Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Adobe + Hasselblad Cooperation  (Read 15269 times)
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #80 on: November 21, 2011, 07:57:40 AM »
ReplyReply



It's winter, Fred, gotta keep warmed up or risk a chill! Unfortunately, nothing very sensitive anywhere around these parts of northern Mallorca...

;-)

Rob C
Hey, Rob.
Nice to see you again!

Winter...time to shut down the computers, forget about Phase or Hassy or ACR and loose one's self in the warm sheets of a gorgeous striking brunette.
Logged
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #81 on: November 21, 2011, 11:27:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Winter...time to shut down the computers, forget about Phase or Hassy or ACR and loose one's self in the warm sheets of a gorgeous striking brunette.

Well that certainly would be a nice option to have, dammit  Wink

I will take you to task on one small point, however, Fred - there are a few of us out here printing nice photos who never go anywhere near PS, let alone 50 layers of it. That's just for the insane commercial world you and BC inhabit.

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #82 on: November 21, 2011, 11:44:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Well that certainly would be a nice option to have, dammit  Wink

I will take you to task on one small point, however, Fred - there are a few of us out here printing nice photos who never go anywhere near PS, let alone 50 layers of it. That's just for the insane commercial world you and BC inhabit.

John


Losing myself in the sheets ain't where it's at: finding the brunette there is the name of the game. Or at least, as I would rather play it, but I need a few hints on what to do if/when I find one (brunette not sheet) - my memory is not what it used to be, you know.

Fred, why did you start all this? There I was, happy in my solitude, and then you had to go wake me up!

Rob C
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #83 on: November 21, 2011, 11:45:03 AM »
ReplyReply

John: But the good thing of Cooter is that he has retouchers, special FX studios, gaffers, cleaning ladies, assistants, massagists, healph trainers and great restaurants to put on weight on the street corner, with nice californian wine etc...weight that he simply looses with one motion assignment with zero diet.
That makes the insanity of the commercial world more fun.

Rob, I'm sorry
...but the infinite path of wisdom is to accept that in life, everything is unpermanent...well, normally. Picasso was a beast until the last minute according to his wife number ? (can't remember).

« Last Edit: November 21, 2011, 12:35:33 PM by fredjeang » Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #84 on: November 21, 2011, 12:45:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Well that certainly would be a nice option to have, dammit  Wink

I will take you to task on one small point, however, Fred - there are a few of us out here printing nice photos who never go anywhere near PS, let alone 50 layers of it. That's just for the insane commercial world you and BC inhabit.

John

John,

I somewhat understand where you are coming from, but if you will step back for a moment and look at image making in general, there is a trickle down theory.

It always starts at the sharp end, usually from images most people find uncomfortable or in an area that don't want to be involved in.

Way before digital, Ansel Adams was working with large cameras and an exposure technique that was copied by photographers for generations in all genres, from snapshots to industrial photography.

Photographic styles from Weston on the fine art level to Guy Bordin on the high end of fashion found their way trickling down to all forms of image making.

That's just the process of how we perceive images and what goes from rare and unique to standard mainstream as the public tastes catch up with the artist's vision.

More so today with the easy ability to access almost any image and style in the world and emulate it to your personal or professional work.

Not that I'm a fan of that, but unique images or style pretty much go mainstream the moment they hit the internet.

Now in regards to 50 layers of photoshop, that's not as difficult or exotic as you would think.

These three images are a good example



The top image has no retouching, just manipulation, first in Lightroom, secondarily in photoshop with a dozen layers.

I spent less time in photoshop than I did in lightroom.

The second image the same, except there is some client directed retouching on the background, but overall, if I showed you the original out of Lightroom, vs. the final, the look isn't that much different.

The third image has no retouching at all, except some slight cleanup on the white background.  The face has never seen a clone stamp, a dodge layer,  or one bit of warping, liquifying, anything other than some color adjustment through layers in photoshop.

Now in regards to cameras, what camera was chosen was to reach a final look in post.

The first image is from a p21 because I find the 18mp size and lack of an aa filter allows for some over-sharpening effects in post.

The second image was a 1ds3, because it's heavy AA filter and higher iso allowed for a softer look and working with continuous lights inside and I need faster focus and the third image was a p30+ as I knew going in I wanted to do some cropping for the various formats the magazine required.

As far as crew, it depends.  The bottom image was 4 people, the top image 6, the middle image 12.  The middle image mainly due to client requests.

So John, I respect you can work in any way you want, but to deny a tool like photoshop in todays digital world, is comparable to always shooting in your backyard because it's close.


IMO

BC
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #85 on: November 21, 2011, 12:59:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for reminding of Guy Bourdin James !

It's been a while since I haven't thought about his work, in fact years and years and your post re-connected me with him. Great work.

By the way, I find some of your image series (I'm thinking of the Leica M ones) in the very same line-quality.


http://www.guybourdin.org/
Logged
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #86 on: November 21, 2011, 01:04:09 PM »
ReplyReply

James

Your pictures are absolutely smashing and consummately professional of course. They are also not anything like the stuff I do, obviously.

The difference is, it seems to me, that you do photography for a living and as a professional, and I do it just for fun and because I want to. And I have no client to satisfy. If I did, I would probably be getting my order in for CS5 very rapidly.

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
David Watson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 395


WWW
« Reply #87 on: November 21, 2011, 03:13:00 PM »
ReplyReply

James

Your pictures are absolutely smashing and consummately professional of course. They are also not anything like the stuff I do, obviously.

The difference is, it seems to me, that you do photography for a living and as a professional, and I do it just for fun and because I want to. And I have no client to satisfy. If I did, I would probably be getting my order in for CS5 very rapidly.

John

John

I find myself in the same situation as you.  In my case some of my photography is used professionally but generally only as a nicely taken record of an historic building.  I do use PS CS5 but only in a primitive way (resizing, levels and sharpening) but I am seeing more and more of my photography friends acquiring and using PS skills in their photography. 

In fact I think I need to go on a course and catch up! I guess all that has happened is that digital photography has now reached the same level of complexity as B&W photography did many years ago but without the dust and the smells.
Logged

David Watson ARPS
design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #88 on: November 22, 2011, 08:58:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Going back to the topic.
As Jeff mentioned. Both these companies have not done anything revolutionary now. DNG format in those days was a revolution. It had for this one basic flaw. A terrible inertia in updating ACR. That was the reason why Christian Poulsen did not see the future in this solution. Inhibited the development of his product. But the idea was close to him. The biggest problem faced by the branch - we get products that are not with each other fully compatible. You take a pictures with P1, you get a wonderful program, but unfortunately retoucher must use another tool.  here the problems begin. Not all data is transmitted, we have a problem with noise (the quality is worse than in the native raw converter ). So we get only half measures. The same is true in the case of Phocus, the files are read by the ACR, but not everything works. (The quality is better in Phocus). And in an ideal world we should forget about it all.No matter what software you use what you need to get quality provided by the manufacturer (best possible). A solution is very easy. After all, you can create a mechanism in which one could load the engine manufacturer's raw file. (Plugin) for processing applications (photoshop, lightroom, gimp, software for keying). In this case, the user load engine for example to Photoshop, and could enjoy the excellent quality. Such an engine would provide equipment manufacturer ... The idea is very easy.  

Unfortunately this is not apparently in the interest of manufacturers.
Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #89 on: November 23, 2011, 08:50:04 AM »
ReplyReply


no one wants to make his work has become easier and more enjoyable? regardless of brand name hardware and software you use?
Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
BrendanStewart
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 224


WWW
« Reply #90 on: November 26, 2011, 01:48:18 AM »
ReplyReply

David, Lightroom must be pretty close to processing photos similarly to Phocus. When i was in Phocus, i always felt images were a tad on the green tint side. Now in Lightroom it's similar when i follow those settings in the PDF. Still great color, but i always trend to magenta just a tiny bit.

Works great regardless, i'm very happy with the colors.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4033



« Reply #91 on: November 26, 2011, 03:36:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Phocus is the best-featured FREE general SLR Raw converter on the market.
So, let's all applaud Hasselblad for their philantropy!

Phocus gives you access to the Aperture converter code for free (although you get that in iPhoto and Preview too). 

Edmund

Logged
design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #92 on: November 26, 2011, 07:11:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Phocus is the best-featured FREE general SLR Raw converter on the market.
So, let's all applaud Hasselblad for their philantropy!

Phocus gives you access to the Aperture converter code for free (although you get that in iPhoto and Preview too). 

Edmund


So you could agree with me, that today all these manufactures wasting time. They could focus on developing new products like:cameras, new matrix, focusing system, and push to the limit existing matrix. But they are focused on bulding own systems. Camera software should be as simple as posibble. One simple plugin (dev engine) that you could load to all existing graphic aps. In that thinking our industry will be few years ahaed... 
Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4033



« Reply #93 on: November 26, 2011, 07:26:53 AM »
ReplyReply

So you could agree with me, that today all these manufactures wasting time. They could focus on developing new products like:cameras, new matrix, focusing system, and push to the limit existing matrix. But they are focused on bulding own systems. Camera software should be as simple as posibble. One simple plugin (dev engine) that you could load to all existing graphic aps. In that thinking our industry will be few years ahaed...  

As Mr. Shewe will explain to you, the way it should be, the way it is meant to be, the way it will be, is that Canon and Nikon make the cameras, Adobe makes the profit. And in the end I think that is what will happen. The only company who will preserve quality is RED who cannot be conveniently Borged because their output does not fit into any existing workflow.

Edmund

PS. Iliah, no disrespect intended, that was a Startrek reference  Grin
Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2108


« Reply #94 on: November 26, 2011, 12:04:10 PM »
ReplyReply

I completely disagree.  The primary reason raw conversion software is as good as it is now is because the various software makers continually push each other to get better.  There is no single correct way to process a given raw file, basic calibration steps notwithstanding.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5475


WWW
« Reply #95 on: November 26, 2011, 01:16:53 PM »
ReplyReply

As Mr. Shewe will explain to you, the way it should be, the way it is meant to be, the way it will be, is that Canon and Nikon make the cameras, Adobe makes the profit.

The name is Schewe...and you have it almost right. I think Canon and Nikon should indeed concentrate on doing what they have shown themselves very good at–developing really good cameras, sensors and lenses. They should also work towards developing a raw file format standard such as DNG (or some other standard yet to be developed).

I do tend to think it would behove the camera industry to understand that they aren't really good software developers...Capture One is about the only really good 3rd party developer. There are some niche raw software developers doing interesting things with IQ but neither Nikon nor Canon can really engineer great software. It's simply not in their DNA.
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2412



WWW
« Reply #96 on: November 26, 2011, 01:32:48 PM »
ReplyReply

And it would be great if LR3 or ACR could do stuff like LCC and automated CA *easily* like the MFDB makers software can.  Once Adobe gets there we might not need to use C1 and Phocus daily.  As it is now, even with all the 'cooperation'  I still can't use LR3 to even catalog my ixpress 528 files let alone process them without going to the trouble of converting, but I still have to go back to Phocus for LCC and use of color profiles not made in the little adobe profile tool.    Same with the phase and leaf files I have.   It's a bummer really that I can't put it all in the catalog. 

Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #97 on: November 26, 2011, 01:50:45 PM »
ReplyReply

The name is Schewe...and you have it almost right. I think Canon and Nikon should indeed concentrate on doing what they have shown themselves very good at–developing really good cameras, sensors and lenses. They should also work towards developing a raw file format standard such as DNG (or some other standard yet to be developed).

I do tend to think it would behove the camera industry to understand that they aren't really good software developers...Capture One is about the only really good 3rd party developer. There are some niche raw software developers doing interesting things with IQ but neither Nikon nor Canon can really engineer great software. It's simply not in their DNA.

If all hardware makers will use DNG file (and file structures will could be extended ), and adobe will lunch updates let say ones a 2 months. I think it would be right route. But...
As I know this market, they will never agree each other in this area.
Of course I could be wrong...
Where is sense that everybody use diverent files?? And if they need to do something more with files they need to use 3rd party software. But evrytime they loose somethig. It's really stupid...
If you have a system, all parts of this system shoud be cinsistant.




Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4033



« Reply #98 on: November 26, 2011, 01:52:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Eric, Jeff,

 *first of all apologies for spelling Jeff's name wrong*

 I see we are all in agreement that cameras and converters will only improve by competition.

 I'm also afraid to say that I would agree with Mr. Schewe that software in the large sense is not something which the camera guys are going to learn how to do in the near future. But at the core of digital cameras design is "codesign" the art of splitting your task into hardware and software.
 
  Jeff says the interface between the camera and the non-proprietary software should take place  at the file level, he states the computer should do mainly DNG processing. I disagree - the computer has much more computing power available than the camera, and I think the camera makers would profit from doing more proprietary work on the computer side. An example of this was Hasselblad's 28mm lens which was cheap to make thanks to the software correction applied to the Raws. This gave Hassy a competitive advantage. The same goes for their shift adapter.

 My fear is that camera makers are getting de-facto forced into accepting Jeff's argument, because they *cannot* make software (C and N and Leica)  or find it less economical (H) they are planning on relying on ACR, and this is going to deprive us of the competition in the "codesign" which would allow the technology of post-correctable lenses to advance. In a sense the best we can hope for then is the Leica model, impeccable classical optical design which yields perfect files from the outset.

 As for the competition in Raw converters - I think most of Adobe's competition have basically disappeared anyway, not because they couldn't make nice files, but because they couldn't provide a decent workflow to match Lightroom.

Both points above would be addressed if Adobe would create a clean interface for ACR replacements.

Edmund

The name is Schewe...and you have it almost right. I think Canon and Nikon should indeed concentrate on doing what they have shown themselves very good at–developing really good cameras, sensors and lenses. They should also work towards developing a raw file format standard such as DNG (or some other standard yet to be developed).

I do tend to think it would behove the camera industry to understand that they aren't really good software developers...Capture One is about the only really good 3rd party developer. There are some niche raw software developers doing interesting things with IQ but neither Nikon nor Canon can really engineer great software. It's simply not in their DNA.
Logged
bigstu
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #99 on: November 26, 2011, 03:40:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I can't seem to get ACR or LR to read the IIQs file from PO.   Is there only limited support for PO, or is there a way to get LR to recognize an IIQs from the IQ180?
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad