UPDATES Luminous Landscape Home
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 »
 1 
 on: Today at 05:42:49 PM 
Started by Esben - Last post by Esben
Bump

 2 
 on: Today at 05:29:57 PM 
Started by Rainer SLP - Last post by Rainer SLP
The workshop participants and the workshop teacher (blue shirt) in action on the second day early morning at the brotherhoods church while the devote people where making the Via Crucis = Stations of the Cross ...

 3 
 on: Today at 05:19:33 PM 
Started by Chris Sanderson - Last post by BernardLanguillier

Guys, note that I am not the one who brought up stitching in this thread and that my point was clearly that stitching isn't a perfect substitue for MF both in terms of adressable applications and - to a certain extend - look.

As far as look goes, although stitching does simulate well one key difference resulting from the use of longer focal lengths on MF, it doesn't compensate for the differences in lens construction, unless you use a MF lens on a 35mm body. Wink

But I guess that what you write isn't as important as what people think you write.  Grin

Cheers,
Bernard

 4 
 on: Today at 05:15:56 PM 
Started by Doug Peterson - Last post by robert zimmerman
Hi Robert,

It's a big world out there with many different types of image makers. That would include Fine art,  lifestyle and resort, high end advertising and architectural photographers who have brought Phase One digital backs and cameras.  

Not mention Photography Equipment Rental houses or Production houses who like to have the latest tech on hand.

Yes, it is a big world and I'm sure there are people that can afford anything. But, I don't see a relevance anymore for professional photographers. I'm not ruling everybody out but a large proportion of professional photographers that shoot stills for print and web imaging, it just doesn't make economical sense. I have a p1 IQ160 and a df body. I use that camera for some of my studio work, but I won't be spending 8.000 for a better single autofocus point. I don't need a seismographic shutter release or a touch screen, etc. Yes, it's pretty and it's technically impressive, but it's irrelevant for shooting people in a studio. I'm not dissing the camera, but 8k? Really? For a camera with a single autofocus point? Really?

 5 
 on: Today at 05:14:25 PM 
Started by torger - Last post by Iliah
Yes, they could have controlled the light better - and it is of course not about the amount of light per se, but about light missing the target, shielding the lens using proper hoods; cleaning the lenses, closing the viewfinder, etc. But we deal with what we have.

As to the amount of light, here is something to take into account. In studio we need profiles for the light we use for production shots. If it is with flashes, it is the same power as in production shots, or spectrum is different. Same with hot lights. So general additive flare is inevitable in such shots. The larger are the softboxes and the more diffused the light is, the more of the light misses the target and scatters back to the lens. As the actual production shot usually occupies the area larger than the target the flare and glare on the target are not characteristic to the scene. Scene needs different linearization.

SG target is suboptimal, as is CC24 as both are based on pigments that were created for quite a different set of spectral response curves (film), not having deep overlaps (like substantial red channel response to the blue-green range of spectrum) like CFAs do. But those are the only readily available. On top of that, CC24 has nothing useful for flat-fielding, even being matt it is still not quite to the challenge of profiling outside the studio.

 6 
 on: Today at 05:02:01 PM 
Started by jjj - Last post by graeme
I imagine he's thinking of this. The soundtrack, the narrator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcdDg30VBgo

Yeah, & a few of their other ads. That was my immediate impression watching the vid.

 7 
 on: Today at 04:57:52 PM 
Started by Brian Hirschfeld - Last post by NickT
I think $8k retail is high for a body,

Actually I'm amazed they could sell it this cheaply. In fact I am amazed that Phase were able to do this at all given the huge R&D costs associated with creating a new camera like this.

I do wish the tire kickers (not you Joe), would stop whining about a camera they have not yet seen, and are never going to buy anyway. Instead let's congratulate Phase on making the thing and giving Hasselblad some (more) competition to think about.

Well done Phase One.

 8 
 on: Today at 04:52:50 PM 
Started by gdh - Last post by gdh
Motivated to sell! Smiley

 9 
 on: Today at 04:52:03 PM 
Started by Jim-St - Last post by Wayne Fox
I had to install the driver for the r3000 recently through Apples update process which is probably why I no longer see the Epson 3.0 update (although I did right click on that update and set it to hide).  No ill effects.  So I think things work OK now.

But if  you don’t have one of those printers, I would try hiding the Epson updates in the app store instead of installing them.

 10 
 on: Today at 04:51:05 PM 
Started by gdh - Last post by gdh
I've had some pm asking if I'll take offers--of course Smiley  I've changed the wording of my post to better reflect that.

I'm motivated to sell.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 »