better colors from medium and large format...why?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I think that the issue with color has much to do with perception and processing, so it would be hard to demonstrate. Correct color, defined in terms of dE, may not be pleasant color.

Best regards
Erik

Care to demonstrate?

[ondebanks]

Hi!

I actually don't think that colors are better with MFDBs. On the other MFDBs have some advantages:

- They collect more light
- Lenses are less stressed, so we get better microcontrast (better MTF on small subject detail)
- MFDBs are probably not tuned for good ISO performance, so color filters may be more selective giving more saturation

I believe that MFDBs have better image quality for the reasons listed above. I don't think they have magic properties that cannot be explained by physics.

Best regards
Erik

I think that Erik's basically right (as he usually is, when it comes to a question that can be explained by examining the physics involved).

ISO 50 Velvia's famous colour arises in its narrow, sharply peaked, hardly overlapping RGB sensitivity curves. Down the years, I've spent a lot of time collecting and examining film datasheet PDFs for their spectral response curves (in search of astro-suitable films), and Velvia's graph looks like no other.

In digital, more selective colour filters within the Bayer array are the equivalent of Velvia's colour layer response. MF digital backs may well be more selective than most DSLRs. Certainly, one trick to boost signal sensitivity is to have CFA RGB filters with large spectral overlaps (typically with response curves which are relatively broad, flat-topped and steep-sided); and DXOmark measurements show that Canon does a bit of this. The downside is that colours are less saturated and wavelengths (hues) within the bandpass of each filter are harder to distinguish.

MFD also struggles to achieve high ISO. While this is mainly due to the high readout noise in all MF CCDs to date (12 e- being the current best...even Canon's ancient 300D was better than that, at 10 e- rms!), it may also be partly due to more selective CFA filters.

Ray

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

… I think that the issue with color has much to do with perception and processing, so it would be hard to demonstrate...

So… once again, we are asked to believe "it is there, but you can not see it"… yet another example of the emperor-has-no-clothes syndrome. You have to be the one-in-the know, the chosen one, the believer, to actually "see" it. Like the ones who can spot a "six-stop DR difference in a small print, from 30 feet". If you can not see it, then you must be an ignorant infidel.

The power of belief is huge: the latest research suggests that patients benefit from the placebo effect even when told explicitly that they're taking a placebo. Then again, some people swear they saw Virgin Mary.

[Doug Peterson]

So… once again, we are asked to believe "it is there, but you can not see it"… yet another example of the emperor-has-no-clothes syndrome. You have to be the one-in-the know, the chosen one, the believer, to actually "see" it. Like the ones who can spot a "six-stop DR difference in a small print, from 30 feet". If you can not see it, then you must be an ignorant infidel.

The power of belief is huge: the latest research suggests that patients benefit from the placebo effect even when told explicitly that they're taking a placebo. Then again, some people swear they saw Virgin Mary.

In the world of art reproduction and historical preservation there is an enormous effort to extract. Almost all the high-end art reproduction and historical preservation in major museums/galleries/societies is done on digital backs. That should tell you something.

Color accuracy and color gamut and other spectral analysis are actually quite non subjective.

The subjective part is whether or not the color you get from your camera matches your vision, and if not, how much of your time/energy is wasted getting it to that point.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

In the world of art reproduction and historical preservation there is an enormous effort to extract. Almost all the high-end art reproduction and historical preservation in major museums/galleries/societies is done on digital backs. That should tell you something...

What it tells me is there might be numerous reasons for that, color may or may not be one.

Color accuracy and color gamut and other spectral analysis are actually quite non subjective...

Fair enough… why not demonstrate it then?

For the record, I've been shooting Hasselblad with film backs, alongside 35 mm film and (currently) digital, since the seventies. I could SEE the difference/advantage back then (in the film days).

I am much more skeptical when told, with digital, "it is there, but you can not see it". Especially when told the difference is "huge" but can not be demonstrated.

[Dick Roadnight]

Almost all the high-end art reproduction and historical preservation in major museums/galleries/societies is done on digital backs.

Hi, Doug... do they not mostly use Multi-shot MFD?

[John R Smith]

I think our perception of colour is highly subjective, and has very little to do with colour accuracy. My favourite film was and is Portra 160 NC, but it is nothing like as accurate as E6 Ektachrome. The nicest digital colour I have ever used comes out of an old Nikon Coolpix 4600, which you folks wouldn't give the time of day to. The colours (to me) are gorgeous, but nothing much like reality.

In contrast, I don't like the colour from my Hasselblad CFV-39 very much at all. So it's just as well that I use it solely for B/W.

John

[digitalcameraman]

I think our perception of colour is highly subjective, and has very little to do with colour accuracy. My favourite film was and is Portra 160 NC, but it is nothing like as accurate as E6 Ektachrome. The nicest digital colour I have ever used comes out of an old Nikon Coolpix 4600, which you folks wouldn't give the time of day to. The colours (to me) are gorgeous, but nothing much like reality.

In contrast, I don't like the colour from my Hasselblad CFV-39 very much at all. So it's just as well that I use it solely for B/W.

John

John:

Sounds like you need to get a good demo of a Phase One back.

I have been involved in the pioneering of digital photography since the first Leaf back was announced. I have never shown a Phase One digital back to a photographer that did not see the vast difference between either film and/or DSLR. Scanners are like cameras, when you are capturing 16 bit color, you get more more highlights and shadows which equals more dynamic range. It is up to you how you distribute them. Lower end scanners that were based on 12 bit or even 14 bits did not produce as good of color or shadow detail as high end drum scanners. It is the tones in between the shades of colors that you see with true 16 bit camera backs. Add the use of a good ICC camera profile and you have a great recipe for color that can be transformed into any color space you want.

I had the pleasure of working with some of the best scanner operators during this transition who were using million dollar scanners and in the end not one of them thought film medium was better than the current high end digital capture devices. Test after test proved this. I live in Florida where getting film (E-6) went away. You cannot get a roll of E-6 film processed in South Beach or Miami where the major advertising and catalog campaigns are being shot. In the old days you shot the film and went to the bar at night and hoped you got the shot. Today you can see if you got the shot and show it to everyone in the creative process. I have seen digital camera backs capture better color than film for 15 years now and no one wants to go back to that medium.


Chris Snipes (e-mail Me)

Ask me about Phase One IQ Digital Camera Backs
__________________

Sales Manager, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year, Again
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 813-335-2473
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One at 10% off

[John R Smith]

Chris

I am sure that you are right, within the criteria for good colour which you might set for yourself. I am not, though, talking about the technical qualities of DR, shadow detail, smooth tonal transitions, or whatever.

I was rather trying to express what I felt about the colour palette itself, which is a different thing. When I shoot colour (which isn't very often, I have to admit), I don't want the end result to look like what is in front of my camera. I want it to be transformed into something other, something magical. Certain films used to do this for me, like Portra with its kind of chalky subdued intensity in the blues, and singing warmth in the yellows. I had the same problem with slides. I must have shot hundreds of Ektachromes for stock work, but I never liked any of them.

This is the huge problem with digital cameras. They come loaded with just one film, and if you don't like it, you are sunk.

John

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I think our perception of colour is highly subjective, and has very little to do with colour accuracy.

I'm with you on this, John!

As a color-blind photographer, I am often amused by all the talk here of "color accuracy," and especially assertions that "the way the human eye sees it is...," as if we all see everything alike. IMHO, "what the eye sees" is probably about as precise as "the height of a human being is xxx feet and yyy inches."

Eric

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

… When I shoot colour… I want it to be transformed into something other, something magical. Certain films used to do this for me, like Portra with its kind of chalky subdued intensity in the blues, and singing warmth in the yellows...

Man, I love this poetic description of color!

[Schewe]

This is the huge problem with digital cameras. They come loaded with just one film, and if you don't like it, you are sunk.

Wow...I don't see it that way at all. With digital shot raw, you have an infinite variety of potential renderings based on what YOU want. In that regard, film at least transparency film, has ALWAYS been very limiting. Color neg offered variety in the color balance of the resulting print but there were severe limits to what you could do with the color relationships. If you see digital capture as somehow more limited than film, I think you need to learn how to process raw captures to achieve what you want. It's pretty easy and very powerful...

[c_soars]

Man, I love this poetic description of color!

As do I!  I think those two characteristics are almost what defines it as my favorite colour film; it requires little post work from me other than a subtle white balance tweak, contrast boost and some chroma noise reduction for the scanning process.   It's a palette I like to work with, and I find it does well for people and (my style) of landscapes.  

The closest digital reproduction of the creamy Portra look involved creating a black and white layer, setting it to 50% or so opacity and layering that on the colour file, then tweaking the HSL channels.  Or something, it seemed like too much work for me; I guess I'm too lazy for digital, RAW & creating presets.

The Fuji offerings give me more problems with skin-tones and magenta casts on the neutrals, but I know that's probably workflow dependent.

All that being said, I had an acquaintance shoot some family portraits at Christmas for us, and the results from his Leaf back & 'blad were incredible (clarity, resolution & colour).  If I could afford a MFDB for my Mamiya I'd consider it, but for now I'd rather scan 120 portra than shoot APS-C or 35mm digital.

[ErikKaffehr]

+1

That said, I don't think all sensors are made equal, the CGA (Color Grid Array can be quite different).

Color film does quite extreme manipulation on curves by itself. If we use negative film we have density curves for paper and film multiplied. So paper and film is actually quite complex.


Best regards
Erik

Wow...I don't see it that way at all. With digital shot raw, you have an infinite variety of potential renderings based on what YOU want. In that regard, film at least transparency film, has ALWAYS been very limiting. Color neg offered variety in the color balance of the resulting print but there were severe limits to what you could do with the color relationships. If you see digital capture as somehow more limited than film, I think you need to learn how to process raw captures to achieve what you want. It's pretty easy and very powerful...

[John R Smith]

Color film does quite extreme manipulation on curves by itself. If we use negative film we have density curves for paper and film multiplied. So paper and film is actually quite complex.

Yes indeed. And that is really the key for me. With film (the right film) I don't have to spend loads of time in PS or LR trying to get my picture to look how I want it - and frankly, I'm not at all skilful with colour. I just don't know which sliders to push or in what direction to get a 3FR file to look like Portra, for example. I always seem to end up with a sort of digital Ektachrome. So, strangely enough, if I want to shoot colour rather than B/W I leave my digital back at home and load a film magazine. Luckily, with my setup, I can shoot digital or film with the same cameras and same lenses, no issues. I can get C41 processed and scanned locally, and I get what I want straight off.

John

[ErikKaffehr]

Well,

Anything that works is OK. There is significant work behind the way films and paper were made.

There are some guys who developed presets for different films, sometimes using pretty scientific methods.

Best regards
Erik

Yes indeed. And that is really the key for me. With film (the right film) I don't have to spend loads of time in PS or LR trying to get my picture to look how I want it - and frankly, I'm not at all skilful with colour. I just don't know which sliders to push or in what direction to get a 3FR file to look like Portra, for example. I always seem to end up with a sort of digital Ektachrome. So, strangely enough, if I want to shoot colour rather than B/W I leave my digital back at home and load a film magazine. Luckily, with my setup, I can shoot digital or film with the same cameras and same lenses, no issues. I can get C41 processed and scanned locally, and I get what I want straight off.

John

[uaiomex]

Film and paper manufacturers went to the extremes to make them look right out of the box. The digital equivalent would be the "styled" jpg output. Raw on the contrary is supposed to be neutral and heartless. Is up to the photographer to give the image its soul. "Raw is the score...." (you finish it). As someone wrote years ago, "If you don't enjoy computer time, you better not sell your film cameras"
And this is exactly why I love digital. It's not because of the many butt hours involved but because of the total control I have throughout the whole process.
Eduardo

[Schewe]

I always seem to end up with a sort of digital Ektachrome.

I think that has "colored" your viewpoint...(pun intended).

I realize many photographers don't want to become overly invested in image manipulation. I respect that...a good friend, Stephen Johnson is probably the ultimate non-manipulator when it comes to maintaining the integrity of the scene he shoots...while he'll ONLY remove sensor spots, he will use Photoshop for the purpose of adjusting tone and color to return it to what he saw (or thought he saw ;~)...

But learning the tools to the point you have control over the craft is important to any photographer and the tools for controlling digital captures are Lightroom/Camera Raw and Photoshop. I kinda think you owe it to your craft to learn how to achieve what your viewpoint and vision requires...

Compared to digital capture, film was far more limited and crude in its rendering of a scene or production of a print. Having learned hot to make dye transfers and my own color prints and color film processing schooled me on the severe limitations of traditional chemical based photography.

I understand the nostalgia for a time and process gone by (the last Kodachrome plant just shut down) but if you have even basic Photoshop skills, you can accomplish far more on the computer than you ever could in a darkroom...as I recall, you've only just recently started shooting medium format digital and your primary palette is B&W? That's fine...but know, learning how to process digital color is pretty easy to learn.

Shameless plug, PhotoKit Color 2 has some pretty good processing effects to replicate various film looks. Martin Evening did a lot of work shooting color targets of various films and used the scans as a baseline to create effects to replicate the various films. Yes, I'm a partner of PG and was involved with Martin's efforts so I'mm admit to a potential bias...but we have a free download for a 7 day demo :~)

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

You also have high end audio, high grade speaker cables and gold plated optical cables, all in search of the optimal sound. Then you put the stuff in a underdampened room with dozens of reflections, room modes and enjoy the pure undistorted sound.

On the other hand, it is also possible that MFDBs are better calibrated and profiled. Phase One for instance has a lot of different color profiles in Capture One, and the raw images from Phase One also contain a lot of proprietary information that may be utilized by Capture One but not competitors producst.

Best regards
Erik

So… once again, we are asked to believe "it is there, but you can not see it"… yet another example of the emperor-has-no-clothes syndrome. You have to be the one-in-the know, the chosen one, the believer, to actually "see" it. Like the ones who can spot a "six-stop DR difference in a small print, from 30 feet". If you can not see it, then you must be an ignorant infidel.

The power of belief is huge: the latest research suggests that patients benefit from the placebo effect even when told explicitly that they're taking a placebo. Then again, some people swear they saw Virgin Mary.

[John R Smith]

I understand the nostalgia for a time and process gone by (the last Kodachrome plant just shut down) but if you have even basic Photoshop skills, you can accomplish far more on the computer than you ever could in a darkroom...as I recall, you've only just recently started shooting medium format digital and your primary palette is B&W? That's fine...but know, learning how to process digital color is pretty easy to learn.

Jeff

Yes you are absolutely right, of course. I am very comfortable with working in digital B/W, and I do very little colour anyhow, except when I have to because publishers or paid work demand it. I think I am just going to have to spend some time on digital colour and learn the ropes, but maybe part of the problem is with LR. I notice that if I use Phocus for colour work I get a lot nicer "look" straight off. Having said that, I do quite enjoy putting a roll of film through the old 'Blad from time to time, anyway.

John