Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Phase: Poker face or nothing up their sleeve?  (Read 23332 times)
James Russell
Guest
« Reply #80 on: April 14, 2007, 10:59:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
the same thing applies in fashion, advertising and such. When the photographer is using similar gear to the camera that the art director or client may have at home and use for their personal work, a similar question arises. Using an MF system with high-end back changes that equation and seperates the pro from the rest of the pack. Perception often IS reality.


Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111688\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've heard this a lot, usually from the sellers of medium format and I have very few instances where a client or AD would know the physical difference between shooting with a medium format camera or a Canon 1ds.

Maybe they would notice an RZ or a Fuji 680 but from an H series, a Contax or any 645 camera, physically they are not much different in size and look to the Canons.

After all, when you  have 22 people on set and 3,000 lbs of lightinng and grip few people are looking at the camera, (or should be for that matter).

Actually what most clients are now riveted to is the computer screen and this is where the dslr's fall down in comparison to medium format and in my case especially the Phase.

Fast stable software, large accurate previews, the ability to edit on set and even process out jpegs while we contiue to shoot has become more of the norm than the exception.

Canon's 4 pin fw cable is problematic, regardless of the different tricks in mounting it and though C-1 is good with the Canon's it's obviously better with the Phase products.

Digital capture has now changed client expectations.  They want to see the images in correct color and tone the moment they are captured and they want to see them large enough to make informed decisions.  

Nothing is more costly or more of a buzz kill than to have the software crash or the camera disconnect.

One of my next projects one of the key clients will not be able to attend so we have worked with a system that allows them to see an html image of the session almost in real time, so attempting to do this with any system that is not rock solid would be a nightmare.

I know few photographers that enjoy being tethered to a cable and fewer still that thought that someday our "capture device equipment" would come in 3 or 4 cases, but that is now the reality and now the level of expectations of commercial clients.

If medium format makers want to distinguish their product from the dslrs, then most of them really need to up thier game in software, speed and camera to computer capture, viewing, adjustments and processing.  C-1 is the gold standard but it also needs improvement and though V4 is suppose to offer all of this, in the world of digital I've learned until it's proven on set, it really doesn't matter.

The digital back makers also need to find a way to get more useable iso out of thier backs.  Right now Canon is the  high iso king and though the my P-30 works very well up to 800 iso, for real low light or using continuous sources the dslrs have abouit 2 to more useable stops beyond most medium format backs.

I agree it is not always an eithe or situation and thier is a place for two or maybe even three type of camera backs/systems.  

Given that it is almost imperative that software, workflow and file acceptability be exactly the same from the dslrs to medium format.

Nothing iadds more post production time than taking files from two cameras and trying to match them in color, tone and rank, if your forced into using multuple processors and different types of workflow.

I know as I have gone through the process of owning and using a lot of different digital backs and cameras at the end of the day workflow is of equal importance to the actual capture and if the system is not stable or requries workaround just processing out jpegs from a shoot can take longer than the actual shoot.

In this repsect Lightroom is very good as it accepts most files, though until it allows for easy "fast" tehtering and previews C-1 is the most effecient solution.

JR
Logged
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #81 on: April 14, 2007, 07:44:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In this repsect Lightroom is very good as it accepts most files, though until it allows for easy "fast" tehtering and previews C-1 is the most effecient solution.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112360\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


i was a little worried about lightroom tethered as well...i don't like the whole "watched folder" thing....and i am with you 100%, there is nothing worse then software/computer/cable issues during a shoot, with everybody glued to the screen......
shooting tethered works really well with LR, of course C1 has to run as well and the previews pop up slower.....but the advantage of being able to make all the adjustments and attach them right away and have the previews pop up is pure gold...capture is not slower, the previews just pop up slower, because they have to go through C1 and come into LR which automatically attaches the settings......and the most important thing: it works.......i would not try it combined with a ftp/instant upload action/script, but it is superstable.....
Logged

Ethan Schoonover
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38



WWW
« Reply #82 on: April 15, 2007, 04:08:35 AM »
ReplyReply

James, your practical commentary in the last couple posts have been some of the most useful in this thread/MFDB forum. No BS, no whining, and good pro business sense.

Quote
Canon's 4 pin fw cable is problematic, regardless of the different tricks in mounting it and though C-1 is good with the Canon's it's obviously better with the Phase products.
Canon's USB connectivity on Mac OSX 10.4 is also a huge headache.

As an aside, I know Leaf at least was playing with bluetooth to dump jpeg previews to a paired computer, but I don't know where they ended up with that. I like the idea of cutting cables where possible, but for now, as you say, solid wired connectivity is critical. I'm sick of having to relink my Canon's in the middle of a shoot with a CD staring at the monitor.

