Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 11 12 [13]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 645D vs D3x  (Read 73404 times)
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #240 on: July 21, 2011, 10:29:17 AM »
ReplyReply

... Velvia is the worst chrome film ever made.
Indeed

It has what, maybe 5 stops of range?
but it was punchy and that sort of "saturated" look is very popular (that's why you always find it on most cameras default out-of-factory except the pro lines)


But remember, sharpness is a bourgeois concept.
Not only a bourgeois concept but a preocupation I only find in the forums and never in the profesional life. I have to stress that many times the sharpening applied in post prod with the masters I had the chance to work with is much less that what you generally find in the hobbyists works. (in fact, I don't remember any sharpening intervention in PP). It seems that sharpness, resolution and noise are a big concern for a lot of "sunday" photographers while they are completly irrelevant for all the professionals I've been working and learning with.
2 worlds.

I don't think film is a wrong choice for someone wanting the look of medium format without the absurd hobbyist prices
The absurd prices could be bearable not a long time ago, but now in the current context they don't make any sense except in very few niche exceptions. But the second-hand MF market is a great oportunity to go digital unless you really want the film look.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 10:34:24 AM by fredjeang » Logged
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2759


WWW
« Reply #241 on: July 21, 2011, 11:07:01 AM »
ReplyReply

It seems that sharpness, resolution and noise are a big concern for a lot of "sunday" photographers while they are completly irrelevant for all the professionals I've been working and learning with.

"Professionals" are of course not a monolith. A fashion photographer with a particular style may not need (or indeed may actively avoid) resolution/sharpness. A high-end architectural photographer, product photographer, or fashion photographer with a different style on the other hand may go to great lengths to achieve it.

This is no different than it was 30 years ago when some professionals shot through pantyhose, or used vaseline on their lens while others used 8x10 film and did manual unsharp masks in the darkroom (which was incredibly time consuming compared to a drop down menu).

I realize you were speaking about the professionals you work with and not all professionals everywhere. But for someone reading the forum that doesn't know you they might take it as a broad statement.

Given that many serious hobbyists are focused on landscape (especially on the luminous landscape forum) it's not surprising their interests would include high image quality including resolution and sharpness; this is true 50 years ago, 20 years ago, and today.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off

Masters Series Workshop:
New England Landscape - Fall Color (Oct 5-8)
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 11:09:21 AM by dougpetersonci » Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3876



WWW
« Reply #242 on: July 21, 2011, 11:34:41 AM »
ReplyReply




Okay, just for you, then:

http://youtu.be/VWZkRNEULi4

;-)

Rob C


PS The opening portrait is what, in my head, real glamour is, not the semi-porn that has stolen its passport today.

Good example - the still image contributes, but I'm not sure that any more imagery would actually improve the piece.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #243 on: July 21, 2011, 01:06:21 PM »
ReplyReply

"Professionals" are of course not a monolith. A fashion photographer with a particular style may not need (or indeed may actively avoid) resolution/sharpness. A high-end architectural photographer, product photographer, or fashion photographer with a different style on the other hand may go to great lengths to achieve it.

This is no different than it was 30 years ago when some professionals shot through pantyhose, or used vaseline on their lens while others used 8x10 film and did manual unsharp masks in the darkroom (which was incredibly time consuming compared to a drop down menu).

I realize you were speaking about the professionals you work with and not all professionals everywhere. But for someone reading the forum that doesn't know you they might take it as a broad statement.

Given that many serious hobbyists are focused on landscape (especially on the luminous landscape forum) it's not surprising their interests would include high image quality including resolution and sharpness; this is true 50 years ago, 20 years ago, and today.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off

Masters Series Workshop:
New England Landscape - Fall Color (Oct 5-8)


That's correct Doug, thanks for the precision. I was indeed talking about a part of the profession where I'm activly involved and not a broad statement. As in life, everything is relative.

But, and yes that's the sort of general statement I wanted to express,  I also know arquitecture photographers, artists who hang their printings in museums and art galleries and therefore the needs for sharpness-reso are "different", yes. But
neither in those sphere I saw deep concern about it except in the museum repros. People who need sharpness and details just have it ! it's as simple as that. And they have it with the proper equipment.

