Phase one P65+ Lattitude v Velvia

[issa]

We all know that Velvia 50, has 4 stop latitute, and highlights start to blow out from @1.75 stops from mid tone, without using graduated NG filter, how does this compare to Digital backs from Phase or Hassy.

[Dennis Carbo]

Generally a Digital back is about 12 - 13 stops of DR - Be prepared for a slew of people to tell you that is nonsense and just marketing hype.   Anyway you slice it ....much greater latitude than Velvia 50 however. 

[bcooter]

Velvia was cool because it ONLY had 4 stops of latitude.

As far as comparing it to digital.  Your never, ever going to know until you shoot the same thing side by side, cause digital is a moving target and depending on who you are, what you shoot, if your using or selling 12 stops . . .

Everybody's gonna have a different opinion.

Just remember, there have been about 80 gazillion pretty pictures shot with it and nobody ever complained about the DR. 

Also remember most of those digital photos everybody talks about have been crunched and slammed down to about 4 stops.  The difference today is we just get to chose which 4 stops we wanna show.

IMO

BC

[Dennis Carbo]

Velvia was cool because it ONLY had 4 stops of latitude.

As far as comparing it to digital.  Your never, ever going to know until you shoot the same thing side by side, cause digital is a moving target and depending on who you are, what you shoot, if your using or selling 12 stops . . .

Everybody's gonna have a different opinion.

Just remember, there have been about 80 gazillion pretty pictures shot with it and nobody ever complained about the DR. 

Also remember most of those digital photos everybody talks about have been crunched and slammed down to about 4 stops.  The difference today is we just get to chose which 4 stops we wanna show.

IMO

BC

Well Said !  I personally love Velvia 50 

[Doug Peterson]

Also remember most of those digital photos everybody talks about have been crunched and slammed down to about 4 stops.  The difference today is we just get to chose which 4 stops we wanna show.

That is one of the most succinct and accurate summaries of why DR is important I have seen on this forum.

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

[Policar]

Velvia was cool because it ONLY had 4 stops of latitude.

As far as comparing it to digital.  Your never, ever going to know until you shoot the same thing side by side, cause digital is a moving target and depending on who you are, what you shoot, if your using or selling 12 stops . . .

Everybody's gonna have a different opinion.

Just remember, there have been about 80 gazillion pretty pictures shot with it and nobody ever complained about the DR. 

Also remember most of those digital photos everybody talks about have been crunched and slammed down to about 4 stops.  The difference today is we just get to chose which 4 stops we wanna show.

IMO

BC

Exactly, although I disagree that no one complained about the DR.  No one complains when they get a good print, but exposing the stuff can be tricky.

[bcooter]

That is one of the most succinct and accurate summaries of why DR is important I have seen on this forum.

If I shoot something that the data is gone then either I had a reason, or I fell asleep at the wheel and since I don't sleep much . . .

The whole idea of shooting good, is knowing what you wanna see the moment you press the button and more important knowing what you gotta do, before you press that button.

It's cool if digital has a lot of dr, though once again, that's pretty subjective and honestly I think a lot of it gets in the way.

I rarely used a Contax for transparency film because I thought the lenses were on the edge for most E-6 films, especially when I had to hold the whites.   With digital being so flat out of the box, the contax works well, but then again I'm going to cram it even tighter before it hits the airwaves.  

Now I have used a Contax for film, used the crunchy lenses for effect and but again there is a reason God made foam core.

I just don't think that all that dr talk is as important as most people like to think, not if your working with a plan.

The thing about digital is, even on moving objects, it's just way, way easy to stop down and shoot a detail plate, cause everything going to go into post anyway.

With motion imagery this is more costly, but stills, adding stuff is now an every day occurrence.

IMO

BC

[fredjeang]

I'm in the middle of a nightmare editing, 3 types of cameras, 2 different Canons (the full frame and the 1DMK4 are 2 different animals by the way) and 3 different WB settings wich have to be melted in one single color grading and of course the delivery is 24h.
If I'd really want to learn I'm into the hurricane eye, but I like that pressure. Under comfortable conditions I do not progress.
So I had my cofeeeee pause, saw this thread and a silly question emerged:
Why so many people are preocupated by DR?

[Doug Peterson]

If I shoot something that the data is gone then either I had a reason, or I fell asleep at the wheel and since I don't sleep much . . .

The whole idea of shooting good, is knowing what you wanna see the moment you press the button and more important knowing what you gotta do, before you press that button.

It's cool if digital has a lot of dr, though once again, that's pretty subjective and honestly I think a lot of it gets in the way.

I rarely used a Contax for transparency film because I thought the lenses were on the edge for most E-6 films, especially when I had to hold the whites.   With digital being so flat out of the box, the contax works well, but then again I'm going to cram it even tighter before it hits the airwaves.  

Now I have used a Contax for film, used the crunchy lenses for effect and but again there is a reason God made foam core.

I just don't think that all that dr talk is as important as most people like to think, not if your working with a plan.

The thing about digital is, even on moving objects, it's just way, way easy to stop down and shoot a detail plate, cause everything going to go into post anyway.

With motion imagery this is more costly, but stills, adding stuff is now an every day occurrence.

Sage and useful advice for those genres of photography that you do. But I'm sure you understand that foam core won't do much to fill in the front of dark trees at 100 yards when exposing for the sky in a landscape scene.

Sure you can shoot two exposures and blend them in photoshop except:
1) Not everyone has a dedicated retoucher taking care of all their post and desire to spend as little time in Photoshop as possible and the more you can get out of a single frame the less time you have to spend compositing
2) "moments" like sunbeams, ideal cloud shapes, and sunsets aren't great times to be bracketing

In other words: dynamic range for in-studio controlled lighting scenarios where you rarely, if ever, screw up an exposure is not very important.

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

[fredjeang]

Sage and useful advice for those genres of photography that you do. But I'm sure you understand that foam core won't do much to fill in the front of dark trees at 100 yards when exposing for the sky in a landscape scene.

Sure you can shoot two exposures and blend them in photoshop except:
1) Not everyone has a dedicated retoucher taking care of all their post and desire to spend as little time in Photoshop as possible and the more you can get out of a single frame the less time you have to spend compositing
2) "moments" like sunbeams, ideal cloud shapes, and sunsets aren't great times to be bracketing

In other words: dynamic range for in-studio controlled lighting scenarios where you rarely, if ever, screw up an exposure is not very important.

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

Doug, you answered indirectly to my questions.
Cheers.

[cyberean]

Sage and useful advice for those genres of photography that you do. But I'm sure you understand that foam core won't do much to fill in the front of dark trees at 100 yards when exposing for the sky in a landscape scene.

Sure you can shoot two exposures and blend them in photoshop except:
1) Not everyone has a dedicated retoucher taking care of all their post and desire to spend as little time in Photoshop as possible and the more you can get out of a single frame the less time you have to spend compositing
2) "moments" like sunbeams, ideal cloud shapes, and sunsets aren't great times to be bracketing

In other words: dynamic range for in-studio controlled lighting scenarios where you rarely, if ever, screw up an exposure is not very important.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration

it's mind-boggling how there even was *good*
landscape photography, especially with trees,
prior to invention of a 300-stop digital sensor ...

[Doug Peterson]

Don't make my statement something it's not. A great artist can make great art with any quality of tool. But that doesn't mean there is no use for better quality tools if they are available and the artist can afford them. A sculptor can take a can of playdoh and a toothpick and make a beautiful piece of work, but given the choice, most would prefer to work with better materials and tools.

If Ansel Adams had the choice of a capture-system with 10 stops or 20 stops I can guarantee you he would have picked the capture system with 20 stops. Especially considering the enormous effort he made to literally invent a system of exposure/chemical-processing by which he could squeeze another stop or two of usable detail from the tools available at the time.

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

[ChristopherBarrett]

I used to carry RVP for architectural exteriors, rated around 25 or so.  It was absolutely perfect for slightly overcast days.  Other than that it was a nightmare.  We actually used to shoot EPY (64 tungsten) outside with an 85B because it had more DR than any daylight balanced chrome film.

The best story I have about that was a residential shoot I assisted in NYC when I had to reload 4x5 film holders in a closet (the door edges taped with black tape) in the apartment where Claus Von Bulow (alledgedly) killed his wife.

Every shoot... I'd have to go back to the hotel, lock myself in my bathroom and reload film holders... after ten minutes in the dark you start to see a little ambient light from God knows where and you'd start to wonder, "have I just fogged the last 3 days of work?"

Yeah, I don't miss that.

[ErikKaffehr]

Well,

We had Ansel Adams and the zone system. Some photographers don't even liked Velvia. I did, but it's no fun to scan.

Best regards
Erik

We all know that Velvia 50, has 4 stop latitute, and highlights start to blow out from @1.75 stops from mid tone, without using graduated NG filter, how does this compare to Digital backs from Phase or Hassy.

[cyberean]

Don't make my statement something it's not. A great artist can make great art with any quality of tool.
 

no need to get your panties in a bunch ...
your statement was used for reference purpose only ... as an anchor point to another PoV ...
the notion that bigger & more are not necessarily better ... a counter to a dogma that
many worship and evangelize to no end.

But that doesn't mean there is no use for better quality tools if they are available and the artist can afford them. A sculptor can take a can of playdoh and a toothpick and make a beautiful piece of work, but given the choice, most would prefer to work with better materials and tools.

i'm all for *different* tools ... bigger/smaller ... expensive/less so ... etc/etc.
but as far as *better quality* tools ... that qualification is probably best left
to those using the tools ... rather than those 'pitching'/selling them.

[Schewe]

but as far as *better quality* tools ... that qualification is probably best left
to those using the tools ... rather than those 'pitching'/selling them.

Wow...you're pretty snarky hiding behind that anonymous screen name dooode. At least Doug uses his real name and you might notice that he's the head of technical serves, not sales. You looking to pick a fight? Sure seems to be your mo.

[Anders_HK]

We all know that Velvia 50, has 4 stop latitute, and highlights start to blow out from @1.75 stops from mid tone, without using graduated NG filter, how does this compare to Digital backs from Phase or Hassy.

Lets note also the heading that OP used...

As far as latitude digital backs from Leaf, P1, Hassy has more. However it is linear. Therefore that more latitude is per say necessary to recreate the fall off towards blow out. Frankly that is one item I still struggle with to recreate in digital. I use Leaf Aptus 65.

To note is that P65+ uses the second newest generation sensor from Dalsa (essentially one generation newer than the one I use). Leaf Aptus-II 12 and IQ80 with 80MP sensors uses the latest. One thing I notice when I view images posted from newer sensors like P65+, P40+, AptusII 8 and 10, and perhaps it will be more so with AptusII 12 and IQ80, is that the color palette and rendering in general seem more appealing to me than the older backs for landscapes. It can also be due to finer color gradations. Perhaps it is related to the sensor or simply better color filters on the individual sensor wells. It would be interesting if someone with knowledge could fill in info on this.

Above said, for landscapes, nothing in digital can replace Velvia 50, except by being different. In my eyes, for landscapes Velvia 50 renders with a magnificent magic. Yes, it was limited latitude with high contrast, but the limits of that latitude with a pleasing non linear fading towards highlights, seemingly sparkling overexposure of specular highlights, and fading to crushed blacks is what in regards to latitude made it believable, and pleasing (believable rendering enhancement of scene). Add to this the for landscapes complete pleasing rendering of colors, with pleasing enhancement and shifts of yellow and orange towards red… simply… MACIG.  

Digital as in digital backs with medium format sensors is growing rapid for me, but I maintain Velvia in 4x5 for specific occasions . In latitude and colors smaller sensors do not compare, they are different.

Regards
Anders

[cyberean]

i'm all for *different* tools ... bigger/smaller ... expensive/less so ... etc/etc.
but as far as *better quality* tools ... that qualification is probably best left
to those using the tools ... rather than those 'pitching'/selling them.

Wow...you're pretty snarky hiding behind that anonymous screen name dooode. At least Doug uses his real name and you might notice that he's the head of technical serves, not sales. You looking to pick a fight? Sure seems to be your mo.

if your opinion differs from mine, then share it ... bruddah.
*just don't make this personal* ... nor create drama where there is none

my comments/observations were not specifically directed at Doug, as there are
plenty other folk around here who pitch and sell their wares ... regardless the
title on their business card and/or signature line.
(and before anyone blows a gasket ... i'm not knockin' the pitchin' nor sellin')

but in regards to your question ... i say it the way i see it. 
... that's my m o

[Schewe]

... that's my m o

And exactly who are you and why do you think your opinion matters a whit to the rest of the world? If you had some creds to indicate your opinion was worthy of consideration, that might be useful. So far, in reviewing your posts, I've seen no indication your opinion (other than often being snarky) is worthwhile...prove me wrong.

[bcooter]

Ok, Jeff, Doug sells and seems pretty good at it.

Nothing wrong with selling, but come on man, he's got more logos after his name than a Nascar driver's suit.

But back to the original thought about this dr stuff.  I know it's a selling point for phase, but I don't believe 1/2 stop makes a difference.  In fact I'm not that sold on any format of digital camera.

As every review says, once you up the iso in it's original 80 mpx size, or shoot without a tripod all the goodness of sharpness goes out the window anyway, so unless you shoot test charts, in the real world we all know the differences become negligible with a lot of cameras.

Regardless;

i dig shooting my Contax' because I like the cameras, I tolerate the backs and some things I like about them, some things I don't, but I like the cameras.  

In reality that's all that matters.  If you like what you use, you have no financial agenda attached to your preference, then go with it.

It's the photographer's choice what they use anyway,  but 1/2 stop, if there really is 1/2 stop, . . . no I don't believe it really matters, in any genre.

You know as well as I, actually you know this better than I do, if you really want to make a difference on the presentation of your images, get really good at post production, because that's where most of the technical change comes anyway.    

IMO

BC