Quote
If medium format makers want to distinguish their product from the dslrs, then most of them really need to up thier game in software, speed and camera to computer capture, viewing, adjustments and processing.  C-1 is the gold standard but it also needs improvement and though V4 is suppose to offer all of this, in the world of digital I've learned until it's proven on set, it really doesn't matter.
Nikon has started to figure this out and thus outsourced the development of the relatively decent Capture NX. Canon's current software suite is complete garbage. Capture One is the only game for now (for those of us that want a single, stable capture app that will work with multiple camera platforms), but I expect Lightroom and eventually Aperture will soon enough be full competition to Capture 1 for both DSLR and MFDB. My G5, aging though it may be, can pull in images to Lightroom and Aperture fast enough for most of my tethered needs (though I have set up special scripts to do this and configured my system to use a RAM disk to tether to, so it's not exactly out of the box like C1).

What it boils down to for me currently (perhaps oversimplified):
  • The camera system determines the quality ceiling for my work.
  • The capture software determines my capture speed and quality of the client feedback loop on site
  • The workflow software (ideally the same as capture, but not always yet) and my skill with it and my ability to do custom scripting determine my turnaround time and, ultimately, my profitability
Logged

[span style='color:gray'][span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']Ethan Schoonover, Hong Kong  /  ethanschoonover.com
[a href='mailto:es@ethanschoonover.com']es@ethanschoonover.com[/a][/span][/span]
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #83 on: April 15, 2007, 11:06:44 AM »
ReplyReply

if you are having problems with the canon software, why don't you use C1? as a capture and workflow software? the conversions are much better as well...
Logged

Ethan Schoonover
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38



WWW
« Reply #84 on: April 15, 2007, 11:51:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
if you are having problems with the canon software, why don't you use C1? as a capture and workflow software? the conversions are much better as well...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry, I wasn't clear on that. Actually I did switch to Capture One, but not because of this issue directly. Full agreement that it's superior. The USB connectivity issues existed regardless of the capture app (it was an OS issue). I haven't seen clear information on who was responsible for fixing it (apple or canon).

There was some kernel extension "fix" for the problem that was discussed here, in case anyone is still having similar issues.
[a href=\"http://photography-on-the.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-84642.html]http://photography-on-the.net/forum/archiv...hp/t-84642.html[/url]

The other useful thing about C1 is that most assistants and rental studios in Asia seem to be up to speed with it as the standard capture app. I'm assuming the same is true elsewhere?
Logged

[span style='color:gray'][span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']Ethan Schoonover, Hong Kong  /  ethanschoonover.com
[a href='mailto:es@ethanschoonover.com']es@ethanschoonover.com[/a][/span][/span]
CliffSamys
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


WWW
« Reply #85 on: April 15, 2007, 11:53:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
i was a little worried about lightroom tethered as well...i don't like the whole "watched folder" thing....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112415\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just curious, Paul. Do you have LR copy/move files or just import them in place? I'm guessing the latter, but thought I'd inquire.
Logged

Cliff
Samy's Camera, Pro Digital Manager
Phase One, Hasselblad, Leaf, Canon, Nikon, Epson, HP and Mac dealer
cnorton[at]samys[dot]com
CliffSamys
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


WWW
« Reply #86 on: April 15, 2007, 12:00:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I just wish that someone would build a LR script for making a color preset for Phase files similar to those in ACR. Most people are just running the script in ACR and transposing the numbers to LR, but this doesn't work for Phase files, since ACR doesn't open them.
I think the default balances look pretty good in LR and are easily enough cleaned up, but I can see a benefit to some users to have a quality preset making script or method.
Logged

Cliff
Samy's Camera, Pro Digital Manager
Phase One, Hasselblad, Leaf, Canon, Nikon, Epson, HP and Mac dealer
cnorton[at]samys[dot]com
CliffSamys
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


WWW
« Reply #87 on: April 15, 2007, 09:09:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Most people are just running the script in ACR and transposing the numbers to LR, but this doesn't work for Phase files, since ACR doesn't open them.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112523\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Duh. I was being dumb before. I must not have the current ACR on my machine at work. It's a public machine, so often upgrades get interrupted. Couldn't figure out how ACR and LR could differ so...
Logged

Cliff
Samy's Camera, Pro Digital Manager
Phase One, Hasselblad, Leaf, Canon, Nikon, Epson, HP and Mac dealer
cnorton[at]samys[dot]com
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad