Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: compare MF digital backs  (Read 6056 times)

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Re: compare MF digital backs
« Reply #20 on: January 21, 2011, 10:51:36 am »

Don't get me wrong I also like the Phase backs.
Main reason for me at that moment was I fell in love with the colors and look of the Dalsa chip.
At that moment Phase did use other chips and I found the skincolors of the Leaf backs in the studio a bit better.

Phase one has much more sales however I think so it's not more than normal that you see more Phase backs :D
I also wanted a bigger sensor and at that time Leaf was also in that case the best choice for me.
Logged

DeeJay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
Re: compare MF digital backs
« Reply #21 on: January 21, 2011, 11:04:07 am »

Thanks. Interesting. I used an Aptus22 a fair bit and found, while nice, the skin tones were a bit off for my liking. They had that classic digital blue/grey about them which kind of sat underneath the tones somehow. Moire was sometimes out of control as well on certain fabrics. I did like Leaf Capture though, really reliable and simple. All this was years ago though so I'm sure things are different now, maybe I should revist the Leaf backs...
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Re: compare MF digital backs
« Reply #22 on: January 22, 2011, 01:58:41 am »

I do use a color checker and Photoshop with the raws, not a capture one or LC profile.
With leaf capture I found the portrait profiles or product sometimes very good but somehow I always prefered the custom profiles in Photoshop.
Logged

bcooter

  • Guest
Re: compare MF digital backs
« Reply #23 on: January 22, 2011, 10:22:46 am »

...........snip........... but somehow I always prefered the custom profiles in Photoshop.


Take all of this perfect skin tone, film like look in digital with a tiny, tiny, tiny grain of salt.

Do this. lay out a bunch of cameras, a Nikon, a Canon,  a Phase, a Leaf, a hasselblad and shoot different scenes with different complexions.

Window light, direct flash, led, HMI, direct sun and tungsten.

Shoot dark African skin, medium brown brazilian, semi tan Russian and white translucent any nationality, especially Red Heads.

Then drop these files into C-1, Lightroom (any version), Photoshop (the last few versions) and all of their proprietary softwares, (depending on who owns who at the moment) and I can promise you that you'll go away scratching your head, or worse come to the conclusion that it's all subject, light, camera, ambient color, processor dependent.

I know because doing non scientific shooting everything looks different depending on the day.

We just finished one shoot with one model in 10 different settings, from rooms, to outside, to night scenes, window light, leds, hmi's, practical tungsten and you'd think the model was 5 different people.

So like most professional imaging, it always comes down to working an image deep in photoshop.   The look from the processor is just that a preview look for clients to review on set or in web galleries.

In the cinema world I'd compare what a processor/camera does as a one light daily.  Something for a client to chose an image from but nowhere close to where a final image will actually go.

I will admit that the newer versions of c-1 tend to produce the most pleasing skin tones and process faster, lightroom I feel has the most intuitive interface and I know little of Phocus but the skin tones I've seen in very limited testing looked really good.

Still, in the world of professional imaging, regardless of camera and processing, everything goes to photoshop for finish and everything that is finished well goes to a lot of layers in photoshop.

My suggestion, find the camera you like, the digital back/capture device you like, the processor that fits your workflow and don't worry about it.  

Any pretty image can be made pretty.  Any non pretty image can't really be saved.

So my point to the original OP is the same thing most people will tell you.   Try what you want to buy and find what works for you most of the time.  Nothing will be 100% but nothing ever is.

IMO

BC

P.S.   If you want to emulate film try exposure 2 or 3 from Alien Skin.  Goofy name, great looks, though few of them can be applied and just run.  Once again it takes a few layers.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2011, 11:53:48 am by bcooter »
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: compare MF digital backs
« Reply #24 on: January 22, 2011, 05:38:12 pm »

You don't compare backs, backs just are.  :D

Cheers,
Bernard
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up