Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sony A7s and the medium format look - Am I the only one who cares?  (Read 7714 times)
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #20 on: June 27, 2014, 08:19:38 PM »
ReplyReply

There is something in the "look" of the D700 pictures which sets them apart from the others
you can simply  show us using raw files available from http://www.imaging-resource.com  Roll Eyes ... just you know take some cut from the white patch on the whibal card present in those shots (it is usually exposed very good, no readout noise affecting that part of the image), for both D700 and some other FF camera  and we are all attention to see that "look" in that crop (same parameters of raw conversion in ACR for example - all NR and sharpening sliders to zero)... it is a repeatable thing, isn't it... so it is easy to show, isn't it... that mythical "visible pattern of the sensor"  Grin
Logged
Hulyss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 504



WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 28, 2014, 08:22:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Are you saying you like pixelation on your images? All you have to do is downsample. I do not associate low resolution with "CCD like" rendering. Maybe you can restate what you are trying to say. It seems like a vague idea that falls apart when written down. We all have those. It helps us get to deeper understanding.

Yes, because it render very nice on print. Might be part of the magic.
Logged

Kind Regards - www.hulyssbowman.com
andrew00
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #22 on: July 04, 2014, 07:19:30 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm very interested to see more about this.

I'm rarely happy with the colour from a lot of cameras, both for stills and video, so if the A7S has some mojo there that'd be great.
Logged
chez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 356


« Reply #23 on: July 06, 2014, 09:51:29 AM »
ReplyReply

I shoot B&W film in 6x9 and 4x5 and I have never reproduced B&W from digital like I get from my film. Tonal range and the beautiful slow transition to saturation just is not reproducible with digital.

Personally for me digital beats film, for me anyway. My Canon 20D and 5D, Panasonic G1 and GX7 and Sony A7 all produce images that surpass anything I got from film and I've never had anyone say "That image is way to digital." I never used MF though, just 35mm.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3746


« Reply #24 on: July 06, 2014, 10:30:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Tonal range and the beautiful slow transition to saturation just is not reproducible with digital.

But of course it is possible to reproduce the same tonecurve, by adjusting the linear tonecurve to a film-like response. Depending on the required tonecurve, it may also be necessary to adjust the exposure of the Raw file.

One could even create a camera profile for that purpose by feeding a manipulated input file to the profile building application. Boost highlight contrast of the target, and the profile creation process will compensate for that with a shoulder roll-off to neutralize.

One could even go as far as introducing graininess and color sensitivity of Black and White film in addition to the tonecurve, to match the original film characteristics.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
luxborealis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1163



WWW
« Reply #25 on: July 07, 2014, 09:36:04 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm late to the party, but based on my experience (over 30 years with Nikon & Olympus 35mm, Pentax 67, extensive 4x5, Olympus E-1 to E-30, now Nikon D800E) skip the Sony an go straight to a D800. It won't disappoint! It's like having 4x5 IQ in a system I can canoe and backpack around. I am not using the expensive wonder-lenses (e.g. 24/1.4), only D lenses and the IQ is still there.
Logged

Terry McDonald
Revealing the art inherent in nature
- visit luxBorealis.com.
Have a read of my PhotoBlog and subscribe!
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4110



« Reply #26 on: July 14, 2014, 05:12:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I shoot B&W film in 6x9 and 4x5 and I have never reproduced B&W from digital like I get from my film. Tonal range and the beautiful slow transition to saturation just is not reproducible with digital.

Yeah, sure.

$200 old Rebel, $100 50mm AF lens, my yellow box 400 ISO profile.

Second one is 1Ds3 (ok, we're in a different price range here)

E.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2014, 05:15:10 PM by eronald » Logged
chez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 356


« Reply #27 on: July 16, 2014, 06:41:40 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm talking about printed images, not some limited jpegs on a screen.

Yeah, sure.

$200 old Rebel, $100 50mm AF lens, my yellow box 400 ISO profile.

Second one is 1Ds3 (ok, we're in a different price range here)

E.

Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #28 on: July 16, 2014, 09:37:22 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm talking about printed images

printed how ?
Logged
chez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 356


« Reply #29 on: July 16, 2014, 09:44:39 AM »
ReplyReply

I print both with my large format printer at home as well as have some printed using darkroom techniques from a lab in Toronto. These prints ( both my own and lab ) are better from film images than from images I get with my 5D2 and A7R...for B&W.

printed how ?
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3533



WWW
« Reply #30 on: July 16, 2014, 12:59:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I print both with my large format printer at home as well as have some printed using darkroom techniques from a lab in Toronto. These prints ( both my own and lab ) are better from film images than from images I get with my 5D2 and A7R...for B&W.
I recall a discussion on here a few years back on this very subject. I added a few B+Ws of my own for feedback and the film guys said they showed showed exactly what they meant as the pics has a certain something that digital lacked.
The kicker - the pics were not only digital, but taken on my pocket camera.

Another thought, maybe you haven't mastered digital B+W to the standard you can do film B+W. I've seen amazing B+W from digital sources [and some ropey stuff].
« Last Edit: July 16, 2014, 01:03:04 PM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #31 on: July 16, 2014, 02:19:37 PM »
ReplyReply

I print both with my large format printer at home
and that's digital... 0s and 1s... it does not matter that the source was film... granted some B/W films in a large formats you mentioned is still quite competetive vs sensors in digital cameras in some aspects.
Logged
chez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 356


« Reply #32 on: July 16, 2014, 04:59:52 PM »
ReplyReply

and that's digital... 0s and 1s... it does not matter that the source was film... granted some B/W films in a large formats you mentioned is still quite competetive vs sensors in digital cameras in some aspects.

Ummm, you conveniently left out the darkroom prints.
Logged
chez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 356


« Reply #33 on: July 16, 2014, 05:03:36 PM »
ReplyReply

I recall a discussion on here a few years back on this very subject. I added a few B+Ws of my own for feedback and the film guys said they showed showed exactly what they meant as the pics has a certain something that digital lacked.
The kicker - the pics were not only digital, but taken on my pocket camera.

Another thought, maybe you haven't mastered digital B+W to the standard you can do film B+W. I've seen amazing B+W from digital sources [and some ropey stuff].

How were these prints presented? Were they scanned, a photo take or some other digital form converted to a JPEG. This whole digitization of a print is a big equalizer. I would think it would be a total crap shoot telling anything apart once JPEG'd onto the net.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3533



WWW
« Reply #34 on: July 30, 2014, 06:20:25 AM »
ReplyReply

How were these prints presented? Were they scanned, a photo take or some other digital form converted to a JPEG. This whole digitization of a print is a big equalizer. I would think it would be a total crap shoot telling anything apart once JPEG'd onto the net.
Try reading a post more carefully before replying. I was talking about a thread on LuLa, so there's hardly likely to be any physical prints involved is there?
Also note the fans of film photography were the ones claiming my digitally originated images had something that digitally supposedly lacked. The fact that they were presented as jpegs online is irrelevant.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #35 on: July 30, 2014, 09:38:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Ummm, you conveniently left out the darkroom prints.
intentionally - for as long as nothing is "digitized" at some point in the workflow I do agree that there might be some "magic" that you might see "in person only" (and not through some images posted)... it is like DxO FilmPack - I am not sure about the current situation but they used to keep a library of scanned actual films inside their software to use them to imitate a particular grain... so it is not like just the math - it is using the same "grain" that you see once you make anything digital in your workflow at any moment.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3533



WWW
« Reply #36 on: July 30, 2014, 10:37:18 AM »
ReplyReply

intentionally - for as long as nothing is "digitized" at some point in the workflow I do agree that there might be some "magic" that you might see "in person only"
The only 'magic' is that wielded by the person behind the camera. Muggles did crap work even when shooting on film. Cheesy
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
melchiorpavone
Guest
« Reply #37 on: September 03, 2014, 10:40:06 AM »
ReplyReply

But of course it is possible to reproduce the same tonecurve, by adjusting the linear tonecurve to a film-like response. Depending on the required tonecurve, it may also be necessary to adjust the exposure of the Raw file.

One could even create a camera profile for that purpose by feeding a manipulated input file to the profile building application. Boost highlight contrast of the target, and the profile creation process will compensate for that with a shoulder roll-off to neutralize.

One could even go as far as introducing graininess and color sensitivity of Black and White film in addition to the tonecurve, to match the original film characteristics.

Cheers,
Bart

Or, one can simply shoot film! (Taken with Leitz 350mm Telyt-R on Leicaflex SL2, on Fuji Pro 400 film). This is the kind of "nature" photography that I like.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 11:01:28 AM by melchiorpavone » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad