Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: which is best: view camera vs ts-e lens vs 17mm + photoshop  (Read 31213 times)
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #120 on: November 30, 2009, 06:38:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Kirk Gittings
I have had pretty good results from focus stacking with architecture and architectural models (and models in architecture...see below). It works best when there are zones of like focus, such as foreground, mid ground and background without something like a large tree in the foreground piercing the zones of focus. Like a view camera tilt, It also works well when there is single plane that needs to be brought in focus.
I can certainly believe focus stacking yields good results in some situations, and it's something I'd like to experiment more with in the future.  I'd prefer to use a tilt to get the DOF where I want it in-camera, though.

As you say the biggest problem is when you have overlapping objects at different focus distances, in which case my experience has been that Helicon gives you edge halos. Then again lens/camera tilts are no good for that situation, either.
Logged

Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1547


WWW
« Reply #121 on: November 30, 2009, 08:38:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JeffKohn
I can certainly believe focus stacking yields good results in some situations, and it's something I'd like to experiment more with in the future.  I'd prefer to use a tilt to get the DOF where I want it in-camera, though.

As you say the biggest problem is when you have overlapping objects at different focus distances, in which case my experience has been that Helicon gives you edge halos. Then again lens/camera tilts are no good for that situation, either.

I couldn't use tilt in the example. The tilt was in the wrong orientation and unusable. Hopefully they will correct that with the 45 and 90 t/s in the future? Sorry, I didn't make this clear. This is not a clear example actually of focus stacking, but merge/focus stacking. In this case I wanted the increased file size of three merged images. So this is a 3 image merge/focus stack, shift up-focus on the near beams, shift neutral-focus on the cross beams, shift down-focus on the model.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2009, 10:38:38 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #122 on: December 01, 2009, 04:00:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Kirk Gittings
I couldn't use tilt in the example. The tilt was in the wrong orientation and unusable. Hopefully they will correct that with the 45 and 90 t/s in the future? Sorry, I didn't make this clear. This is not a clear example actually of focus stacking, but merge/focus stacking. In this case I wanted the increased file size of three merged images. So this is a 3 image merge/focus stack, shift up-focus on the near beams, shift neutral-focus on the cross beams, shift down-focus on the model.
You could use the camera up-side down.

You get a plane of sharpest focus... and you get a wedge of acceptable focus, so perhaps this shot could have been taken in one shot... or two.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1547


WWW
« Reply #123 on: December 01, 2009, 09:53:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You could use the camera up-side down.

It would still be in the wrong orientation. I needed it on axis with the rise/fall.

Quote
You get a plane of sharpest focus... and you get a wedge of acceptable focus, so perhaps this shot could have been taken in one shot... or two.

As I said.....
Quote
In this case I wanted the increased file size of three merged images.

because I am printing this fairly large.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2009, 10:17:27 AM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #124 on: December 01, 2009, 10:47:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Kirk Gittings
I couldn't use tilt in the example. The tilt was in the wrong orientation and unusable. Hopefully they will correct that with the 45 and 90 t/s in the future? Sorry, I didn't make this clear. This is not a clear example actually of focus stacking, but merge/focus stacking. In this case I wanted the increased file size of three merged images. So this is a 3 image merge/focus stack, shift up-focus on the near beams, shift neutral-focus on the cross beams, shift down-focus on the model.
Understood. My comment on preferring tilt was more about the general case. With tilt I can know at the time of shooting that I've got things sharp where I need them (since I can check with LiveView). If tilt won't work, other alternatives have to be considered.
Logged

carstenw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



« Reply #125 on: December 01, 2009, 12:27:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Kirk Gittings
It would still be in the wrong orientation. I needed it on axis with the rise/fall.

If you are talking about the old Canon 24 T/S, you can take the lens apart and put it back together so that the tilt and shift are along the same axis. I would guess that this is also possible with the new ones, but I don't know.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2009, 12:28:04 PM by carstenw » Logged

Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1547


WWW
« Reply #126 on: December 01, 2009, 01:04:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If you are talking about the old Canon 24 T/S, you can take the lens apart and put it back together so that the tilt and shift are along the same axis. I would guess that this is also possible with the new ones, but I don't know.

As I said I was using the 45 t/s. Of course you can dismantle it and rotate it, but I am reluctant to do this in the field and it generally seems to always be in the wrong position for what you need. The new 17 and 24 solve this by the addition of a rotating mechanism, but there is no new 45 t/s as yet.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2009, 01:08:47 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
carstenw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



« Reply #127 on: December 01, 2009, 01:33:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Kirk Gittings
As I said I was using the 45 t/s. Of course you can dismantle it and rotate it, but I am reluctant to do this in the field and it generally seems to always be in the wrong position for what you need. The new 17 and 24 solve this by the addition of a rotating mechanism, but there is no new 45 t/s as yet.

Sorry, I thought I saw that you used the old 24. I knew I shouldn't have posted when ill.
Logged

MHFA
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


« Reply #128 on: December 04, 2009, 05:27:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Yesterday I tested a Canon 5DII with the 17ts and a SINAR ARTEC with the 23mm from Rodenstock and the Emotion 75LV.

Here are the results:
[attachment=18342:test1.jpg]
[attachment=18343:test2.jpg]
[attachment=18344:test3.jpg]

on the small images you can`t see all details, but the Emotion Back is clear better.
But only printing bigger than DIN A3 (11,4x16,5 inch) you can see the difference, and there is no book larger than this size...