I mean by that, the criticisms I sometimes do on MF gear just concern the niche where I work. But there is no doubt that if I where doing art gallery big formats (for ex), I'd have my studio full of view cams and MF backs, wether I like tether (wich I do not) or not. I'm not as blind to think that a Pentax K5 will give me what a P65 can. No! People are trying very hard in the forums to demostrate with graphs, bottle wine details comparaisons etc...that the current generation of consumer sensors are on par if not better in DR for ex than the FF or MF equipment. Of course, you and I and many more may look at that (noise?) with an healphy distance. After all, if they want to enjoy with those sort of demonstrations to proove something I still do not get that's fine.

Yesterday I did a part of a fashion shooting with this GH2 because I could loose time on that. It's just ok. Could that go to full page print? No doubt, nobody would notice anything because it's the look of the 16MP 1D Canon of years ago. (very very similar look by the way). In that sense you can see the progress that have been acheived by the industry. I liked the look of the raw files, there is a lot to like about it but the camera buffer is not suitable for such demanding session, at 100% details are lacking, this smaller sensor area demands more light power than usual to extract the full potential, post prod files are not trickable but fall apart very easily because it's a small sensor etc etc so you fall on its limitation in a question of minutes. There is no miracle, but the GH2 is NOT a high-end camera. It's impressive considering the sensor's size and capable of outstanding small prints. The EVF is impressive and I could really rely on it for manual focussing with a high amount of accuracy. Very very impressive EVF that I'd like to see in coming pro gear. But that' s all. No comparaison with any MF image quality, not even the 5D2 for stills.

In the high-end, whatever the high-end is, image quality in 2011 in his vast forms and needs is guarantee. Then it's just a question of personal orientation and personal apreciation on each aspect.

IMO.

2 pics with the gh2 before make-up in avail light (not yet strobes but 2 500w hot lights you can see the yellow on the dress, one on the arm and the other on the bottom), raw files right-out-the box, no color correct, no sharpen, rien que du brut de décoffrage. the crop is a 100% view at 800 isos from the developper.
As you see it's just ok and we can clearly notice the artifacts at 800 and some moiré, but for such a small sensor it's pretty good anyway.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 07:57:52 PM by fredjeang » Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3876



WWW
« Reply #244 on: July 22, 2011, 05:17:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Just to add my grain of salt here - I'm not so sure that the move to digital publication will mean a move to really low rez.

I downloaded some magazines to my iPad, and found that one of the biggest advantages is you can then zoom in on the images and view details. Let me clarify beyond the obvious - a gossip page a bunch of small snapshots, BOOM! you are zooming in to check out the dress details.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #245 on: July 22, 2011, 06:25:25 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree. There are some limits in lowering the rez.
That's why I used the GH2 in a situation it's not really made for. I was curious to see how much lower is bearable (and that's all relative). In fact what I found is that it doesn't matter so much the pixel-count but yes the sensor'size bloody matters. Although the GH2 in that aspect defends very well because there are sharper and more detailed images and smoother transitions that the ones I posted above when shooted at 320 isos with strobes and not 800 in availble light like those, I find that this sensor probably reached the pixel density limit. The 800 I posted almost looks like a compactcam kind of texture.

But watching an image at 100% is pointless.

If you'd print that in a full page magazine it will work perfectly, but working with the files it's kind of "...mmmm...yes but..." no, the gh2 wouldn't replace a 1D or a D3x IMO.

Ahhh...if MF could reduce their prices a bit, put some video and live-view with evf and improoved the usability that would be the grail. But no one as ever seen or met the grail so far...

a 100% crop at isos 320 right-out-the-raw, available light, 1/160 sec at 4, no strobes. it's better but the hair still looks horror. It handles 1 stop before falling appart. This is where the limits are.

Anyway, those field testings are boring like hell.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2011, 06:52:29 AM by fredjeang » Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3876



WWW
« Reply #246 on: July 22, 2011, 07:51:42 AM »
ReplyReply


Ahhh...if MF could reduce their prices a bit, put some video and live-view with evf and improoved the usability that would be the grail. But no one as ever seen or met the grail so far...


Fred,

 It all depends where the fashion money goes.

 D'you remember the first days of digital print in some fashion mags? They all used the washed out color look, because they couldn't do natural skin tone. It became a fashion. In the same way, maybe stills from video will become the "look", just because it's available.

I don't think MF will survive outside the specialist arena, and in fact I believe that paradoxically the place with the highest quality still photography will be sports photography, where the guys all have good cameras and superb lenses.

Edmund
« Last Edit: July 22, 2011, 07:54:23 AM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #247 on: July 22, 2011, 12:57:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred,

 It all depends where the fashion money goes.

 D'you remember the first days of digital print in some fashion mags? They all used the washed out color look, because they couldn't do natural skin tone. It became a fashion. In the same way, maybe stills from video will become the "look", just because it's available.

I don't think MF will survive outside the specialist arena, and in fact I believe that paradoxically the place with the highest quality still photography will be sports photography, where the guys all have good cameras and superb lenses. Edmund



Probably right: there's a hell of a lot of moolah in sport! Just look at the footballers and golfers and tennisers (gotta be a Rob C neologism at last!)

Rob C
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


WWW
« Reply #248 on: July 23, 2011, 04:35:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I'd guess that MF will be a market for those who can afford best equipment for best image quality and for those needing the ultimate perfection, like architecture and landscape photogrpahers.

On the other, good enough is an awesome competition!

There is also something called return on investment.


Best regards
Erik


Fred,

I don't think MF will survive outside the specialist arena, and in fact I believe that paradoxically the place with the highest quality still photography will be sports photography, where the guys all have good cameras and superb lenses.

Edmund
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3876



WWW
« Reply #249 on: July 23, 2011, 04:50:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I'd guess that MF will be a market for those who can afford best equipment for best image quality and for those needing the ultimate perfection, like architecture and landscape photogrpahers.

On the other, good enough is an awesome competition!

There is also something called return on investment.


Best regards
Erik



There's a tendency for the top guys who get large budgets to say that their equipment is a necessity, and make that EXPENSIVE equipment.
I see it as closing the door of the room after you squeaked in.

E.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2011, 01:26:25 PM by eronald » Logged

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

Posts: 562



WWW
« Reply #250 on: July 24, 2011, 06:09:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob,
A few weeks ago I played in the Walter Gretsky tournament (an annual event in Brantford, ON for the CNIB). So that means I was golfing with hockeyers.

Dave

Probably right: there's a hell of a lot of moolah in sport! Just look at the footballers and golfers and tennisers (gotta be a Rob C neologism at last!)

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #251 on: July 24, 2011, 01:29:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Rob,
A few weeks ago I played in the Walter Gretsky tournament (an annual event in Brantford, ON for the CNIB). So that means I was golfing with hockeyers.

Dave




We're on our way to creating a new language. Ironically, I'm not much into sports!

;-)

Rob C
Logged

jduncan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 293


« Reply #252 on: July 26, 2011, 06:12:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Just to add my grain of salt here - I'm not so sure that the move to digital publication will mean a move to really low rez.

I downloaded some magazines to my iPad, and found that one of the biggest advantages is you can then zoom in on the images and view details. Let me clarify beyond the obvious - a gossip page a bunch of small snapshots, BOOM! you are zooming in to check out the dress details.

Edmund

Yes the "problem" is that we are talking about 6 megapixels or so.  Even 16 with a little stretch but we are not talking 80mpixels.  So we see a picture of the candidate and her husband or of a scientist and his experiment on a magazine and we want to see the details, that's common.

But most people (and we are talking averages here since companies need and incentive to expend the resources, shocking the device, loading the download servers, eat the device bandwidth etc) will not care to take a look at the candidate's dandruff  Grin .

So, as always,  hi resolution is relative.

Of course art reproduction, it's one of many examples were hight resolution is mandatory. Some cases like landscapes and cityscapes  can be achieved by stitching. The advantage of stitching is  that we could have ultra high dynamic range captures, but a single shoot can do stuff that stitching can't  like capturing movement.

The next question, then,will be if the niche applications can or can't sustain the research and development. The second alternative, is lowering the prices and sale to the wealthy amateurs that can fall in love with quality.


Best regards,

James
Logged

english is not my first language, an I know is shows
Pages: « 1 ... 11 12 [13]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad