Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: yaya on October 01, 2010, 06:41:21 am

Title: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: yaya on October 01, 2010, 06:41:21 am
I thought this is worth a separate thread which may last a while.
Over the next weeks/ months we'll have more and more photographers/ reps/ reviewers buying and using the new Aptus-II 12 and Aptus-II 12R backs.
I know there are many people here who are interested in seeing what this new product is capable of and do not have an easy or immediate access to it. Some simply like or need to see what the current top-end sensor/ back/ lens technology can deliver as they consider it over a competitive product (for example a multi-shot camera)

The idea is to provide raw files, however at this point in time the software required for opening them is not published yet, so initially we will have to do with full size processed images

Here's a couple available for download:

http://bit.ly/aaCMbZ (http://bit.ly/aaCMbZ)

Enjoy, yair
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: tho_mas on October 01, 2010, 06:59:32 am
Hi Yair,

thanks for providing the file!

2 questions:
- is it a hand held or tripod shot?
- is it the 80D, or the 80LS lens?

BTW: apparently it's a 61MB file...
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: MartinWidmann on October 01, 2010, 07:03:57 am
Unfortunately, the link is not valid any more. Could you upload it somewhere else?

Martin
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Dick Roadnight on October 01, 2010, 07:12:06 am
Hi, Yair...

Was this post processed, or just default sharpening?

I notice that there are black pixels adjacent to the white pixels, left end of hand rail, center of picture.

It seems that the back does not out-resolve the lens.

Dick
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: yaya on October 01, 2010, 08:19:28 am
Hi, Yair...

Was this post processed, or just default sharpening?

I notice that there are black pixels adjacent to the white pixels, left end of hand rail, center of picture.

It seems that the back does not out-resolve the lens.

Dick

Hi Dick, it was processed using Product presets in Leaf Capture, no post processing done to it

Modified the link above and added another file there

Yair
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: bradleygibson on October 01, 2010, 10:35:52 am
Thanks for posting, Yair.

All, I purchased a 5GB/48hr download rights to the site where the files are hosted, but obviously won't be able to use all the capacity in that time.  You are welcome to use my code to access these files for as long as it remains valid.

Download access code: FF48HPP116226885
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: yaya on October 01, 2010, 11:22:48 am
Thanks for posting, Yair.

All, I purchased a 5GB/48hr download rights to the site where the files are hosted, but obviously won't be able to use all the capacity in that time.  You are welcome to use my code to access these files for as long as it remains valid.

Download access code: FF48HPP116226885


All 3 files (full size) are on my iDisk now:
files.me.com/yshahar/sit38e (http://files.me.com/yshahar/sit38e)
files.me.com/yshahar/ppeag6 (http://files.me.com/yshahar/ppeag6)
files.me.com/yshahar/upmus9 (http://files.me.com/yshahar/upmus9)

Sorry for the inconvenience

Yair
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: ctz on October 01, 2010, 01:37:55 pm
stunning.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: JonathanBenoit on October 01, 2010, 02:03:06 pm
stunning.

Sorry. I have to post this...

For A12__000041, 100% 1/3 from the bottom where the people are on the green. The sensor seems to have an issue resolving the people and the grass separately. There is a person kicking a ball around who's face looks like the Hulk. Also the large woman in the foreground facing the camera has black spots all over her. Maybe this is normal, but I haven't seen this anywhere before. However, the image of the fabrics looks really great.

I might be too critical. "Stunning" would be the last thing I think of. 80 iso should be better.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: tho_mas on October 01, 2010, 02:17:29 pm
Sorry. I have to post this...

For A12__000041, 100% 1/3 from the bottom where the people are on the green. The sensor seems to have an issue resolving the people and the grass separately. There is a person kicking a ball around who's face looks like the Hulk. Also the large woman in the foreground facing the camera has black spots all over her. Maybe this is normal, but I haven't seen this anywhere before. However, the image of the fabrics looks really great.

I might be too critical. "Stunning" would be the last thing I think of. 80 iso should be better.
aren't these typical things that get sorted out in a final release? I guess it's firmware version 0.9 and just a beta of the raw software. All the images also show a line on the top image border... so I'm sure this is not the final version.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: yaya on October 01, 2010, 02:41:23 pm
Jonathan, she's also out-of-focus and her "face" is at about -2.5 EV from midtones so yes I think you're being too critical:-)

I guess you have not seen this before 'cause you have not seen so much detail before at this size...I think I can see a bold eagle inside the net cage at the Zoo on the Right

Focus is on the people+trees (not on infinity) at the centre of the frame and at f10 with a standard lens I think the broad DOF is also quite good.

Yair
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: JonathanBenoit on October 01, 2010, 03:34:17 pm
Jonathan, she's also out-of-focus and her "face" is at about -2.5 EV from midtones so yes I think you're being too critical:-)

I guess you have not seen this before 'cause you have not seen so much detail before at this size...I think I can see a bold eagle inside the net cage at the Zoo on the Right

Focus is on the people+trees (not on infinity) at the centre of the frame and at f10 with a standard lens I think the broad DOF is also quite good.

Yair


Yair,
The relationship of the sensor size to it's resolution is too far apart. I don't know where the limit was for this sensor's dimensions, but it seems like it was around 60mp. Maybe if there was a more accurate algorithm for interpolating the pixels it would be a different story.

I have no data to support what I am saying. It's just what my eye is telling me. Grass shouldn't be on someones face unless its really on their face.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Mr. Rib on October 01, 2010, 07:20:14 pm
The fabrics shot looks great. I find it hard to describe the rest.. to be honest, 100% crop from P45+ looks in my opinion better. Better is of course a highly subjective term and I'm using it on purpose- maybe there is some extra pixel count, maybe there are some details which you wouldn't normally see, but come on, in general the whole image is rippled/smudged! It gives me a terrible, plastic feeling about the whole image and I'd rather scan transparents than have a digital back producing something like that. Maybe it's the defaults with which the image was processed.. I know that I like a file from P45+ with defaults than this. Maybe studio / artificial light will do this sensor justice, maybe its the lenses (I don't have experience with DF and new lenses lineup).. something is definitely wrong in my opinion. Again- subjective opinion.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: EricWHiss on October 01, 2010, 07:25:08 pm
Sorry. I have to post this...

For A12__000041, 100% 1/3 from the bottom where the people are on the green. The sensor seems to have an issue resolving the people and the grass separately. There is a person kicking a ball around who's face looks like the Hulk. Also the large woman in the foreground facing the camera has black spots all over her. Maybe this is normal, but I haven't seen this anywhere before. However, the image of the fabrics looks really great.


Actually there are black spots everywhere not just on the big ladies face, but it didn't concern me as I expect they'll get that sorted out with final versions of firmware and software. Overall these look very promising to me.  Probably the reason why the fabric image looked great comparatively was that it was shot with the Rodenstock 90mm APO which is a stunning lens and in studio with controlled light etc.   

Yair
Thanks for sharing these images.
Eric
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: rainer_v on October 01, 2010, 09:32:51 pm
i think the files look very very impressive, apart from some conversion errors as these dots which i cant imagine to be  a problem
to be fixed in later sw versions.  resolution, color definition, sharpness and SIZE are really impressive i.m.o.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: bcooter on October 01, 2010, 09:44:30 pm
i think the files look very very impressive, apart from some conversion errors as these dots which i cant imagine to be  a problem
to be fixed in later sw versions.  resolution, color definition, sharpness and SIZE are really impressive i.m.o.

I think before anyone can judge those files, they need more refinement either in processing or software.

BC
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Dick Roadnight on October 02, 2010, 06:01:24 am
Hi Dick, it was processed using Product presets in Leaf Capture, no post processing done to it

Modified the link above and added another file there

Yair

Looks like pretty heavy sharpening to me.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: tho_mas on October 02, 2010, 06:20:43 am
I think before anyone can judge those files, they need more refinement either in processing or software.
obviously there will be some refinement but at least they already show that a decent standard lens won't have problems to resolve high enough edge to edge...
The city park scene is a handheld shot (I've seen it already at Photokina and Yair told me so) ... which I am finding quite impressive therefore.
Whether the river scene is a handheld or tripod shot, I don't know... I guess it is handheld, too.
So for someone looking for a high rez capture device the samples are very, very promising, IMO, ... in particular the fabrics shot, naturally.

Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: ced on October 02, 2010, 09:17:31 am
Seeing as you are pixel peeping the guy kicking the football has his face made up of 1.5 mm or less from the total width of the image which is 870 mm...
I can't see a trannie or neg then being scanned etc giving anything better.
The big woman in the foreground occupies 21 mm of the 870 and is out of focus and is somewhere in the 3/4 tone area of the image and it has been slightly over sharpened.
I think in the greater scheme of things, I guess hand held, 80mm lens maybe not the best lens out there and the 2 elements you referred to Jonathan the result is quite impressive just the same. :-*
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Dick Roadnight on October 02, 2010, 09:48:36 am
...image and it has been slightly over sharpened.
I think Yair said the the images were un-sharpened, or "default".

I would hope that there are options to sharpen less, for example for portraiture... perhaps there is a default  (but customizable) level of sharpening for portraiture and another for landscape... but pros and advanced amateurs like to have options,,, and be in control.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: ced on October 02, 2010, 09:58:52 am
Presets: Meaning as they would if one were shooting a product: (pre-specified custom toning, colour, sharpening, noise/grain suppression for product photography) is what I gathered.
Also the image was the full size and compressed so the upload/download could be faster.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Dick Roadnight on October 02, 2010, 10:06:42 am
Presets: Meaning as they would if one were shooting a product: (pre-specified custom toning, colour, sharpening, noise/grain suppression for product photography) is what I gathered.
Also the image was the full size and compressed so the upload/download could be faster.
...and if you pre-specify tooo much sharpening, can you un-ruin the picture (without just blurring it).
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: ced on October 02, 2010, 10:30:18 am
You can do just what tickles your fancy...
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: yaya on October 02, 2010, 11:56:27 am
...and if you pre-specify tooo much sharpening, can you un-ruin the picture (without just blurring it).

Surely you have worked with a RAW file in a RAW converter of some shape or form and perhaps even printed it at some point?
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Nick Rains on October 02, 2010, 11:25:14 pm
I think Yair said the the images were un-sharpened, or "default".

What's the point of specifying no sharpening? As if the default raw processor settings are anything meaningful. Images need to be be made as good as they can be. Best processing, best sharpening etc, anything else is meaningless. Different sensors need different sharpening methods to look their best - it's a common myth that 'default sharpening' is some sort of level playing field.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: ced on October 04, 2010, 07:49:57 am
All presets are dependant on result required, taste preferences and printing output play a major role in your decision. 
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: John R Smith on October 04, 2010, 08:51:47 am
It seems to me, at just a gut level rather than through any forensic analysis, that both the Thames Embankment and the park scenes have had a fair bit of noise reduction applied to them. I think I can see the tell-tale artefacts. Also, although of course the size and detail are impressive, they do not appear to me to have the appealing "creamy" quality and edge contrast of my Hasselblad 39MP files, straight out of the camera. But of course the lens has a lot to do with that.

In fact, at the risk of ruffling a lot of feathers, I would say that my first thought on examining these two "landscape" shots was that they look like a load of somewhat ordinary digicam pictures all stitched together, rather than what I would expect from a MF camera. Just the "feel" of the thing, if you know what I mean.

John
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: JonathanBenoit on October 04, 2010, 10:19:05 am
Yair sent me an email explaining that it was a pre-production back that was used for those photographs. The de-mosiacing algorithm will be tuned. I'm not sure if the odd noise pattern will be another fix, but we'll just have to wait for some examples from a proper back.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: tbosley on October 04, 2010, 10:52:38 am
Yair,
Thanks for providing the files!
Resolution is staggering and impressive.

Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: yaya on October 04, 2010, 12:30:32 pm
It seems to me, at just a gut level rather than through any forensic analysis, that both the Thames Embankment and the park scenes have had a fair bit of noise reduction applied to them. I think I can see the tell-tale artefacts. Also, although of course the size and detail are impressive, they do not appear to me to have the appealing "creamy" quality and edge contrast of my Hasselblad 39MP files, straight out of the camera. But of course the lens has a lot to do with that.

In fact, at the risk of ruffling a lot of feathers, I would say that my first thought on examining these two "landscape" shots was that they look like a load of somewhat ordinary digicam pictures all stitched together, rather than what I would expect from a MF camera. Just the "feel" of the thing, if you know what I mean.

John

Thank for the feedback John, my feathers are still held firmly in place :)

I say :P to the digicam stitch analogy and I invite you to compare your creamy 39MP digicam to this "thing" as soon as your nearest Leaf dealer get their demo unit in a few weeks time

Cheers

yair

Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: fredjeang on October 04, 2010, 12:45:53 pm
Yair,

First and for most, thanks very much for the files.

Res is brillant as expected. I found the sharpening somewhere too pushed for my taste, and apparently it was setted in default, wich means everything and nothing at the same time.
Just the result is the result, and strangely I find the images "too detailed", I mean by that (sorry about my english) that render I wouldn't expect and that are closer to commercial gears, the lack of creamy John is talking about. Or I would say softness. Translating those samples into skin tones would be too much IMO.
It is like there where many images of a good dslr in one big image. Can't explain a better way.
I tried a quick huge upsample and would have liked to be able to control from less "agressive" sharp.

I guess this is a personal choice that works fine for Yair, and I'm not criticizing, specially when somebody take the time to provide samples. Those files are ONE possibility of what the back can acheive. So as always, best to rent one and do the testings with each personal approach and needs.

Cheers.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Guy Mancuso on October 04, 2010, 01:52:28 pm
The problem is and I have done this with pre-production P65+ back is it is pretty much radically different with the final shipping software.I could not even take the P65+ past ISO 100 at the time it simply was not ready for it. For me it does show some things right off he bat. It is here first of all, second it is a new 5.2 sensor that no one else has so this will be very interesting to see what is done with it on the Leaf but we all know this will find it's way into other backs in different configurations. Third the detail is there , now it may not look perfect at this point and I am going to just call it and say it will be different in look on final. The P65 was for sure on final, so we will have to see what happens there but the base of 80 mpx is showing and for some shooters that are looking that big holds a lot of promise. I think it is a good start and a thanks to Yair for getting us a look at them.


Keith was reading your post while I was writing mine. Simple answer because we want to see them and if nothing posted no one would believe it existed to start with. I have no problem with announcement images . I would have more problem with shipping final firmware images and looked like shit.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: yaya on October 04, 2010, 01:56:32 pm
Yair,

First and for most, thanks very much for the files.

Res is brillant as expected. I found the sharpening somewhere too pushed for my taste, and apparently it was setted in default, wich means everything and nothing at the same time.
Just the result is the result, and strangely I find the images "too detailed", I mean by that (sorry about my english) that render I wouldn't expect and that are closer to commercial gears, the lack of creamy John is talking about. Or I would say softness. Translating those samples into skin tones would be too much IMO.
It is like there where many images of a good dslr in one big image. Can't explain a better way.
I tried a quick huge upsample and would have liked to be able to control from less "agressive" sharp.

I guess this is a personal choice that works fine for Yair, and I'm not criticizing, specially when somebody take the time to provide samples. Those files are ONE possibility of what the back can acheive. So as always, best to rent one and do the testings with each personal approach and needs.

Cheers.


Thanks Fred,

The factory presets are geared towards commercial printing following nearly 50 years of experience in the pre-press business with Scitex, Creo and then Kodak. As such they provide the best "compromise" that gives the best results on paper. Sharpening wise they will generally look a tad too sharp on screen

The settings I've used are for product. The ones we have for portraits are smoother and of course you can tweak or disable them altogether.

We will have a camera for demonstrations at Fotoventas in Madrid next month so if you're there you'll be able to see it for yourself.

yair
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: fredjeang on October 04, 2010, 02:13:53 pm


Yair, I'll be in Madrid at that date so yes. By the way, if you guys go to Madrid, don't miss the Mario Testino exhibition in the Thyssen museum.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: yaya on October 04, 2010, 03:00:29 pm
Rule number 1

When linking to images that are intended to demonstrate image quality be sure that they are quality images.


...OK, the temptation was just too great.

...I won't bite, I won't bite, I won't bite, I won't bite, I won't....
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Dick Roadnight on October 04, 2010, 03:18:46 pm
What's the point of specifying no sharpening?
If the default setting over-sharpens for your taste or requirements, you would want to specify something different.

If you take portraits without remembering to change the setting from your landscape setting, it is nice to be able rectify your error by going back to the raw file and sharpening less.  
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: fredjeang on October 04, 2010, 04:50:56 pm
In all fairness to Yair and Leaf, showing a few files from the new Leaf back well before the shipping version is ready to buy is no different than being given the chance to see or try new software in demo phase. Its a nice privilege, a sneak peak, and also good for marketing the product by building some desire. Leaf has always had superb image output and I'm confident we'll see the same with the new back.

At least it's real and not vaporware or stuck behind glass.
What means vaporware? I need a better english translator
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: John R Smith on October 05, 2010, 03:45:59 am
Thank for the feedback John, my feathers are still held firmly in place :)

I say :P to the digicam stitch analogy and I invite you to compare your creamy 39MP digicam to this "thing" as soon as your nearest Leaf dealer get their demo unit in a few weeks time

Cheers

yair

Yair

We are I am sure all grateful to you for posting these examples here on the LL Forum. And I didn't really mean to be rude about your whizzy new back. But I do spend just about every evening working on RAW files from my MF back in Lightroom, so by now I think I have something of a "feel" for how I expect them to look. I expect there are several reasons why I was a bit underwhelmed -

* As others have noted, this is a pre-production example. Firmware will be different.

* The files I am looking at are JPEG, not RAW. This must affect quality at 100%.

* The landscape subjects you have chosen seem very flatly lit, so I am not getting a feel for edge contrast and "pop".

I think you have made the assumption that the subject that would show off your back the best would be something with amazing amounts of tiny detail. Well, yes, but all that really demonstrates is that you can print with this back to A1 rather than A2, and have as good a resolution as a 40MP back but twice as big (I think most of us already had that figured out, anyway). Which is all very well if you are into posters or wall-sized prints, but it doesn't really say anything about pictorial quality. I would rather see two or three really cracking pictures which pop off the screen and where tiny detail is just part of the story. And which show me something which I can't do with my 39MP, other than bigness.

John
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: bcooter on October 05, 2010, 04:28:16 am
I guess waiting for proper software/firmware wouldn't be a problem unless anyone remembers lc10.

Anyway, it the real purpose of this back is to show it has detail and doesn't moire, shoot a full length subject with a blue sweater.  Actually shoot a full length subject in horizontal wearing anything blue.   That'll do it.

Or maybe hire a professional photographer to showcase a professional camer . . . oh sorry what was I thinking?

BC
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: yaya on October 05, 2010, 04:56:49 am
Anyway, it the real purpose of this back is to show it has detail and doesn't moire, shoot a full length subject with a blue sweater.  Actually shoot a full length subject in horizontal wearing anything blue.   That'll do it.
Or maybe hire a professional photographer to showcase a professional camer . . . oh sorry what was I thinking?
BC

This is being taken care of.

Don't forget that there are applications other than people that require high amount of detail and lack of moire;) and yes these ARE professional applications...

Yair
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: bcooter on October 05, 2010, 05:28:55 am
I understand giving a sneak peak of what's to come for expensive products.

Car makers have done this forever, showing  a $30,000 future car with shaved door handles, lowered stance, bigger wheels and a better look than the production car will ever achieve.  It might be a little bit of a fake but it looks good and creates some positive buzz.

These aptus samples are the opposite because for whatever reason they're flawed.

You can market your camera any way you want, but it always seems counter productive that companies and dealers show not so flattering images from expensive cameras, to professionals that shoot expensive productions, expecting a positive response. 

it just goes against the basic tenants of advertising.

Of all the medium format makers, when it comes to marketing, Hasselblad seems to get it.  They align their marketing and website with interesting professional images, which is why anyone buys expensive equipment in the first place. 


IMO

BC
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Rob C on October 05, 2010, 05:57:08 am
"Of all the medium format makers, when it comes to marketing, Hasselblad seems to get it.  They align their marketing and website with interesting professional images, which is why anyone buys expensive equipment in the first place."


Absolutely, bc, and not only for MF but all formats. I remember way back, how cool the brochures that you would get from Nikon and Hasselblad used to look; wonderful pictures with great lighting; even Rollei used to produce good ones as did Mamiya for its RZ series and also their lenses; ditto the 67 RF one. Beautiful print quality, too. So good that I used to keep them filed, even when I had decided not to buy something.

Today you have the web if you want to look at something - enthusiasm becomes a self-created mind game, if it can be raised at all.

How much has been thrown away!

Rob C


Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: RobertJ on October 05, 2010, 08:04:07 am
The lesson I've learned is to disregard sample images, even though Yair is kind enough to provide them.  Look at samples from the past and present from Canon and Nikon, Phase (Phase samples didn't really exist...).  They are, for the most part, horrible.  Then when you get the camera in your hands, you know what it can really do.

Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Dick Roadnight on October 05, 2010, 04:00:55 pm
Of all the medium format makers, when it comes to marketing, Hasselblad seems to get it.  They align their marketing and website with interesting professional images, which is why anyone buys expensive equipment in the first place. 
IMO
BC
I have Hasselblads, and I have ordered an H4D-60,,, but I thought that Hasselblad were unusual for a manufacturer in that they seem to concentrate more on getting the product ¿and service? right than on Marketing it.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Gigi on October 05, 2010, 05:38:00 pm
WIth all respect to those who know more, my reaction at looking at these files was very simply,

OMG.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: feppe on October 05, 2010, 05:41:13 pm
Señor Roadnight,

¿Why the incessant ¿?¿?¿? when you're not even asking a question in spanish? ¿They show up in every post you type?

¡Inquiring minds want to know!

(If you blew all your cash on the Hassy gear, we can pool money together for a new keyboard if that's the cause. Least we can do for all your visual contributions.)

¨I'm glad I'm not the only one wondering about that..
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: JonathanBenoit on October 05, 2010, 07:01:04 pm
¨I'm glad I'm not the only one wondering about that..

Or his virtual viewpoint technique and the mysterious H4D-60 that is on its way.
I think he's just a little bit quirky. Nothing wrong with that.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: LKaven on October 05, 2010, 07:07:52 pm
Señor Roadnight, ¿Why the incessant ¿?¿?¿? when you're not even asking a question in spanish? ¿They show up in every post you type?
I don't see this in any of his posts on my browser.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: feppe on October 05, 2010, 07:54:18 pm
Or his virtual viewpoint technique and the mysterious H4D-60 that is on its way.
I think he's just a little bit quirky. Nothing wrong with that.

Definitely not, I'll take quirky over mundane any day. But some things are just plain annoying, especially when repeated.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: JonathanBenoit on October 05, 2010, 08:57:53 pm
I'm going to burn in hell for this; I don't care. For the last year and a half it's become beyond annoying with the "H3D this and H4D that" (Hasselblad makes great stuff, but that's beside the point here), endless Sinar P3, this 60MP vs that 60MP, DSLRs are for amateurs, and more from Señor R. Blah, blah, blah.

I shoot full time and I've owned a digital back, a dozen medium format cameras, a dozen 35mm and DSLR bodies, endless amounts of gear and it all doesn't matter. Hand me any camera, and I'll create something for me or for my clients. Gear doesn't make a photographer. Business skills, professionalism, contacts, networking and creativity. I'll gladly take my Canon G9, or Canon 5DII with a Zeiss 50mm and just go create instead of being bogged down with gear. Measurbation of pixels, too much emphasis on gear generates a creative mental block, an excess, a glut, that leads to nothing, empty pixels.

$100K of camera gear should be used to create some amazing stuff, I'll leave the judgement to others: http://www.hasselblad.com/hoc/photographers/richard-roadnight.aspx

Wait a second, are you telling that Hasselblad put a 50 megapixel picture of a f^%king cat on their website (reduced of course for web, plenty of full res cat photos on dpreview for the taking).

If you're going to talk the talk then walk the walk with a certain level of work. Some do and some don't. It's the constant noise that gets to me when I see nothing that shows that level.

Someone like bcooter can say whatever he wants, because he can back that shit up with kickass work and a long career to boot that we would all kill for. His success comes from within his head, not pixels and gear glut. That I respect. Others I don't.

Signing out for a good while.

Google is not our friend, it is our enemy:

http://www.mail-archive.com/prodig@connectinternetsolutions.com/msg01598.html

http://www.nick-t.com/blog/2010/03/no-youre-not-a-photographer-you-just-own-a-camera-facebook/#comment-46

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/160_megapixel_seitz_6x17_digital/#3

Truly some weird stuff. My advice, if you are going to be equipment pompous, then bring a truckload of elite photos, not a truckload of elite gear.

I've noticed that a photographer who says negative things about another photographer is insecure about their own skills. There is no place for insulting people. It makes you look weak.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: John R Smith on October 06, 2010, 03:50:31 am
Ahem.

Well, just for a moment, I will have a think about what Yair's new 80MP DB might be really good for, from my own professional experience.

* Aerial photography. Obviously, with APs, both oblique and vertical, detail is king. Especially vertical ones which will be geo-rectified and integrated into a corporate GIS.

* Historic building recording where the images will be rectified and used as the base for a CAD archive.

And outside of my personal experience I would imagine -

* Product photography where 5x4 is normally used (fabrics, food, watches, jewellery).

* Formal architecture and interiors.

I expect others here could add to this list. For my own work, which is largely pictorial and opportunist, I don't see much advantage over what I already have - except the ability to make a really severe crop and still have 40+ MP left. Which could admittedly be very handy when I make a total hash of framing something up.

John
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Dick Roadnight on October 06, 2010, 04:13:47 am
I've noticed that a photographer who says negative things about another photographer is insecure about their own skills. There is no place for insulting people. It makes you look weak.
Thank you, Jonathan... but could I really be insulted by being quoted?

I have been wanting to get on to the Hasselblad info site for over a year, but they insist on seeing six pictures, and I could not find six pictures that I was not ashamed of... I took the photograph of the cat (and the silver goblet) about a decade ago on film. I hope soon to be able to upload some better pictures. As I have stated several times on various boards, I have been ill since I bought my H3D11-50 and I have not been able to much with it.

¿What is the problem?

...My theory is that the leading inverted question make tells the reader that the following text is a question (it is, of course, obvious if the sentence starts with "what"), before they get to the question mark at the end of the sentence?

If there is a poor student (or photographer) in the UK Midlands who would like to use my equipment (and help me get it up and running) I would be very glad to hear from them... I think it is very difficult to get financially established as a photographer when you are on a budget and you are competing with tens of thousands of photographers with similar equipment... this is why I have been spending so much on kit (but much of it I have bought used on eBay over the years). T/S lenses and post processing techniques make it possible to do (almost) anything without a monorail, but I hope that there is a market for specialist photography for which my kit is suitable. 

A great nephew of mine used my lighting kit for his 'A' level photography exam, and I hoped that he might have taken up photography as a career and taken over my kit when I retire... also a nice, who has just taken up a place at university to study psychology.

I do not know of any UK educational establishment that teaches Merklinger and would be likely to have a student that would be likely to be interested in my equipment and techniques.

Yair... I am sorry you thread has been side-tracked, perhaps we should start a new topic.

I hope my H4D-60 will be "more than adequate" for many applications for many years and I will not have to upgrade. I bought the H3D-50 with the option to upgrade to the 60, which will enable me to print 18 *24" @ 360 original camera pixels per print inch, (without scaling or resampling).
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: fredjeang on October 06, 2010, 04:17:27 am
I'm going to burn in hell for this; I don't care. For the last year and a half it's become beyond annoying with the "H3D this and H4D that" (Hasselblad makes great stuff, but that's beside the point here), endless Sinar P3, this 60MP vs that 60MP, DSLRs are for amateurs, and more from Señor R. Blah, blah, blah.

I shoot full time and I've owned a digital back, a dozen medium format cameras, a dozen 35mm and DSLR bodies, endless amounts of gear and it all doesn't matter. Hand me any camera, and I'll create something for me or for my clients. Gear doesn't make a photographer. Business skills, professionalism, contacts, networking and creativity. I'll gladly take my Canon G9, or Canon 5DII with a Zeiss 50mm and just go create instead of being bogged down with gear. Measurbation of pixels, too much emphasis on gear generates a creative mental block, an excess, a glut, that leads to nothing, empty pixels.

$100K of camera gear should be used to create some amazing stuff, I'll leave the judgement to others: http://www.hasselblad.com/hoc/photographers/richard-roadnight.aspx

Wait a second, are you telling that Hasselblad put a 50 megapixel picture of a f^%king cat on their website (reduced of course for web, plenty of full res cat photos on dpreview for the taking).

Someone opens their wallet and manufacturers pander.

If you're going to talk the talk then walk the walk with a certain level of work. Some do and some don't. It's the constant noise that gets to me when I see nothing that shows that level. Give the f%$king camera to some poor, barely scraping by photo student who is truly the next vunderkind!

Someone like bcooter can say whatever he wants, because he can back that shit up with kickass work and a long career to boot that we would all kill for. His success comes from within his head, not pixels and gear glut. That I respect. Others I don't.

Signing out for a good while.


Truly some weird stuff. My advice, if you are going to be equipment pompous, then bring a truckload of elite photos, not a truckload of elite gear.



I'd like to see a real video of a new product, shoot in real situation by someone like B.C from the beginning to the end. No words, no explainations but just the shooting experience. Is that exists? For what I know it does not.
 



  
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: James R Russell on October 06, 2010, 02:13:30 pm
B
I'd like to see a real video of a new product, shoot in real situation by someone


Fred,

This is difficult.

To begin with we're a sound-bite society.  Most people want to hear a phrase.  If it's one line and works on facebook it's ok, if it takes a paragraph then it probably gets passed by.

Super detail, new lenses, shoots fast, something that seems like an obvious plus.  That's why they now sell a 80mpx back with no other improvements other than 80mpx.  As crazy as it seems even though there are full page 12 mpx 6 figure images running on the cover of every major magazine and on building sized images in times square, all the makers including the 35mm genre still cling to more megapixels on each new release.  

This thought is exasperated by the dozens of print and on line publications, and many more dozens of self appointed web experts,  that either push for advertising dollars, or close associations with the makers/sellers of equipment.  I mean which one of those sources is going to tell you not to buy something?

Michael Reichman probably is the best of the bunch as he tends to give a warts and all review of any camera that passes his way, but most, just push the kool-aid of their favorite brands and politely diss, or ignore  the brands that they don't associate with.  

But to show the process is basically showing that using any camera for heavy production is real work, sometimes hard work and that's not a message anyone wants to pay for.

Few makers ever want to spend the time and resource to show the complete professional process, that begins before you shoot and can finish weeks, even months after a project wraps on set.

Take pre production. Lenses and contacts have to be cleaned, sensors tested and cleaned (numerous times), drives and cf cards formatted, firewire cables and backups tested along with multiple computers.  That doesn't even include the charging of 12 or so batteries.

That can easily take a day and who wants to see a first assistant sitting at a table with a white cloth diligently cleaning lens contacts and firing blank frames into a computer.  (The camera/computer pre production really should be shown by all makers because it would cut down their complaint calls by 95%, but it's never really put out there).  It's funny because losing this day can mean a disaster on set.  I've heard a lot of photographers say my ______________ is crap because it crashed, but how many of them really went through a detailed process of preparing their equipment and testing everything before working?

The shoot day is really all anyone wants to see, since there are models on set and people are running around saying lovely, fabulous, etc. and from the outside it looks like fun.  If a software glitches, an image moires, or focus is missed that stuff is never seen as everyone has a brand to protect.

Anyone that tells you they never have a camera problem is probably standing on a manufacturer or dealers stage at a trade show, because no professional camera is perfect or bulletproof . . . that's why everyone owns or rents multiple backups.  This stuff is complicated and once again, either somebody is fibbing or doesn't work their equipment that hard.

The next process, intermediate post production where we process out jpegs and make web galleries, edits and contact sheets also falls into the boring category.  Who wants to see two red eyed techs or assistants, drinking red bull,  standing over an I-mac making adjustments and waiting for jpegs, or a tech trying to balance skin tones from an over sensitive digital camera.  Nothing sexy in that.  

Try to match skin tones of 14 subjects and still  hold the integrity of the surrounding image and do this on 1,2000 images a night.  I doubt if that will ever make a you tube video.

(Actually, give us a camera that shoots less sensitive skin tones that are easy to match and for my business, that's something to really talk about).

Then the final process of selecting images, making retouching markups, processing and retouching out to final is the one thing that every medium format maker should show and never does, because that is the only step in the process where medium format really excels over the 35mm competition.

You can learn phocus, c-1, lightroom, sinar capture, dxo whatever, (and you should), but in reality at this stage of the process 95% of all images of importance are processed in photoshop.  I know . . . horrors of horrors, but it's a fact.  To add fuel to this thought 95% of all images of importance and manipulated heavily in post production and once again the sharpness and details of medium format make this easier for the retoucher when working a file close, deep and especially when multiple images are combined.  Also one thing medium format fails to mention is that due to this sharpness, it's damn hard to tell a 21mpx image from a 40 mpx image if you uprezz in the raw convertor.  I shoot a p21+ next to a p31+ and I can promise you we work an image deep and most of the time I either forget or can't tell which image is from which back.

This is a simple image (these are fast screen shots) shot with a Contax and I think with a p21+ and when it gets to final (we're not there yet), it will have more layers than a government bailout program.  It's not that it wasn't good out of camera, or the model needed really any work, it's just in the world of digital capture and professional image making it takes a lot of post work to get to final, a lot of suggestions from clients, creatives and the whole post production team.  If this part fails, all that effort went for nothing so post production is not something to be passed over lightly.

(http://ishotit.com/full1.jpg)

(http://ishotit.com/crop1.jpg)

It also takes a view from multiple platforms.  It needs to be printed large and viewed web small as both uses have equal importance and what looks great full page, can look kind of plastic on the web.  Different mediums require a different look.

Regardless, Fred what you want, need, should see before plopping down even a buck fifty for a piece of equipment you probably never will see, or know of the issues until you write the check.  

JR
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: fredjeang on October 06, 2010, 05:08:17 pm
Thanks a lot James for this post.

Actually the sample you provided is the kind of pictures i would like to see more often, even if screen shot.



When I watch the crop, I'm pleased: real work situation. I know what can be extracted in pp, not like the over sharpened pics that are spread most of the time.

About that, I don't know if there is not a cultural tendency, built by the internet brain washing from decades about resolution. Resolution is fine but this is just one little part of the equation as you pointed.
So what is valuable now, are on one side the bluring experiments of the micro-stockish stuff or the Nasa satelites resolutions for landscapes leaves. But I find this resolution crusade actually giving detailed-cold-rigid imagery. That would suit perfectly for a dictature's propaganda.


But still, the MF manufacturers should really make an effort. Leica spent a fortune in fake fashion shooting in Cuba, and new-rich sophisticated tales for their rangefinders, so I guess there is money for doing big production when they want. Isn't that funny that Zacuto did the first video testing that could have been qualify realistic. If Zacuto can, Phase, Hassy and Co can also. Not in YouTube maybe, in their own website and 100% samples on request for their clients.


Who wants to tether any more after seen that? : http://www.peterlindbergh.com/#FILMS/15
Enjoy the movie.

Cheers.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: John R Smith on October 07, 2010, 07:09:45 am
A really good post from James, thank you for that. It makes me very thankful that I deal with un-temperamental subjects like churches and boats.

Thinking more about what I would personally really like to see in a new MF digital back (compared to my Hass CFV-39) -

* Not at all more megapixels. Unless it somehow means really enhanced IQ at small print sizes as well as huge ones.

* A truly useable ISO 800 would be great, rather than files which are crawling with noise.

* And please, not a bigger screen on the back, but just one which I can actually see outdoors on a bright day.

* And please, please, please - a battery level indicator!

John
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: mtomalty on October 07, 2010, 01:53:11 pm
BC wrote,

"it will have more layers than a government bailout program.  It's not that it wasn't good out of camera, or the model needed really any work, it's just in the world of digital capture and professional image making it takes a lot of post work to get to final, a lot of suggestions from clients, creatives and the whole post production team."


To me, that statement sums up what has become one of the failings of the new digital 'reality'.  Just because you can, does it,necessarily, mean you should?   (by 'you' I mean the collective 'you' and not BC)

Will that in mind, will your client sell one more pair of jeans or footwear based on all the additional effort expected in post ?

Again,BC, this is directed generically and not specifically at you or the linked image.

MT
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Nick-T on October 07, 2010, 02:43:31 pm
A really good post from James, thank you for that. It makes me very thankful that I deal with un-temperamental subjects like churches and boats.


Hi John I've added some thoughts below..
Quote

Thinking more about what I would personally really like to see in a new MF digital back (compared to my Hass CFV-39) -

* Not at all more megapixels. Unless it somehow means really enhanced IQ at small print sizes as well as huge ones.
Every time a new back comes out (and I started with a 6MP back) people (myself included) have said the same "We have enough Mega-Pixels already" but the sales figures ALWAYS favour the latest (ie biggest) chip so manufacturers are just catering to demand.

Quote
* A truly useable ISO 800 would be great, rather than files which are crawling with noise.
From what I have seen the H4D40 (alone amongst medium format) does this at full res. I am waiting to test this for myself but all the files I have seen at 800 ISO have been amazing (for medium format). There are some 1600 tests here. (http://www.nick-t.com/blog/2010/07/the-eyes-have-it-h4d40-high-iso/)
Quote
* And please, not a bigger screen on the back, but just one which I can actually see outdoors on a bright day.
I wish I new why MFDB screens were generally sub-par I'm generally told that the MFDB companies are just too small to be able to order the screens they want... That being said I thought the H4D60 screen was as good as my iPhone (3G) when I saw it and I believe there is a firmware resolution boost coming for it. I do take your point that screens are a weak point.
Quote
* And please, please, please - a battery level indicator!

All the H cameras have this and H4Ds will soon get artificial horizons which will be very handy!
Nick-T
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: fredjeang on October 07, 2010, 02:45:54 pm
BC wrote,

"it will have more layers than a government bailout program.  It's not that it wasn't good out of camera, or the model needed really any work, it's just in the world of digital capture and professional image making it takes a lot of post work to get to final, a lot of suggestions from clients, creatives and the whole post production team."


To me, that statement sums up what has become one of the failings of the new digital 'reality'.  Just because you can, does it,necessarily, mean you should?   (by 'you' I mean the collective 'you' and not BC)

Will that in mind, will your client sell one more pair of jeans or footwear based on all the additional effort expected in post ?

Again,BC, this is directed generically and not specifically at you or the linked image.

MT

Working with video is fun because in the rendering time I can read and post

Well, what you point depends, advertising is a lot about render and yes, it makes sell. I think it is not that we should not, it is indeed that we have to most of the time and it depends a lot of the client. There are 2 possibilities: or we go back in the "old age" with big big production, but as you know the current reality, when production decrease, post-production increase.  
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: E_Edwards on October 07, 2010, 02:56:07 pm
There will always be people outside these forums who may find this back interesting. For instance, it may be useful to me for the kind of work I do (jewels, watches), so I've arranged a demo as soon as it's possible. If it really makes my life easier, I will seriously consider it. I'm keeping an open mind.

For what it's worth, I too think that it could be counterproductive to show pictures that don't quite do the back proper justice, even though they generate some PR interest. The picture of the fabrics looks promising.

Edward
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: bcooter on October 07, 2010, 03:14:49 pm
snip........ Every time a new back comes out (and I started with a 6MP back) people (myself included) have said the same "We have enough Mega-Pixels already" but the sales figures ALWAYS favour the latest (ie biggest) chip so manufacturers are just catering to demand.

Nick,

I don't know if I fully agree, because usually more megapixels come with more features (this latest leaf excluded).  In the instance of the h4d40 it has higher iso and a larger screen than the previous model.

I've personally thought about a hd40 but would be quite happy with the 31, except the 40 is reported to be cleaner at 800 iso, though even with the dslrs I cut the iso number in half because they all seem to overstate what is clean and sharp.

Though if your premise holds true and the makers just play to the market, will we soon see an H 80mpx, a Phase 85+?

Regardless, I think rather than worry about what my cameras don't have, I think more like in the film days of what can I do with them that they allow.  With the Phase backs I have to tether because the lcd is really not usable, but I've found ways to make that work for me.

Now if medium format wants to really improve their market share I suggest finding someway to get the older cameras in the hands of younger photographers.  Our first assistant is a true digital age photographer and has never shot film, mostly shot his portfolio, (which is quite good) with a Canon 5d and 5d2.  Recently I've let him take my Contax's and backs on weekends to use for his work and now it's almost impossible to get them returned when he comes in on Monday.

I believe if there was a 31mpx option closer to the price of the Canon he'd buy it, or if the used market was more friendly in regards to repairs and dealer/maker support he'd probably go that direction.

I really think there should be a manufacturer's refurbished line of cameras, kind of the way the car makers do vehicles that have come off lease.  It would be a good entry point.

BC
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Dick Roadnight on October 07, 2010, 04:25:02 pm
From what I have seen the H4D40 (alone amongst medium format) does this at full res. I am waiting to test this for myself but all the files I have seen at 800 ISO have been amazing (for medium format).
Nick-T
[/quote]
Is the H4D-60 as good?
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: David Grover / Capture One on October 08, 2010, 03:31:22 am
From what I have seen the H4D40 (alone amongst medium format) does this at full res. I am waiting to test this for myself but all the files I have seen at 800 ISO have been amazing (for medium format).
Nick-T

Is the H4D-60 as good?

The H4D40 is more suited to ISO800 captures.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: John R Smith on October 08, 2010, 03:59:20 am
Well, the Kodak KAF 39000 sensor in my DB is now quite a venerable piece of kit in the world of medium format backs (a five year old design). So I don't expect miracles in terms of performance, although I must say that I do like the rather film-like image quality which it produces for me. It may be that the 50 MP sensor in the new CFV back will do a better job in many respects.

What I do find is that shooting at ISO 400 and then "pushing" the file + 1EV in Lightroom produces a better result than shooting at ISO 800. So that's what I do, when I am in a very dimly lit church and I simply can't use a tripod to get the angle I want.

John
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Fritzer on October 08, 2010, 12:25:17 pm
...., but in reality at this stage of the process 95% of all images of importance are processed in photoshop.  I know . . . horrors of horrors, but it's a fact.

Well, you know the old-school ways of shooting - are you saying you'd prefer the purity and joys of shooting film, and all the awkward analouge tweaking, handling and procedures that go with it, to some digital file, whatever it looks like, and Photoshop ?
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Fritzer on October 08, 2010, 01:04:45 pm
Bingo!

I'm also very tired of this internet noise about gear specs and the new promissed land 100MP back or whatever new gadget. And this is not Lu-La but generalised.

This topic happens to be about gear, so it's not surprising gear is being discussed here, is it ?
Good for you to have no need for gadgets, such as high-res digital backs .
Believe it or not - my Aptus 75 with its 33 MP is still adequate in my line of work, but a slightly bigger sensor and twice the resolution would be a great upgrade.
If you have to ask why - ...


Quote
Then, very very little real coverage of workflow in real situations, usability etc (wich IMO are much more interesting)...but no, just resolution, megapixels, ccd idiosincracy and how-tether-happy.

I'd like to see a real video of a new product, shoot in real situation by someone like B.C from the beginning to the end. No words, no explainations but just the shooting experience. Is that exists? For what I know it does not.

That wouldn't tell you anything about the product.
As a beginner, to experience a workflow, you need to be there.
Even better, work there, or do some shooting.

As for sharing user experience - I find this forum very helpful.

Someone has mentioned soundbites above - I'm sure there are how-to vids on youtube re. photography.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Doug Peterson on October 08, 2010, 01:39:27 pm
Agreed.

1) As pointed out above it's a very clearly labeled gear thread. If talking gear specs isn't your thing you don't need to open the thread.
2) Even in a very well written diatribe against focusing on gear the author still noted that he'd use a Zeiss 50mm rather than a Canon 50mm.  ;D

In all seriousness. Yes we all know. Gear doesn't make a photographer. Gear can only hope to
- provide a more visceral/pleasurable/preferable mode of capturing the image (easier manual focus, brighter/larger viewfinder, liveview, waist level viewfinder, better ergonomics, the feeling of mechanical connection to the imaging process)
- provide a distinctive look (e.g. bokeh/focus-falloff, unique color, use of extended dynamic range, unusual lenses like hassy 110/2 or mamiya 80/1.9)
- provide imaging tools/techniques otherwise unavailable (tilt/shift/swing, high flash sync speed, image stabilization, infrared/UV sensitivity, ultrafast glass, long exposures)
- provide more file flexibility (resolution, dynamic range, tonal smoothness, color look and color flexibility)

Resolution is one of those items listed. For any given photographer it may be at the very bottom, for some it will be towards the top. Just because you don't fit into the later category doesn't mean you should poo poo it.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) ("doug@captureintegration.com")
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/")
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
Personal Work (http://"http://www.doug-peterson.com/")
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: bradleygibson on October 08, 2010, 02:14:26 pm
+1
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: bcooter on October 08, 2010, 02:23:51 pm
Quote

snip
1) As pointed out above it's a very clearly labeled gear thread. If talking gear specs isn't your thing you don't need to open the thread.


I somewhat agree, though every thread doesn't have to turn into, or be limited to a sales pitch either. 

I think there might be some room to talk about photography, how we produce it and like most open thought it can lead to interesting sharing of ideas. 

Then again maybe not, maybe it should just be about new lenses and digital backs, though at this stage I think most participants know what dealers sell what brands, what brands "provide a distinctive look".

Personally, I'm not sure that any one brand provides as a clear distinctive look as some might assert.

Some are easier to use, some more cost effective, some brands more mature and more available in the market. 


BC
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: fredjeang on October 08, 2010, 02:45:39 pm
Fritzer,

There are different needs for different users. I don't know in wich area you are working and when you talk about workflow I assume that not in the same as mine.
Beginner? Well, kind of, I've never hiden where I am at the moment: just an humble assistant that is building his personal portfolio.

But the fact is I assist on a daily basis 2 star photographers and that means, huge production, international top models, big team, big brands etc...so I'm pretty much aware of what the workflow means beleive me and if you want to know who are they, I will be pleased to send you a personal message.

When I write things here (with my more than unperfect english I admit), it is not to criticize for criticizing. But I'm asking myself the same question about who's who, and who's advices are coming from a deep understanding of what the real work is, at least in the commercial photography and specially fashion (the area that I know), because it seems that we don't see the same things.
Maybe it is my lack of long years experience, maybe it is because my relativly young age, but my teacher is the plateau, not the forums apart from some photographers that I respect here their works and experience.

Each time we point about the progress we would like MF brands to do, it is regarded as a personal attack to the format, so what we should do is just being happy about the usability, the tether and the lcd and the prices. But the comments are not based on some wired wishes. Is it too much to ask when we are talking about those top gear products that the manufacturers send professional level photography instead of these snapshots that we generally see when release a new product? As James said, horrors and horrors...and like it or not, that's the reality.
In fact, DPreviewish websites should open a new MF section because that is exactly the kind of pics that are spread over and over again. At the beginning I was ok with that, I didn't even understood why some experienced photographers where complaining about, but now I join their views.

I'm always thankfull when soneone take the time to show files, but always disapointed that they are generally snapshots, with little if none information about the real back capabilities.
And when I read people getting enthousiastic about those snaps I just think that forums are democratic institutions where every voice counts...

It has been a long time now since I haven't seen a MF gear in at work, in fact, years. But again, I'm talking about fashion. I'm aware that for landscape, art and arquitecture etc...backs have their strengh, of course.
But the fact is that we would like to work with it, I would like to be able to take a Phase instead of the Canon 99%, but it is just too slow and too many hassles.
In my philosophy, I hate tether, others would love it and that's perfectly respectable. So my claim to MF is: give us the choice. If they just ged rid-of the computer dependence one day, I'm ready to invest a lot of money on those gear, but the reality of the production does not suit this jacket. None of the top photographers that I'm working with at the moment is shooting with backs, but they where in the past.

Also the gearmania, yes this forum is extremely usefull. Probably the best place to be on the internet for tech and gear. This is indeed a very powerfull exchange tool. But I never heard any real artist being obsess with gear, never in my all life. I was talking about when things reach the obsession, and I thing it happens quite a lot over the internet. Not of course about the healphy interest to talk and share about gear techs and specs.

IMHO.

 
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: yaya on October 08, 2010, 03:12:59 pm
Perhaps we should all take a step back and take note of the title of this thread and read it as it is?

I wonder how many of the critiques here would dare to post any of their images larger than 658p or 15" prints with no post processing? I mean I'm sure there are a few but only a few...

----

/the Aptus-II 12 snapper
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Dick Roadnight on October 08, 2010, 03:21:30 pm
Gear doesn't make a photographer. Gear can only hope to...
Technically, I think it is normally considered impossible to take a photograph without a camera... but I appreciate that many of the features of cameras only make it easier to set the camera... but it is only the lens, shutter and sensor that take the picture.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: fredjeang on October 08, 2010, 03:26:57 pm
Perhaps we should all take a step back and take note of the title of this thread and read it as it is?

I wonder how many of the critiques here would dare to post any of their images larger than 658p or 15" prints with no post processing? I mean I'm sure there are a few but only a few...

----

/the Aptus-II 12 snapper

;D ;D
Yair, I almost drop my cofee (yes it is 21 past 20 here and I'm on cofee) when I saw the signature. You have the sense of humor, wich is nice.
Well, I'm perfectly aware that the pics are not representatives of your personal work, there where here to show and share something "neutral" and my post was not directly aimed to you but a general feeling all over the internet.
But of course, when that's done you can expect reactions, some positives, others negatives and all view IMO have their rights.
In fact, that's a brands politics issue, not the Lu-La posters fault.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Rob C on October 08, 2010, 04:30:55 pm
Fred

Thanks for the Peter Lindbergh link; it was the best bit of watching that I have had in months.

I have been aware of his work for many years, and he is one of those photographers whose work you can usually identify right away; I was going to say blindfolded, but thought that would read as a slight exaggeration. He used to be a Hasselblad and Nikon man ever since I heard of him; I wonder if he still uses 'blads too... What did surprise me though, was how much rapid sequence he seems to do; I'd have thought that anyone from film would have got over that years ago.

It says all you need to say about small cameras (even if they are a damn sight bigger than they used to be) and their ability to move and catch life, even artificial life, as in photography. Something else it shouts is the huge difference in thought betwen a Germanic European and an Italian one. What it says about our transatlantic relationships with pictures is also very clear to see. They are almost worlds apart, not just an ocean. This is not to say one is superior to the other; just that the cultural differences are vast. I know exactly which one I would like to have been doing were it possible.

Another thing that it shows is the value, the contribution, of a real model, a woman with something to add to the moment. You just can't teach that sort of immediate reaction to instructions, suggestions nor your own (the model's) input without the photographer even opening his mouth. (Exactly what you mentioned is missing from the 'new' kids who you see coming into the business from a model school.) I note that he also, like so many, uses the same girls - women, now - as much as he seems able to do. And why not? The work becomes a combination of shorthand, unspoken understanding of each other and above all, the respect that being together so often makes obvious. It works, damn it, it just works. His Golden Age continues.

Rob C
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: fredjeang on October 08, 2010, 05:20:48 pm
Fred

Thanks for the Peter Lindberg link; it was the best bit of watching that I have had in months.

I have been aware of his work for many years, and he is one of those photographers whose work you can usually identify right away; I was going to say blindfolded, but thought that would read as a slight exaggeration. He used to be a Hasselblad and Nikon man ever since I heard of him; I wonder if he still uses 'blads too... What did surprise me though, was how much rapid sequence he seems to do; I'd have thought that anyone from film would have got over that years ago.

It says all you need to say about small cameras (even if they are a damn sight bigger than they used to be) and their ability to move and catch life, even artificial life, as in photography. Something else it shouts is the huge difference in thought betwen a Germanic European and an Italian one. What it says about our transatlantic relationships with pictures is also very clear to see. They are almost worlds apart, not just an ocean. This is not to say one is superior to the other; just that the cultural differences are vast. I know exactly which one I would like to have been doing were it possible.

Another thing that it shows is the value, the contribution, of a real model, a woman with something to add to the moment. You just can't teach that sort of immediate reaction to instructions, suggestions nor your own (the model's) input without the photographer even opening his mouth. (Exactly what you mentioned is missing from the 'new' kids who you see coming into the business from a model school.) I note that he also, like so many, uses the same girls - women, now - as much as he seems able to do. And why not? The work becomes a combination of shorthand, unspoken understanding of each other and above all, the respect that being together so often makes obvious. It works, damn it, it just works. His Golden Age continues.

Rob C
Rob,
I'm glad you enjoyed his "30 years of Vogue" movie as much as I did. As you say, it just damn works!
Maybe Lindberg taught me a very important thing, "just be yourself". I never felt at home with strobes and you know, one ends doing things because of the habit but something in your head says "why? is there a deep reason?". And then, same for the tether bondage. I realised that following my own path is the way. Man, do you see the same as me? it is pure relashionship with the model, I mean organic, artistic... almost violent, but there is an incredible amount of creative energy. He shoots like a dancer, and dance with the model. A cable, a laptop is not possible because it would break the dynamic.
I'm back into hot lights. Freedom! freedom to move arround and get very close, freedom to shoot stills and then movie in a second, while the (inter)action is happening and then back to stills.
When watch these kind of monster working, does gear matters? This is something else, it's art, at the top. How refreshing!
Great Peter Lindberg!
 
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 09, 2010, 09:13:37 am
Great comment, BC!

Best regards
Erik


Nick,

I don't know if I fully agree, because usually more megapixels come with more features (this latest leaf excluded).  In the instance of the h4d40 it has higher iso and a larger screen than the previous model.

I've personally thought about a hd40 but would be quite happy with the 31, except the 40 is reported to be cleaner at 800 iso, though even with the dslrs I cut the iso number in half because they all seem to overstate what is clean and sharp.

Though if your premise holds true and the makers just play to the market, will we soon see an H 80mpx, a Phase 85+?

Regardless, I think rather than worry about what my cameras don't have, I think more like in the film days of what can I do with them that they allow.  With the Phase backs I have to tether because the lcd is really not usable, but I've found ways to make that work for me.

Now if medium format wants to really improve their market share I suggest finding someway to get the older cameras in the hands of younger photographers.  Our first assistant is a true digital age photographer and has never shot film, mostly shot his portfolio, (which is quite good) with a Canon 5d and 5d2.  Recently I've let him take my Contax's and backs on weekends to use for his work and now it's almost impossible to get them returned when he comes in on Monday.

I believe if there was a 31mpx option closer to the price of the Canon he'd buy it, or if the used market was more friendly in regards to repairs and dealer/maker support he'd probably go that direction.

I really think there should be a manufacturer's refurbished line of cameras, kind of the way the car makers do vehicles that have come off lease.  It would be a good entry point.

BC

Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: fredjeang on October 09, 2010, 10:33:38 am
I'll risk leaping to Fred's defence here.

I admire his passion and enthusiasm. He has it seems had his head turned by one or two of the more experienced photographers on LL and in particular JR, or should that be BC, hell, to avoid confusion I'll refer to him here as JC.
I can think of worse photographers to look up to and try to emulate, in fact I can think of few better, and this is a positive. However, sometimes "beginners" - not my words - or as I'll refer to them here, disciples, are best served by speaking less and listening more. Photographers such as JC, and others, have a wealth of knowledge and have formed opinion based on a wealth of experience.

I don't doubt that given the opportunity he's been given, together with his passion and enthusiasm, Fred will go on to greater things and in time also have a wealth of knowledge and experience to share. I wish him luck.

 
I kind of agree with you Keith. I am in a strange position at this time where my experience "on my own" is not matured enough and at the same time I'm working like crazy in big productions and get experience faster and faster in the plateau with photographers I admire and respect. It is a big privilege, I am aware of that opportunity. So I can opinate "from a safe place", but at the same time, I do not have the personal maturity and background.

About James Russell, the reason why I often coincide with his views, regardless of the personal apreciation I have for his work, is that I simply see and experience the same things as he does. But fair to say that I'm in a similar area. If I did not agreed with him, I would express it the same way. But it just results that when he writes something, I can see that the content corresponds to what I also experience in commercial photography with human being involved. That correlation is to me the reference that BC posts are reliable. Of course, he is not the only one, there are many experienced photographers here, and so many different needs. I feel probably close to James because of the area involved and also as I pointed several times, because when he shoots humans, they still look humans and not robots. And in fashion it is so easy to "overdo".
I see a lot of those over processed pics in the "recent pro works" section.
The other reason, and this is to me important, is that James embrassed the video lenguage. Many of his posts have been really usefull in the movie section for example.
So yes, to me, James is an healphy influence, exactly like the masters I'm working with at the moment but on the internet. Of course, I have recognized several other masters in this forum too that inspire me.
You are also one to me Keith. I've been a fan of your work from the beginning. This is a totally different approach from commercial photography, but I come from painting and can really apreciate the quality involved in your photographic images (and I know that internet never deserves the real printing quality).

Thanks for the encouragement.

Cheers.


Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Fritzer on October 09, 2010, 10:56:48 am
Perhaps we should all take a step back and take note of the title of this thread and read it as it is?

I wonder how many of the critiques here would dare to post any of their images larger than 658p or 15" prints with no post processing? I mean I'm sure there are a few but only a few...

----

/the Aptus-II 12 snapper


Oh, you're still here ? ;)

As for the images posted in the original post, thanks for those, gives me an impression of what the capabilities of the A12 could be like.
As for post processing - personally, I don't care what the raw file or processed 16bit looks like, as long it is sharp, detailed, and as free of issues as possible .
Just as I regarded film.

Fritzer,

There are different needs for different users.

My point entirely.
That's why labeling an 80MP digital back a gadget, and to ramble about MP-race and such nonsense, is ignorant at best.

Contrary to popular belief, photographers who spend 30k or so on a product like this, usually know very well what they are doing and why.


Quote
But the fact is I assist on a daily basis 2 star photographers and that means, huge production, international top models, big team, big brands etc...so I'm pretty much aware of what the workflow means beleive me and if you want to know who are they, I will be pleased to send you a personal message.

You are in a good place then.

Quote
When I write things here (with my more than unperfect english I admit), it is not to criticize for criticizing. But I'm asking myself the same question about who's who, and who's advices are coming from a deep understanding of what the real work is, at least in the commercial photography and specially fashion (the area that I know), because it seems that we don't see the same things.

Your English is at least as good as mine . ;)
As for advice - there is no magic bullet.
And without experience, it's difficult to fully understand what seasoned pros like some of the posters here are sharing .
I know this sounds arrogant, but there you go .


Quote
Also the gearmania, yes this forum is extremely usefull. Probably the best place to be on the internet for tech and gear. This is indeed a very powerfull exchange tool. But I never heard any real artist being obsess with gear, never in my all life. I was talking about when things reach the obsession, and I thing it happens quite a lot over the internet. Not of course about the healphy interest to talk and share about gear techs and specs.

What I think is, the only people obsessed with certain gear are the ones who have no idea what it is made for, let alone are using it .
Every time I read the phrase 'it's the artist, not the gear, stupid' , I know there is nothing to learn from the person writing this.

The gear discussion you read about here, it's just the tip of the iceberg - and it's got bugger all to do with creativity , that's a whole different topic.
Tether, no tether, it's not a matter worth discussing; horses for courses.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Doug Peterson on October 09, 2010, 12:51:57 pm
I somewhat agree, though every thread doesn't have to turn into, or be limited to a sales pitch either. 
[...]
Then again maybe not, maybe it should just be about new lenses and digital backs, though at this stage I think most participants know what dealers sell what brands, what brands "provide a distinctive look".

Personally, I'm not sure that any one brand provides as a clear distinctive look as some might assert.

:-(

If you look at my list half the items would not favor the purchase a MF system (though to be fair half would). The point of the list is that you buy gear in photography for specific reasons.

Distinctive look could apply as much (in fact even more) to a Holga with cross processing as it could to any brand I use.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Dick Roadnight on October 09, 2010, 02:15:19 pm
What I think is, the only people obsessed with certain gear are the ones who have no idea what it is made for, let alone are using it  ...

...horses for courses.
I think some here think I am obsessed with "certain gear", but the courses for which I want horses include old stone architecture and landscapes, and I want grass not to look like a billiard table, stonework not to look like toffee, and skin not to look like plastic.
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 09, 2010, 02:37:27 pm
I think some here think I am obsessed with "certain gear", but the courses for which I want horses include old stone architecture and landscapes, and I want grass not to look like a billiard table, stonework not to look like toffee, and skin not to look like plastic.

Hi Dick,

Can also be achieved by using a longer focal length and stitching more tiles ..., it also allows to adjust focus to the tile in question, and thus achieve focusstacking. Of course stationary subjects are easiest with such an approach.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Rob C on October 09, 2010, 02:48:19 pm
I think some here think I am obsessed with "certain gear", but the courses for which I want horses include old stone architecture and landscapes, and I want grass not to look like a billiard table, stonework not to look like toffee, and skin not to look like plastic.



Dick, you already held the answer in your hand: film.

I'm not joking. I have been struggling with a project of my own - the planning stage, trying to find co-operation (much as one often did with fashion and calendar travel) and the fact is that most of the subject matter is going to be more or less exactly what you specify, with the addition of water. I am seriously thinking of using my venerable Nikon F3 or a rangefinder instead of the two digitals I have, D200 and D700. Why? I have never been convinced that the beautiful colours that digi gives me are also giving the detail I think is there. I base that opinion of the way I see my own A3+ material, most of it from Kodachrome, and I don't know that digi outperforms it; yes, Kodachrome's just a song now, I know.

Rob C
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Dick Roadnight on October 09, 2010, 02:58:18 pm
Hi Dick,

Can also be achieved by using a longer focal length and stitching more tiles ..., it also allows to adjust focus to the tile in question, and thus achieve focusstacking. Of course stationary subjects are easiest with such an approach.

Cheers,
Bart
Yes, Horses for courses...
I have chosen Apo-Digitars with large image circles for shift-and-stitch, and I have a 300mm I intend to use on a Clauss... so, when I do want lots of pixels, I will have options.

...then, to photograph a train at speed, I am toying with the idea of using 2 P3's, 2 Hassy digibacks, 2 eShutters, a matched pair of Apo-Digitars and a pocket Wizard system to sync them.

This would, of course be a relatively flat subject for which Virtual viewpoint should work well, especially if most of the background was steam!
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Dick Roadnight on October 09, 2010, 03:07:53 pm
Dick, you already held the answer in your hand: film.

I yes, Kodachrome's just a song now, I know.

Rob C
Hi, Rob...

I really appreciate the advantages of digi, but I appreciate that for hi-res large landscapes including moving trains, waves, boats etc., sheet film can be an asset, but (back on topic) 60 or 80 Mpx backs allow you to print quite large at high res without having to stitch.

Film is ideal for stone buildings and beach scenes, as long as the grain is only evident where you want to see grains of sand! (but Kodachrome was grain-free).
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: JSK on October 09, 2010, 04:09:59 pm


I believe if there was a 31mpx option closer to the price of the Canon he'd buy it, or if the used market was more friendly in regards to repairs and dealer/maker support he'd probably go that direction.

BC


thats the area Pentax should have covered instead they are (without digital MF customer base) going against Phase Leaf Hasselblad
and with similar prices.. not to mention their presence as far as renting availability replacements troubleshooting experience etc.. sure
I can support their effort and nostalgia aside but who are they kidding?
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Rob C on October 09, 2010, 04:33:25 pm
  Re: >61MP image files for peepers
« Reply #91 on: Today at 10:35:02 AM » Reply Quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: Fritzer on Today at 09:56:48 AM
"Every time I read the phrase 'it's the artist, not the gear, stupid' , I know there is nothing to learn from the person writing this."



Quote from: Fred
"I completly agree with that. Repeating over and over again "gear does not matters, it is the artist" is the same as the opposite "gear is all". I never beleived that statement in a way or another.
IMO, gear should respond, embrasse, suits a particular artist's approach and style of working."



Well, take another look at the Peter Lindbergh site and run through the movie clips. If anyone still agrees with the first quotation, they haven't been paying attention to what they've been seeing.

The truth is, he (Lindbergh) could be working with any similar camera, but he happens to be a Nikonista; but the point is, the shoot is all his and his girls' work, not the equipment that is the star.

Rob C


 
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Fritzer on October 09, 2010, 05:00:33 pm
IMO, gear should respond, embrasse, suits a particular artist's approach and style of working.
So, yes it is important. It is even important to know the gear that don't fit with one's needs.

Rhight. And as long as existing gear fits the needs of certain fotografers, that gear is spot-on .

Quote
The thing is that internet is full of tech addicts and commercial vendors and maybe, the cultural bombing about megapixels have been doing damages for the very beginning of digital tools.

Yo have the attitude of a DPR-forum laymann - MPs in the professional world are the 3rd coming - the 2nd one being larger sensors.

Quote
But the competition is tough. In short, dslr have improoved incredibly while MF makers have choosen the path of heavier and bigger artillery, basically. I'm not sure this is the correct path, but I don't have a cristal ball and wish they know their clients and targets enough.


MFDB is bigger, heavier, and delivers better quality. For those who know their cameras - MFDB systems have beome smaller and faster in the digital erea.

 DSLRs have gone nowhere really, with the 5DII being the only exception.
All other top models in DSLR are overprized; you can't get any compact FF non-DSLR at an affordable prize, and APS-C models have everything geared toward the amateur market, what with the lack of a finder, and even swiveling displays limited to vertical (movie) shooting at times .
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 10, 2010, 04:30:23 am
Hi,

I got the impression the Pentax 645D is selling well in Japan. The Pentax 645 was a well respected MF camera and the Pentax 67 was a classic. Also, it is my understanding that the 645D has pretty decent AF, much better than usual in MF. So I wouldn't count out Pentax.

Also, I'd say that the direct competitor to Pentax 645D is the Leica S2, and in that comparison the Pentax is almost free.

I cannot see that an MF camera would be possible at DSLR prices at least not with interchangeable components. I own a Pentax 67 myself and it was really cheap at the time I bought it. My guess is that development cost has been depreciated long ago and the construction is quite simple. A modular camera will always be more expensive.

Whether the Pentax 645D will be success or failure the market only can decide.

Best regards
Erik


thats the area Pentax should have covered instead they are (without digital MF customer base) going against Phase Leaf Hasselblad
and with similar prices.. not to mention their presence as far as renting availability replacements troubleshooting experience etc.. sure
I can support their effort and nostalgia aside but who are they kidding?

Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Rob C on October 10, 2010, 04:38:14 am
The Pentax 645 was a well respected MF camera and the Pentax 67 was a classic. Also, it is my understanding that the 645D has pretty decent AF, much better than usual in MF. So I wouldn't count out Pentax.
Best regards
Erik
[/quote


Yes, Eric, and so did I own a Pentax 67 II; and we both know the problems that baby gives with vibration from that two-ton shutter!

So it, along with most of the other MF cameras I tried, was as flawed as a three-wheeled car (which I have also owned, to my shame).

Hardly something that deserves the term classic, though that's indeed how the common history is rewritten, not only here but almost anywhere that people chew the fat and reminisce...

Rob C
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 10, 2010, 01:55:12 pm
Hi,

I sorted out the vibration issues on the Pentax by switching from Manfrotto 055 to Velbon Sherpa Pro. With film and a decent tripod the Pentax 67 was much better than 135. A friend of mine had a Hasselblad and I think that it could be that his images were a bit sharper than mine, I don't know. But I would say that he Pentax 67 definitively was OK once you learned to live with it.

Best regards
Erik


The Pentax 645 was a well respected MF camera and the Pentax 67 was a classic. Also, it is my understanding that the 645D has pretty decent AF, much better than usual in MF. So I wouldn't count out Pentax.
Best regards
Erik
[/quote


Yes, Eric, and so did I own a Pentax 67 II; and we both know the problems that baby gives with vibration from that two-ton shutter!

So it, along with most of the other MF cameras I tried, was as flawed as a three-wheeled car (which I have also owned, to my shame).

Hardly something that deserves the term classic, though that's indeed how the common history is rewritten, not only here but almost anywhere that people chew the fat and reminisce...

Rob C
Title: Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Post by: Rob C on October 10, 2010, 04:09:41 pm
Eric

Mine lived on a Gitzo G410, G1371 head, a combination almost heavier and tougher than which I could lift!

I've just watched a rerun of a DVD that a friend sent me some time ago; it's about James Ravilious, a photographer of English rural life. He used an M3 and old lenses that were not coated. The work is beautiful... we have lost a hell of a lot along the way, mainly, I think, the power to see beauty in what might be thought ugly; but perhaps most seriously of all, the purity of black and white photographic tonality.

Rob C