Long Exposures, Dark Frames and IQ260 vs P45+

[synn]

This is not wrong exposure. It's the correct exposure. Even with flash and lighting it is not practical to illuminate the background. As technology advances we can achieve what was not easy for our previous generations.

My dear Mr. Song,

I am sorry, but you have absolutely no idea how portrait lighting works. You dont use the flash to illuminate the background and the only people attempting to do that are your garden variety tourists walking around with their pop up flashes up. What any competent portrait photographer will do is to set the flash power in such a way that the subject is slightly higher exposed than the background, then set the camera exposure to expose the subject properly (Which ensures a slightly under exposed background). You don't need a ton of DR for this or the ability to push shadows a lot. In fact, you can do this with film and not do any post work. Whether you're working against a sunset or harsh midday sun, the technique is exactly the same. The extent to which the background is underexposed is usually left to the artist's vision.




The examples you've quoted are again, one of those internet special tests where gear is pushed to the limits on purpose to showcase some technical achievement. It once again has no bearing on real world use.

Looking at your body of work, I realize that portrait work is not within your area of expertise. So perhaps, you should leave such discussions to others who have a bit more experience in it. Please stick to discussing long exposure landscapes. You're quite competent at that.

[voidshatter]

I know you would!

And by the way, your 'comparison shots' are really badly exposed and there's nothing to compare here. Different exposure times and ISO settings everywhere, nothing to make sense of...what were your trying to achieve? I mean seriously... that was a huge waste of time!

That's not an offence but it's a fact - and I said earlier: if you can't expose correctly you're better off with a CMOS back to correct your mistakes. So if a CMOS works for you I'm happy for you. Congratulations!

But that doesn't mean that others can't work with CCD backs.

The lowest possible ISO setting for the IQ260 in normal mode is ISO 50 and in long exposure mode is ISO 140. Read the product manual if you have never touched it in person.

The exposure times were offset to achieve the same levels of exposure saturation of the four channels of the bayer array (R G B G2) among different cameras. This could be verified by RawDigger and was posted here. If you are not even familiar with the technical details then this makes no sense for you and it is indeed a waste of time.

[Christoph B.]

The lowest possible ISO setting for the IQ260 in normal mode is ISO 50 and in long exposure mode is ISO 140. Read the product manual if you have never touched it in person.

The exposure times were offset to achieve the same levels of exposure saturation of the four channels of the bayer array (R G B G2) among different cameras. This could be verified by RawDigger and was posted here. If you are not even familiar with the technical details then this makes no sense for you and it is indeed a waste of time.

So you agree that your comparisons were useless then? Thanks!

Next time keep it short and simple!

edit: and I was of course referring to your comparison of the 50mpx cmos and 60mpx ccd back where the exposure times and ISO weren't even close and in any case completely underexposed.

[voidshatter]

My dear Mr. Song,

I am sorry, but you have absolutely no idea how portrait lighting works. You dont use the flash to illuminate the background and the only people attempting to do that are your garden variety tourists walking around with their pop up flashes up. What any competent portrait photographer will do is to set the flash power in such a way that the subject is slightly higher exposed than the background, then set the camera exposure to expose the subject properly (Which ensures a slightly under exposed background). You don't need a ton of DR for this or the ability to push shadows a lot. In fact, you can do this with film and not do any post work. Whether you're working against a sunset or harsh midday sun, the technique is exactly the same. The extent to which the background is underexposed is usually left to the artist's vision.

The examples you've quoted are again, one of those internet special tests where gear is pushed to the limits on purpose to showcase some technical achievement. It once again has no bearing on real world use.

Looking at your body of work, I realize that portrait work is not within your area of expertise. So perhaps, you should leave such discussions to others who have a bit more experience in it. Please stick to discussing long exposure landscapes. You're quite competent at that.

Thank you for attaching your examples but I'm afraid there is no sun inside your pictures - you are not shooting against the sun.

[synn]

Mybe you didn't understand what I explained. It's immaterial if the sun is in the shot or not, the technique is the same. It doesn't matter how bright something is (a strobe close to the camera can be 3x as bright as the sun, for example), you can ALWAYS underexpose it. The key is to ensure that you light the subject in such a way that the background is a stop (or more) under it, then expose the shot for the subject.

This is easily achieved with leaf shutter lenses and strobes, which allows the photographer to use faster shuuter speeds to kill strong ambient (Such as direct sun in the shot).

Example from Frank Doorhof:

https://frankdoorhof.smugmug.com/Portfolio/Fashion/i-99WfdjM/A

[voidshatter]

and I was of course referring to your comparison of the 50mpx cmos and 60mpx ccd back where the exposure times and ISO weren't even close and in any case completely underexposed.

I don't think attaching RawDigger screenshots could make sense for you but others can see it

[voidshatter]

Mybe you didn't understand what I explained. It's immaterial if the sun is in the shot or not, the technique is the same. It doesn't matter how bright something is (a strobe close to the camera can be 3x as bright as the sun, for example), you can ALWAYS underexpose it. The key is to ensure that you light the subject in such a way that the background is a stop (or more) under it, then expose the shot for the subject.

This is easily achieved with leaf shutter lenses and strobes, which allows the photographer to use faster shuuter speeds to kill strong ambient (Such as direct sun in the shot).

Example from Frank Doorhof:

https://frankdoorhof.smugmug.com/Portfolio/Fashion/i-99WfdjM/A

Thanks - you just gave me a perfect example showing the limitations of a camera with limited DR! Do you see the background shot as silhouette? Little details can be seen for the trees and mountains far away from the lady.

[Christoph B.]

I don't think attaching RawDigger screenshots could make sense for you but others can see it

That's nice. but it doesn't help you. Make similar exposures with similar settings, they you have a valid comparison.

I know you're having a hard time but try to remain polite, otherwise I won't and you wouldn't want that. I'm pretty good at insulting people.

[voidshatter]

That's nice. but it doesn't help you. Make similar exposures with similar settings, they you have a valid comparison.

I know you're having a hard time but try to remain polite, otherwise I won't and you wouldn't want that. I'm pretty good at insulting people.

The RawDigger screenshots already proves almost identical exposures between these two cameras

Well you could of course keep trying 

[synn]

Thanks - you just gave me a perfect example showing the limitations of a camera with limited DR! Do you see the background shot as silhouette? Little details can be seen for the trees and mountains far away from the lady.

I don't think you're an idiot, so I am pretty sure you're being dense on purpose.

When one is using lighting, you are in complete control. You can expose the background higher, use a different modifier to light up the model more evenly and make the shadows lighter and so on. You can make the entire scene devoid of shadows. It'll make a terrible picture, though. The DR of the camera is irrelevant as you don't even use half of it in strobe lit portraiture. This is not opinion, this is fact.

The reason that picture has a dark background is that Frank's work always has strong shadows. This is how he shoots with CCD, with CMOS, with Leaf, Canon and Sony. The DR of the camera is the least interesting thing to him.

Stupid or dense, at this point it's clear to me that a discussion with you is a waste of time.
Good day.

[Christoph B.]

The RawDigger screenshots already proves almost identical exposures between these two cameras

Well you could of course keep trying 

I'm not trying. But it's amusing to see you squirm.

[voidshatter]

I don't think you're an idiot, so I am pretty sure you're being dense on purpose.

When one is using lighting, you are in complete control. You can expose the background higher, use a different modifier to light up the model more evenly and make the shadows lighter and so on. You can make the entire scene devoid of shadows. It'll make a terrible picture, though. The DR of the camera is irrelevant as you don't even use half of it in strobe lit portraiture. This is not opinion, this is fact.

The reason that picture has a dark background is that Frank's work always has strong shadows. This is how he shoots with CCD, with CMOS, with Leaf, Canon and Sony. The DR of the camera is the least interesting thing to him.

Stupid or dense, at this point it's clear to me that a discussion with you is a waste of time.
Good day.

I guess you still don't get my point. I don't believe the previous portrait examples I gave are terrible pictures. The backgrounds are indeed very natural (instead of purely black).

In Frank's example, the background is very far away from your light and there is no way you can light up the trees from such a long distance away. Next time if you shoot directly into the sun you will understand what I'm talking about.

Have a good day 

[TonyVentourisPhotography]

To get this relatively back on topic...
You may find it in your interest to contact either Digital Transitions or Capture Integration and get a demo done.  I would seriously try out the systems before diving in.  I used the the IQ series as my first dive in digital MF and I much prefer those backs.  The P45 has a worthless screen.  If you need to confirm anything in the field, your only tool is a roughly the histogram.  Expect to shoot at ISO 50 all the time.  Why would you not want a dark exposure?  Aside from the extra time, the noise reduction is usually beneficial in my experience.  Would you be making your own darks after the fact? Honestly, between the P45 and the 260...you have a groundbreaking difference.  Ide go with the newer one for the interface alone.  I own a P45 though, price made a difference for me at the time I purchased.

Also, keep in mind how you will work landscape photography and what kind of work you like.  Even with a Hasselblad or Phase body, shooting is still slower paced than a Nikon dslr i find.  Depending which system you go with, keep in mind your filters may get MUCH larger.  The dslr lens filter rings are usually 77mm with a few in the 80s.  Hasselblad lenses are in the 90s. 

If you intend to work with a tech cam in the field, the better screen view of the 260 will serve you well.  I shoot with a tech cam as well and have traveled to shoot landscape with it before.  I rarely use it as my landscape camera any more.  Keep in mind the need for LCC shots if you stitch movements together.  If you are doing long exposures this can be annoying too.  Unless you make REALLY good notes of your settings and reshoot the LCCs later in better light.  It's just a lot to deal with in the middle of nowhere late at night.  I can get results that please me equally as much with gear that requires less work to produce.

That being said...the MF colors and tones are still way nicer than the dslrs out there.  IMO.   

[voidshatter]

To get this relatively back on topic...
You may find it in your interest to contact either Digital Transitions or Capture Integration and get a demo done.  I would seriously try out the systems before diving in.  I used the the IQ series as my first dive in digital MF and I much prefer those backs.  The P45 has a worthless screen.  If you need to confirm anything in the field, your only tool is a roughly the histogram.  Expect to shoot at ISO 50 all the time.  Why would you not want a dark exposure?  Aside from the extra time, the noise reduction is usually beneficial in my experience.  Would you be making your own darks after the fact? Honestly, between the P45 and the 260...you have a groundbreaking difference.  Ide go with the newer one for the interface alone.  I own a P45 though, price made a difference for me at the time I purchased.

Also, keep in mind how you will work landscape photography and what kind of work you like.  Even with a Hasselblad or Phase body, shooting is still slower paced than a Nikon dslr i find.  Depending which system you go with, keep in mind your filters may get MUCH larger.  The dslr lens filter rings are usually 77mm with a few in the 80s.  Hasselblad lenses are in the 90s. 

If you intend to work with a tech cam in the field, the better screen view of the 260 will serve you well.  I shoot with a tech cam as well and have traveled to shoot landscape with it before.  I rarely use it as my landscape camera any more.  Keep in mind the need for LCC shots if you stitch movements together.  If you are doing long exposures this can be annoying too.  Unless you make REALLY good notes of your settings and reshoot the LCCs later in better light.  It's just a lot to deal with in the middle of nowhere late at night.  I can get results that please me equally as much with gear that requires less work to produce.

That being said...the MF colors and tones are still way nicer than the dslrs out there.  IMO.

The fullframe CCDs have corner issues when you do exposure longer than 10 minutes. Both the IQ380 and the IQ260 are susceptible to this problem. This can be observed even from the sample images you can get from the dealers.

[voidshatter]

Tiling issue is also another artifact for the fullframe CCDs (and if you do long exposure it is more susceptible to this).

IQ180: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/53546-help-wb-exposure-when-shifting.html
IQ180: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/45242-issue-iq180.html
IQ180: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/35873-iq180-frustrations.html
IQ160: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/52161-tiling-how-remove-post.html
IQ160: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/50367-iq160-tiling-issue.html

[BobRoss]

To get this relatively back on topic...
You may find it in your interest to contact either Digital Transitions or Capture Integration and get a demo done.  I would seriously try out the systems before diving in.  I used the the IQ series as my first dive in digital MF and I much prefer those backs.  The P45 has a worthless screen.  If you need to confirm anything in the field, your only tool is a roughly the histogram.  Expect to shoot at ISO 50 all the time.  Why would you not want a dark exposure?  Aside from the extra time, the noise reduction is usually beneficial in my experience.  Would you be making your own darks after the fact? Honestly, between the P45 and the 260...you have a groundbreaking difference.  Ide go with the newer one for the interface alone.  I own a P45 though, price made a difference for me at the time I purchased.

Also, keep in mind how you will work landscape photography and what kind of work you like.  Even with a Hasselblad or Phase body, shooting is still slower paced than a Nikon dslr i find.  Depending which system you go with, keep in mind your filters may get MUCH larger.  The dslr lens filter rings are usually 77mm with a few in the 80s.  Hasselblad lenses are in the 90s. 

If you intend to work with a tech cam in the field, the better screen view of the 260 will serve you well.  I shoot with a tech cam as well and have traveled to shoot landscape with it before.  I rarely use it as my landscape camera any more.  Keep in mind the need for LCC shots if you stitch movements together.  If you are doing long exposures this can be annoying too.  Unless you make REALLY good notes of your settings and reshoot the LCCs later in better light.  It's just a lot to deal with in the middle of nowhere late at night.  I can get results that please me equally as much with gear that requires less work to produce.

That being said...the MF colors and tones are still way nicer than the dslrs out there.  IMO.

Sage advice mate, thanks a lot!

[Christoph B.]

Tiling etc are mainly a software and calibration issues and should not occur if you "just" take photos and not torture files unnecessarily.
If you use CaptureOne (which you should) it will most likely eliminate those issues anyway.

Doug said it in the "issue with IQ180"-topic: "Again, if you see any form of tiling in Capture One with supported lenses with any reasonable photographic adjustment (e.g. +4 stops, +50 contrast, +50 saturation is not a reasonable adjustment) the back should be recalibrated."

[JoeKitchen]

In Frank's example, the background is very far away from your light and there is no way you can light up the trees from such a long distance away. Next time if you shoot directly into the sun you will understand what I'm talking about.

In so many words, you just showed the difference between a photographer and a technician that happens to use photography. 

To a technician, Frank's image makes no sense.  Why on earth would you want no detail in the background when modern technology allows it to be recorded. 

The a photographer though, that picture is awesome!  Nothing need be improved! 

I am sure that if Frank Dorhof wanted to, he could have maintained detail completely in that background.  But that is not his style, and would have distracted from the image. 

[BobRoss]

In so many words, you just showed the difference between a photographer and a technician that happens to use photography. 

To a technician, Frank's image makes no sense.  Why on earth would you want no detail in the background when modern technology allows it to be recorded. 

The a photographer though, that picture is awesome!  Nothing need be improved! 

I am sure that if Frank Dorhof wanted to, he could have maintained detail completely in that background.  But that is not his style, and would have distracted from the image.

One could argue however that as photographer you are a technician also! Lovely work by the way.

[JoeKitchen]

One could argue however that as photographer you are a technician also! Lovely work by the way.

Yes and no, and thanks; due a little to my mindset and the clients I work with.  However, I do contest that I am not 100% technician; I do light my work for feeling and shadows where as the pure techies just HDR it.  (To them, "why light when HDR allows you to balance the image?")

Lately, I have been trying to be not so uptight and to just let somethings go.  I am also looking to add other types of clients who would allow we to work a little looser too.