, even in C1

Victor
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83821\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


well, that seems not very encouraging to use the P45 at 400, if this shot was taken with a 1/20th: there is noticeable noise!

Aon
Logged
RicAgu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 266


« Reply #19 on: November 08, 2006, 11:02:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello Victor,

Thanks for adding some samples.  

I can't believe it was that bright in the church.  The P seris are great camera backs no doubt about it.  But in my opinion, would it not be better to use the P45 for the formal portrait and maybe the dance hall and dinner party where you can PW some strobes around the hall and can control it a little better.  Everyone has their own way of shooting, but isn't this using a Bazooka to shoot a mouse.  If I was a wedding shooter I would use a canon, nikon or fuji for the running about stuff and save the P45 for the stuff where you have a little bit more control of the light.  I have used my 1Ds MII for Major Worldwide music artist campaigns.  These files have been on the sides of buildings, poster, bus wraps you name it.  You may save yourself a lot of post production time.  Just my opinion.

One of my neighbors is one of the biggest NYC wedding photographers.  I won't say his name, because I don't think he would want me saying what he uses.  But he still shoots with a four year old Nikon Digital body.  Not even one of the high end pro ones, a prosumer model.  Does all his portraits with an RZ on film and prints the entire job with two 1280's he has working non stop.  When his flat bed Epson scanner isn't good enough for the film he pulls a favor from me for Imacon 848 scans.

Makes and binds the album himself.  He charges $10k-$15k per wedding and $5k for the album.  This guys shoots 44 to 48 weekends a year and is booked almost a year in advance.  He spends four to five weeks a year with his wife during the winter holidays aboard his own rented private yacht sailing the carribean with a staff of five.  Been invited all expenses other than airfare, but have yet to take him up on it.  My girlfriend gets horribly sea sick.

With a house in the Hamptons and another house in Vermont I see where he is spending his money.  This guys is easily clearing $750k and not spending a dime on equipment.  All his equipment is at least four years old and some of it ten.  I could never do it, but he is no nonsense kind of guy.

Thanks again for sharing the files.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad