Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: So You Think Medium Format Digital is Easy?  (Read 9440 times)

rogan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 194
So You Think Medium Format Digital is Easy?
« on: April 13, 2009, 10:53:37 pm »

Did Michael just complement himself in the 3rd person???????

"Joe is among a group of well known landscape photographers, including Bill Atkinson, Charlie Cramer, Mark Dubovoy, Tim Wolcott, and Michael Reichmann who previously worked with large format film and who now shoot with medium format digital Phase One backs in the 39MP – 60MP range on a mix of Hasselblad, Mamiya / Phase One, and technical camera bodies."
Logged

Mort54

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 590
    • http://
So You Think Medium Format Digital is Easy?
« Reply #1 on: April 13, 2009, 11:51:59 pm »

I commend Joe Holmes for his incredible dedication to precision in his quest to get the most out of a Phase One back. But here's the rub. If Phase One would only implement live view, with magnification, on their back's built-in LCDs, Joe's extraordinary efforts wouldn't be needed. Imagine the kind of focussing precision he (and the rest of us) could achieve if he had access to magnified live view. This would let him examine focus with a precision that far exceeds the puny 3X to 6X magnification he's getting with those expensive Zeiss monoculars.

With all of Phase One's advances in MP, and DR, and noise - all commendable - they are neglecting perhaps the most compelling useability enhancement they could give us. Unless you've used one of the new DSLRs with 400% live view, you can not begin to appreciate the amazing focussing precision that can be achieved using this technique. It puts the finest loop and the finest ground glass on the finest 8 x 10 to shame. And there are no focus calibration issues to deal with. You are using the actual image from the sensor, greatly magnified, for visual focus confirmation.

To my mind, it simply doesn't make sense to have an expensive, high MP MFDB unless one also has the means to achieve critical focus. I frankly don't think current AF systems are up to the task of focussing for a 60 MP back (or even for a 39 MP back).  At these kinds of resolutions, close enough is no longer good enough - what you gain in MP, you loose thru sloppy focussing tolerances. Phase One, do us a HUGE favor and give us true on-the-back-lcd live view, with magnification. You can do it when tethered to a laptop, so from the standpoint of getting the pixels out of the sensor, it's clearly doable. Point and shoots can do it. Modern DSLRs can do it. It's time a $40K back did it.

Again, kudos to Joe for his dedication. But it's also a testament to the hoops one has to jump thru to achieve something that Phase (and other back makers) should have solved by now.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2009, 11:55:03 pm by Mort54 »
Logged
I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
So You Think Medium Format Digital is Easy?
« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2009, 12:36:46 am »

Quote from: Mort54
I commend Joe Holmes for his incredible dedication to precision in his quest to get the most out of a Phase One back. But here's the rub. If Phase One would only implement live view, with magnification, on their back's built-in LCDs, Joe's extraordinary efforts wouldn't be needed.

First thing that came to my mind when I read this article...

Cheers,
Bernard

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
So You Think Medium Format Digital is Easy?
« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2009, 12:58:12 am »

Hi,

LV solves the first problem of three. The sensor and the lens still be aligned and the lens must still be within specs. LV may be helpful in finding out.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
First thing that came to my mind when I read this article...

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

laughingbear

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 232
So You Think Medium Format Digital is Easy?
« Reply #4 on: April 14, 2009, 07:08:36 am »

Quote
Photographers -- expect trouble and look for it.

Personal experience:

I spoke with Joe a couple of times, and apart from having a Heck of a lot of knowledge, he is one Heck of a nice guy as well. His line of thinking when it comes to environment is pretty much where I am coming from as well. Ok, this has nothing to do with photography, may be, but I consider it more important alltogether and feel inspired to dedicate a part of my website to these issues as well. Thanks Joe!

With regards to the 28HR, I had one on loan from Sinar and I was utterly disappointed by it's performance. I am not jumping to conclusions, and in fairness, I am not technically educated enough to make a judgement in that respect, but it looks like I had a sausage there as well.

Frankly, it was my first experience with MFDB, so I was insecure as to what degree this might have been down to myself rather than the gear used, originally I blamed myself but in that respect, I guess it was good that Michael saw me operating and using the gear. Naturally, as I hauled a 50k system on loan around the world, I was extremly careful and much slower than "Speedy Gonzales" <grins> with his Hassy, but at the end he did not think it was down to user error or me being new to MFDB. When we looked at a few frames it was darn obvious that the lense did not perform to the level it should have been expected. For what it's worth.

Without going into specific details, I had even more severe troubles concerning the digital back itself, which was unlucky in deed, but the matter of fact was that twice I had a defect unit which lead to loss of files, unusable RAW files. Personally, I felt extremly disheartened by this experience. I thought, well, if I would have made that trip around the world on a payed assignement, no insurance would have covered me for the loss of income, let aside damage to reputation, at least not in Ireland.

Now please, do not get that wrong, I am not on a mission to badmouth MFDB because of my own troublesome experiences, but at the end, I concluded that investing money on such a scale is coming along with a lot of insecurities as to what you get for your bucks. OK, you will have warranty and support, but even that did not convince me, considering the time and efforts involved to get a top notch performing working system without the hassle. I thought, if you are extremly lucky, you get a system that performs out of the box as advertised, but chances are roughly 4:1 against you. So you end up sending gear back, getting stuff fixed, which costs nervs, time and effort, eventually loss of income as well. A lot of hoops to jump through in deed.

Last not least, and I am really curious to know whether this is standard, and to date I have no idea whether this was due to the fact that the Lense I used was a loan only. But is was delivered in a ridiculously flimsy recycled cardboard box with some foam wrapped around it. Ok, this lense system is somewhat different in shape, but I really wondered about the lack of propper protective packaging. Again, I stand to be corrected, may be it is delivered in a protective Pelicase or similiar when one buys it, I have no idea. <shrugs>

To date, I did not invest money into MFDB, and I am looking towards the Leica S2 to find out whether this might be an answer to my struggles, particulary the use in the field. I found it rather distracting to not have a sealed system that can withstand some weather. Then again, that is just me. I love to walk long hours, sometimes I do walks of 8-10 hours and using delicate gear such as a SINAR M with digital back and a set of 3-4 lenses puts considerable weight on my back, together with a DSLR and may be two more lenses. In a rather volatile weather such as we have in Ireland, it certainly keeps the adrenaline going when suddenly some rain comes down, which can happen extremly quick here, and you have to wrap up your setup quicker than Michael shoots. <smile>

I had entire days walking in remote areas setting uo the MFDB, only to wrap it up again before I even could take a single shot. LOL, talk about the myth of Sysiphus.

Thanks a lot for the articles Joe!

Best wishes

Georg Baumann
OCEANVIEWSTUDIO
« Last Edit: April 14, 2009, 07:09:13 am by laughingbear »
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
So You Think Medium Format Digital is Easy?
« Reply #5 on: April 14, 2009, 08:53:55 am »

Quote from: rogan
Did Michael just complement himself in the 3rd person???????

"Joe is among a group of well known landscape photographers, including Bill Atkinson, Charlie Cramer, Mark Dubovoy, Tim Wolcott, and Michael Reichmann who previously worked with large format film and who now shoot with medium format digital Phase One backs in the 39MP – 60MP range on a mix of Hasselblad, Mamiya / Phase One, and technical camera bodies."


Compliment? All I wrote is the paragraph which you quote. It is factual in that I, as well as the other photographers mentioned are well known, and we all switched from LF film to medium format digital. Sorry, I don't see where I complimented myself.

Michael

Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
So You Think Medium Format Digital is Easy?
« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2009, 09:53:48 am »

Quote from: michael
Compliment? All I wrote is the paragraph which you quote. It is factual in that I, as well as the other photographers mentioned are well known, and we all switched from LF film to medium format digital. Sorry, I don't see where I complimented myself.

You have been outsourcing your writing to India haven't you?

Cheers,
Bernard

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
So You Think Medium Format Digital is Easy?
« Reply #7 on: April 14, 2009, 10:30:48 am »

No, just exercising the journalistic prerogative of referring to myself in the third person.  

Michael
Logged

JeffKohn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1668
    • http://jeffk-photo.typepad.com
So You Think Medium Format Digital is Easy?
« Reply #8 on: April 14, 2009, 12:52:09 pm »

Quote from: Mort54
I commend Joe Holmes for his incredible dedication to precision in his quest to get the most out of a Phase One back. But here's the rub. If Phase One would only implement live view, with magnification, on their back's built-in LCDs, Joe's extraordinary efforts wouldn't be needed. Imagine the kind of focussing precision he (and the rest of us) could achieve if he had access to magnified live view. This would let him examine focus with a precision that far exceeds the puny 3X to 6X magnification he's getting with those expensive Zeiss monoculars.
I agree 100%. To be honest I thought live view was a bit of a gimmick when it was first announced on DSLR's. But after owning a DSLR with live view and a 900k-dot LCD with high magnification, I'll never go back. I never used manual focus lenses on my D2x, because getting critical focus was all but impossible. But now live view plus manual focus (or contrast-based AF with my autofocus lenses) is my preferred shooting method. I would never consider buying into a camera/system that didn't have live view with magnification.
Logged
Jeff Kohn
[url=http://ww

dng88

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
So You Think Medium Format Digital is Easy?
« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2009, 01:37:41 pm »

Quote from: michael
No, just exercising the journalistic prerogative of referring to myself in the third person.  

Michael

Not sure about this.  Agreed that is a fact you are well known as well as from many formats to use these backs.  Also, agreed that you have prerogative as this is your site.   But is that journalistic to refer yourselves as third person.  I feel it very odd the first time when read your name presented in this way.  Really not sure and I cannot agree to it I am afraid.

The article itself point to something - is it still better to use film in large format especially if you are not in commercial setting.  
Logged

Wally

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
So You Think Medium Format Digital is Easy?
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2009, 03:53:09 pm »

Quote from: laughingbear
Personal experience:

I spoke with Joe a couple of times, and apart from having a Heck of a lot of knowledge, he is one Heck of a nice guy as well. His line of thinking when it comes to environment is pretty much where I am coming from as well. Ok, this has nothing to do with photography, may be, but I consider it more important alltogether and feel inspired to dedicate a part of my website to these issues as well. Thanks Joe!

What I don't understand is that he calls burning gas a sin on one page, and then on the other he brags about all the traveling he does and then brags about how much gear he takes with him and how heavy it all is when he does said traveling.

Makes me wonder why if he is so concerned with global warming and burning fossil fuels, why he even travels at all? Why not just stay home? What is his carbon foot print with all of that traveling with heavy gear
« Last Edit: April 14, 2009, 03:54:56 pm by Wally »
Logged

Joseph Holmes

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
So You Think Medium Format Digital is Easy?
« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2009, 05:15:40 pm »

[...But here's the rub. If Phase One would only implement live view, with magnification, on their back's built-in LCDs, Joe's extraordinary efforts wouldn't be needed. Imagine the kind of focussing precision...
[/quote]

Mort, I couldn't agree more.  My top request for a next-generation back from them is a workable Live Preview.  Eleven days ago, I got to speak with Niels Knudsen about it, and what he told me is that their limitation is processing power in the back (at least in the context of doing on the back what they're now doing in laptops and desktops).  Previously the hints which had been passed out by various people in the med. format industry that I've seen or heard had to do with the CCDs just not being able to do it, the way small, interline CCDs and CMOS sensors can, but then Phase One does manage at least one implementation of Live Preview, though it tends to get panned pretty badly in comments I've seen and I've never gotten around to trying it.  So I really have no clue as to how many generations away they are.  One?  Two?  or more... I am especially hoping that it will be nicely implemented so you can very quickly zoom to 100% on any part of the image and zoom back out, making it easy to find the right spot to look at.  At least the monocular works, and it's available now.
Logged

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
So You Think Medium Format Digital is Easy?
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2009, 06:00:36 pm »

Quote from: Joseph Holmes
At least the monocular works, and it's available now.
I use a split image screen in my Contax 645 and that works as well.
It's easy to align the screen to the film plane of the P45.
Actually I never liked the split image screens as I found them distracting. But you get used to it very soon.
Without... I feel blind. And I haven't had a single shot out of focus by now (from tripod of course).
So the split image screen is my live-live view.
On my small Cambo the lens first focussed beyond infinity (the contrary to your findings).
But it's easy to adjust the lens to infinitiy... so what.
And for closer distances a laser distometer works quite well.
Having said that I'd be happy about better LCD resolution to verify focus after capture (with or without live view... me personally I don't care but I see the upsides). Especially at distances at almost but not quite infinity. When I shoot with the Cambo without laptop (mostly) in these cases (i.e. distances just ahead of infinity) I do some "focus bracketing" and one of them is always focussed correctly.
Workarounds, sure... but they work.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2009, 06:03:42 pm by tho_mas »
Logged

Joseph Holmes

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
So You Think Medium Format Digital is Easy?
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2009, 06:09:59 pm »

Quote from: Wally
What I don't understand is that he calls burning gas a sin on one page, and then on the other he brags about all the traveling he does and then brags about how much gear he takes with him and how heavy it all is when he does said traveling.

Makes me wonder why if he is so concerned with global warming and burning fossil fuels, why he even travels at all? Why not just stay home? What is his carbon foot print with all of that traveling with heavy gear

Wally:  I suppose it's to be expected that some of us would still be confused about what it is that we need to do about this very big problem for all of us (though many prefer to ignore it, or worse, deny it, to the serious detriment of all).

First of all, I don't travel with a lot of heavy gear.  The heavy reference was with respect to <hiking> with the gear.  And unless it were hundreds of pounds, the weight of my gear would generally be totally irrelevant to my traveling carbon footprint anyway.  It's the vehicle, its fuel consumption, the number of people in, it the productivity, etc.

Second, I don't "brag about all the traveling I do" either.  In case you didn't think of it, photographing a place does actually require being in that place.  And yes, burning fossil fuels <is> a sin, which we are unfortunate to need to do now to live well and even to live at all.  If we were collectively smarter, we would have been investing, for many decades now, a fraction of the one-time wealth you get from burning the stinking fuels, into the systems that will make them obsolete.

At the risk of sounding silly, I could explain all the many things I do in my own life to very carefully and thoroughly diminish my carbon footprint and everyone else's: our house has an annual electricity bill of $0, since we make nearly all our own electricity from the sun, and what we do make helps to diminish the peaking power demands on the grid, disproportionately reducing both kinds of pollution, the conventional and the climate disrupting greenhouse gas variety; we avoid consumption of red meat, as it has an average extremely high carbon footprint; we support many avenues of political action to promote smarter and more far-sighted public policy on energy than that which has been dictated to us by the money of the dirty energy companies; we work to teach other citizens about the issues that we face, about which most people remain largely clueless; we avoid unnecessary travel and combine trips as much as possible; we shop with great care to avoid extra manufacturing impacts; and a whole lot more.  As it happens, our carbon foot print at home is about 1/5th that of an average Amercan's.  What is your's?  That's only one of the major chunks of atmospheric impact that each of us has, but along with shopping habits, it's the one over which we have the most direct control.  The remainder is largely a political and an education problem.

Who taught you that we have two choices: to either live like fools, rapidly transforming the planet into a wasteland, or to simply curl up and die?  Somebody's been pulling your chain.
Logged

mtomalty

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 541
    • http://www.marktomalty.com
So You Think Medium Format Digital is Easy?
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2009, 07:13:41 pm »

Hey Joseph,

This might not be the appropriate place to ask but, after reading through your repots, I have one broad question to ask.

Why?

I don't mean to sound flippant but after years of honing your craft in the methods that you discuss,and showcase, on your website
why the desire to move to a MF digital workflow?

From the results that your tests have provided are you convinced that the end product  (a saleable,large format print)  is a significant
enough improvement to endure the frustrations you have written about?

You are/have migrated from a time tested technique where you can reliably reproduce a quality product to one that is fraught with
apparent obstacles  (sharpness/focus issues, color casts when camera movements are required, and very significant costs to acquire
the best equipment to have a chance to take advantage of certain technological advances).

From your site, and what I have seen in print about you for some years, it doesn't appear that you are a high volume photographer
so that leaves the resulting quality as the impetus and is something I would be curious to hear about rather that speculating secondhand.

Anyhow, if you are interested in sharing anything on the subject I'd be grateful as I have come close to making a similar move a few times
in recent years but have always decided that the gains that I could see in less rigorous testing than you have done didn't compel me to
make the change at the expense required.

Best,
Mark Tomalty

www.marktomalty.com


Logged

Wally

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
So You Think Medium Format Digital is Easy?
« Reply #15 on: April 15, 2009, 10:49:53 am »

Quote from: Joseph Holmes
Wally:  I suppose it's to be expected that some of us would still be confused about what it is that we need to do about this very big problem for all of us (though many prefer to ignore it, or worse, deny it, to the serious detriment of all).

First of all, I don't travel with a lot of heavy gear.  The heavy reference was with respect to <hiking> with the gear.  And unless it were hundreds of pounds, the weight of my gear would generally be totally irrelevant to my traveling carbon footprint anyway.  It's the vehicle, its fuel consumption, the number of people in, it the productivity, etc.

according to US Government Studies having an extra 100 punds of gear in a car reduces fuel economy by 1-2% with smaller lighter cars on the larger end. So yes any extra gear does matter

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml

Quote
Second, I don't "brag about all the traveling I do" either.

hmmm you say this on your website

I have extensive river-rafting experience, on some twenty rivers from Maine to Alaska, and have been in all but two of the fifty states. For most of the last twenty years, the camera outfit that I have schlepped all over creation has weighed in at thirty-four pounds"
http://www.josephholmes.com/bio.html

So you have been to 48 of the 50 states and have been on 20 rivers from Maine to Alaska. That is a lot of traveling.

 
Quote
In case you didn't think of it, photographing a place does actually require being in that place. And yes, burning fossil fuels <is> a sin, which we are unfortunate to need to do now to live well and even to live at all.

If you really think that burning fossil fuels is so bad why do you continue to travel at all? Does the world really need another picture of half dome? Or any place else for that matter? In case you didn't think about it you really do not need to travel at all now do you?

Quote
At the risk of sounding silly, I could explain all the many things I do in my own life to very carefully and thoroughly diminish my carbon footprint and everyone else's: our house has an annual electricity bill of $0, since we make nearly all our own electricity from the sun, and what we do make helps to diminish the peaking power demands on the grid, disproportionately reducing both kinds of pollution, the conventional and the climate disrupting greenhouse gas variety

Is that all the more reason not to just stay home? When you plug in your laptop, and battery chargers on the road how much coal does that burn? How much carbon does the airplane, the cab, the train, the rental car, or your own car make when you travel from place to place?


Quote
Who taught you that we have two choices: to either live like fools, rapidly transforming the planet into a wasteland, or to simply curl up and die?  Somebody's been pulling your chain.

Who taught you that you have no choice but to travel to 48 states just to make photographs? The truth of the matter is that you don't have to, and if you really practiced what you preach you wouldn't.

But you do it because you love it. I have no problems with that. I like to travel and make photographs also. Yet by doing what you love you are also doing what you call a sin.
Logged

John.Murray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 886
    • Images by Murray
So You Think Medium Format Digital is Easy?
« Reply #16 on: April 15, 2009, 12:51:34 pm »

Quote from: Wally
If you really think that burning fossil fuels is so bad why do you continue to travel at all? Does the world really need another picture of half dome? Or any place else for that matter? In case you didn't think about it you really do not need to travel at all now do you?

If that is your opinion, what are you doing here?
Logged

luong

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 259
    • http://www.terragalleria.com
So You Think Medium Format Digital is Easy?
« Reply #17 on: April 15, 2009, 02:21:13 pm »

What struck me was the following:

"The sensors in medium-format backs (33, 39, 50, 60 million pixels, etc.) can produce phenomenally sharp images, but all too often they don't, for a variety of reasons. My sense is that it is much easier to fail to reach the potential of these systems than it is for a competent view camera user to do the same with sheet film."

I was always under the impression that it was so much easier to make a technically good photograph with a MFD camera than with a view camera (see for instance http://www.largeformatphotography.info/mistakes.html), but this article was really great in pointing out to difficulties that are not often mentioned. Thanks again Joe for sharing with us the results of your investigations.

Logged
QT Luong - author of http://TreasuredLandsBook.com, winner of 6 national book awards

Pete Ferling

  • Guest
So You Think Medium Format Digital is Easy?
« Reply #18 on: April 15, 2009, 03:16:03 pm »

It just goes to show you that no matter what the technology, you still need skills.

Even on a crop sensor camera such as a 40D, when I'm shooting product in the studio with fine pitch text and small parts, and using a very sharp lens.  I find that autofocus does not always hit the mark.  It is a joy to use live view and 10x maginifaction, and being able to shift the image in the finder to see what's in focus, and to fine tune that focus to take advantage of a sharp lens.  Then use a combination of MLU and timer delay.   In terms of scale, it still makes a difference.
Logged

Wally

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
So You Think Medium Format Digital is Easy?
« Reply #19 on: April 15, 2009, 03:59:23 pm »

Quote from: Joh.Murray
If that is your opinion, what are you doing here?

Well since you asked, I don't think the world needs another picture of Half Dome or any other Fine Art Photograph for that matter. However there is a difference between needs and wants. I want to shoot photographs of such things because I enjoy them, people want to have such photographs because they enjoy looking at them.

When I want to do something, and have the financial means to do so, I generally do it. For example next week I am going for a weekend of photography in the Blue Ridge Mountains of West Virginia, I can afford to do so, and I want to do it because it brings me enjoyment. I don't need to do such things, I do them because I want to.

I also don't think I am sinning when I fill up my car with gas for this trip. In fact I will use about 45-50 gallons of gas on my trip. When I make the drive from my home along the NY/PA line down to West Virginia I will drive right past Lake Erie. Lake Erie was formed when the ice from the last Ice Age melted. That tells me that this area was once much colder than it is now.

After that I will drive through areas that were covered with vast glaciers not to long ago. That tells me that at one point the Earth was much colder than it is now, then the Earth got much warmer and all that ice melted. If I look at the rocks and topography in these areas I can see first hand how glaciers have advanced and retreated many times over the eons of time. That means that over time the earth warms up, then gets cooler, then warms up again.

Just think about all the cavemen in the last ice age driving big cars, living in huge houses running the AC and the Heat, flying around in private Jets and owning big huge boats with big huge motors. If they did not live back then like Al Gore does now they might not have seen the global warming that melted all that ice.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2009, 04:02:53 pm by Wally »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up