By the way, I was quicker with the SINAR, leveling is easier.....
Michael
Logged
Abdulrahman Aljabri
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260



WWW
« Reply #129 on: December 04, 2009, 05:41:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MHFA
Yesterday I tested a Canon 5DII with the 17ts and a SINAR ARTEC with the 23mm from Rodenstock and the Emotion 75LV.

Here are the results:
[attachment=18342:test1.jpg]
[attachment=18343:test2.jpg]
[attachment=18344:test3.jpg]

on the small images you can`t see all details, but the Emotion Back is clear better.
But only printing bigger than DIN A3 (11,4x16,5 inch) you can see the difference, and there is no book larger than this size...

By the way, I was quicker with the SINAR, leveling is easier.....
Michael


Yes the difference is obvious on the 100% crops, though, the Sinar is much sharper. What sensor are you suing with your Sinar?

What is the distortion on the Sinar's full resolution picture top edge?
Logged

MY SITE: ALJABRI MEDIA PRODUCTION

Abdulrahman - and yes its a long name but has a meaning "servant of the merciful". you can also call me abdul
Abdulrahman Aljabri
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260



WWW
« Reply #130 on: December 04, 2009, 05:45:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Just added this new thread after allot of testing with the 24ts-e. The early excitement over the mechanical glory of the lens was replaced with disappointment over the poor optical quality. I am not sure if this is typical 24tse performance but if it is then the 24tse MKI sucks!!

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=39788
« Last Edit: December 04, 2009, 05:46:19 AM by Abdulrahman Aljabri » Logged

MY SITE: ALJABRI MEDIA PRODUCTION

Abdulrahman - and yes its a long name but has a meaning "servant of the merciful". you can also call me abdul
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1129


WWW
« Reply #131 on: December 04, 2009, 08:57:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MHFA
Yesterday I tested a Canon 5DII with the 17ts and a SINAR ARTEC with the 23mm from Rodenstock and the Emotion 75LV.

Here are the results:
[attachment=18342:test1.jpg]
[attachment=18343:test2.jpg]
[attachment=18344:test3.jpg]

on the small images you can`t see all details, but the Emotion Back is clear better.
But only printing bigger than DIN A3 (11,4x16,5 inch) you can see the difference, and there is no book larger than this size...

By the way, I was quicker with the SINAR, leveling is easier.....
Michael
Michael:
at which aperture did you shot with the 17TSE? to become really sharp at the limits of its image circle i stop down to f13 or 16 and check also the focus at the live view with 10x mag. looks as my lens performs better, maybe one more time some visible sample variation? although unacceptable at that price point i wouldnt be surprised ....
did you print out larger too, means did u print at A2 and saw a visible difference to the e75 ?
i just used the 17 for an assignment and printed a A1 size which came out perfect, but i havent compared 1 by 1 with the e75.
thanks for the test. very interesting.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2009, 08:58:11 AM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
JonRoemer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #132 on: December 04, 2009, 09:19:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rainer_v
at which aperture did you shot with the 17TSE? to become really sharp at the limits of its image circle i stop down to f13 or 16 and check also the focus at the live view with 10x mag.

I've found this as well.  The 17 tse shifted really needs f16 to hold the focus on the outer edge.  Live View is an essential part of the process when focusing the 17 tse accurately.  

When working outside having a loupe will aid in using Live View.  Not so much to magnify the image but to block stray light.  The Hoodman Hoodloupe works if you need to buy one.

--
Site | Blog
Logged

rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1129


WWW
« Reply #133 on: December 04, 2009, 10:41:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JonRoemer
I've found this as well.  The 17 tse shifted really needs f16 to hold the focus on the outer edge.  Live View is an essential part of the process when focusing the 17 tse accurately.  

When working outside having a loupe will aid in using Live View.  Not so much to magnify the image but to block stray light.  The Hoodman Hoodloupe works if you need to buy one.

--
Site | Blog
but there is no doubt that the 23/28/35 HR lenses are the sharpest i saw ever at the wide end. and they  can be used even without stopping them down. only week point is that they show a bit of distortion, but in practice i never came to a point where i couldnt use them perfect. eXposure with the ( ex brumbaer ) architecture workflow is imo the best in the medium market as well together with the artec, so i vore too for this system if optimum quality is desired and costs dont count in. on the other hand the canon comes pretty close in practice, can be used under much more difficult circumstances and i love the weight and convenience of the shooting with it. will make a comparation too, although i really hate this kind of work and pixel peeping.
Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
JonRoemer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #134 on: December 04, 2009, 11:35:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rainer_v
but there is no doubt that the 23/28/35 HR lenses....

Rainer - I meant my reply for Michael (MHFA) and really just to back up what you were saying.

--
Site | Blog
Logged

MHFA
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


« Reply #135 on: December 04, 2009, 02:04:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rainer_v
, although i really hate this kind of work and pixel peeping.
thats what I said, whereever your images are printed, the Canon will do the job.
On the other side, some years ago it was the same discussion with film sizes. 6x9cm was enough. But when I had really interesting projects, I used 13x18cm.

Michael
Logged
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1129


WWW
« Reply #136 on: December 04, 2009, 04:42:47 PM »
ReplyReply

erased
« Last Edit: December 04, 2009, 04:46:23 PM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad