Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16   Go Down

Author Topic: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???  (Read 65199 times)

FredBGG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1633
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #260 on: March 14, 2013, 01:12:45 AM »

These are not my observations. For example, I photographed the interior of a church here at iso100 on the D800 and H3D-31 (I posted the pictures earlier):



To analyse the deepest shadows, I need to go back to the raw data files. There are three little paintings at the right of the column in the shade two thirds to the left. If I raise the shadows on the two raw files I can see the content of the pictures a bit better on the H3D-31, especially the one on the right. The colours are also more saturated on the H3D-31. Noise is a bit better on the D800, but can be reduced nicely on the H3D-31. Neither of these is great because the paintings were severely underexposed and the difference is not very large, but it is in favour of the H3D-31.

I took your full size jpegs and used the shadow highlight filter in Photoshop. Same settings applied to both.
I scaled the Nikon down to match the H3D

Here is the result:

Logged

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 671
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #261 on: March 14, 2013, 02:21:50 AM »

I took your full size jpegs and used the shadow highlight filter in Photoshop. Same settings applied to both.
I scaled the Nikon down to match the H3D

Here is the result:



Now, this is quite surprising. I'll have to check the files to find out why the raws and jpegs give different results.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10124
    • Echophoto
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #262 on: March 14, 2013, 02:32:28 AM »

Hi,

I had run RawDigger on the files you sent me. The plots are not easy to interpret and there is some clipping of the highlights. The present version of Raw Digger has a few issues with 16-bit files, it seems, so I used an older version.

In many cases I would suggest that lens flare and camera internal reflections limit DR more than the sensor itself.

Best regards
Erik

bcooter

  • Guest
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #263 on: March 14, 2013, 03:18:54 AM »


............Fast lenses with NF cameras with only center AF focus points have limited ..........
............Full length fashion for example where you want the eyes in focus.............



In practice I believe your 100% wrong.

This week I've been shooting thousands of full length fashion vertical frames with a third of them focus and recompose, many more with a single center point focus.

In our quick overview (we're still in production) only a very small percentage are not in focus.

(In a couple of months when the project clears embargo I may show them).

It's rare photographers shoot full length fashion wide open, 1.8, 2.8 or whatever.  Most client's don't want just the eyelashes in focus they also want the garments which is their product in focus, regardless if it's editorial or for commerce.

I've probably shot a few fashion images at wide open on any camera.

Focus is never really easy, regardless of camera and even cameras with multi point focus, usually one point is more accurate than another.

The best focusing camera I've used is our Canon 1dx, better than our Nikons, but still not perfect.

No camera is perfect, all are different nearly all professional cameras today are very good.

I really don't understand why anyone compares them.  

In fact the most famous 35mm cameras of all time were designed around focus and recompose . . . the leica.

Since you mention eyelashes in focus, well . . .

I shot this in Paris,  almost wide open with an M-8 series using window light and practicals, by focus and recompose.

It was almost wide open because it was just a fun snap, when the model was still in hair and makeup.



Also, one center point focus is also not near the end of the world, as you suggest.

This image was with my Contax 645/Phase p30+ focusing with weak modeling lights on the subject, strong in the lens lights poking through the background to flare into the lense and the subject moving fairly quick.



I don't think one from this session was soft.

If my old Contax will do this, I can promise you a Phase DF/ Mamiya, A h4-5d, a Pentax will do it sleeping.

But here's a hint.  If you really want to have sharp images and pixel peep until your eyes bleed, I suggest using a tripod.

Nothing improves sharpness like a tripod.

BTW:  For someone who reports time and time again on the results of their medium format experience, by drawing charts and designing pulsating gifs,  didn't you test your DF before you bought it.

If you dealt with a professional dealer, that's not difficult to do, before you actually spend the money and find yourself suffering buyers remorse.


IMO

BC
« Last Edit: March 14, 2013, 03:31:17 AM by bcooter »
Logged

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 671
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #264 on: March 14, 2013, 06:17:49 AM »

Now, this is quite surprising. I'll have to check the files to find out why the raws and jpegs give different results.

For some reason, the D800 gives better results from the jpeg files than from its raw files. That is quite surprising and I did not expect that at all. For my presentation, the raw files from the H3D-31 and D800 were converted with the same application (Apple Aperture), because I thought that using the same processing with the two cameras would give them equal chances.
Logged

Guy Mancuso

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1133
    • http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/index.php
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #265 on: March 14, 2013, 08:53:31 AM »


In practice I believe your 100% wrong.

This week I've been shooting thousands of full length fashion vertical frames with a third of them focus and recompose, many more with a single center point focus.

In our quick overview (we're still in production) only a very small percentage are not in focus.

(In a couple of months when the project clears embargo I may show them).

It's rare photographers shoot full length fashion wide open, 1.8, 2.8 or whatever.  Most client's don't want just the eyelashes in focus they also want the garments which is their product in focus, regardless if it's editorial or for commerce.

I've probably shot a few fashion images at wide open on any camera.

Focus is never really easy, regardless of camera and even cameras with multi point focus, usually one point is more accurate than another.

The best focusing camera I've used is our Canon 1dx, better than our Nikons, but still not perfect.

No camera is perfect, all are different nearly all professional cameras today are very good.

I really don't understand why anyone compares them.  

In fact the most famous 35mm cameras of all time were designed around focus and recompose . . . the leica.

Since you mention eyelashes in focus, well . . .

I shot this in Paris,  almost wide open with an M-8 series using window light and practicals, by focus and recompose.

It was almost wide open because it was just a fun snap, when the model was still in hair and makeup.



Also, one center point focus is also not near the end of the world, as you suggest.

This image was with my Contax 645/Phase p30+ focusing with weak modeling lights on the subject, strong in the lens lights poking through the background to flare into the lense and the subject moving fairly quick.



I don't think one from this session was soft.

If my old Contax will do this, I can promise you a Phase DF/ Mamiya, A h4-5d, a Pentax will do it sleeping.

But here's a hint.  If you really want to have sharp images and pixel peep until your eyes bleed, I suggest using a tripod.

Nothing improves sharpness like a tripod.

BTW:  For someone who reports time and time again on the results of their medium format experience, by drawing charts and designing pulsating gifs,  didn't you test your DF before you bought it.

If you dealt with a professional dealer, that's not difficult to do, before you actually spend the money and find yourself suffering buyers remorse.


IMO

BC

Have to agree both my DF and Nikon the center points where or are very accurate. The Nikon outside the Center point is not very accurate. I just shot 4 models in two days in the studio at F8 shooting clothing. I would never shoot commerce articles wide open. Frankly I always used focus and recompose for years on every cam I have had. The Nikon does not have the market on focus , sorry its pretty much just like everything else inside the center very good outside and even one movement up to the top on a horizontal shooting podium type work was off. I went to manual focus that day and or focus recompose to get my take. I shot that stuff for 4 days and tried every trick in the book to get that upper point to be dead on. I resorted back to focus and compose . And no nothing wrong with my cam either. Ill give it maybe some issues when very tight on focus and compose can be problematic but its not the rule either.
Logged

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #266 on: March 14, 2013, 09:37:05 AM »

For some reason, the D800 gives better results from the jpeg files than from its raw files. That is quite surprising and I did not expect that at all. For my presentation, the raw files from the H3D-31 and D800 were converted with the same application (Apple Aperture), because I thought that using the same processing with the two cameras would give them equal chances.

Different converters have much different results on D800 files.  C1 is sharpest, NX has the best color.  LR4 is a nice balance between the two, and the workflow is convenient.  It could be that the profile in Aperture clips shadows in the raw files.  That program, to my eye, is designed to make an image pop, so it crushes the blacks.
Logged

FredBGG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1633
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #267 on: March 14, 2013, 11:42:55 PM »


In practice I believe your 100% wrong.


IMO

BC

Well that's interesting that you claim there is not problem at all with focus and recompose with a single center focus point when shooting wide open.
Because that was I was talking about.

Well it seems that the leading MF manufacturer Hasselblad happens to agree with me and developed True Focus to improve on focus and recompose.
It is a known issue and many upgraded to the H4D  from previous models so as to be able to use one of the significant features of MF that is shallow depth of field.

Here is an article from Hasselblad regarding True focus and how it corrects focus and recompose errors:

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/2234814/when%20true%20focus%20makes%20a%20difference.pdf

Here is the first paragraph:

Quote
The True Focus mode in the H4D camera is a refinement of
an already very precise autofocus system. It will allow focus
to be locked at a part of the subject and if the photographer
decides to recompose the image, the camera will calculate
a necessary focus correction to keep the area of interest
still in focus. This mode will allow the photographer to use
the shallow depth-of-field of the medium format camera in a
more flexible way.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2013, 11:55:19 PM by FredBGG »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10124
    • Echophoto
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #268 on: March 15, 2013, 01:31:37 AM »

Hi,

Here is a good article on the effects of the focus recompose technique: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/focus_recompose.html

The conclusion is that the effect exist but it is pretty negligible.

It would probably affect measurements more than real word subjects. The human vision can be quite forgiving sometimes. Also, the amount of sharpening I have seen often used with Capture One can mask some minor focusing errors.

Best regards
Erik




Well that's interesting that you claim there is not problem at all with focus and recompose with a single center focus point when shooting wide open.
Because that was I was talking about.

Well it seems that the leading MF manufacturer Hasselblad happens to agree with me and developed True Focus to improve on focus and recompose.
It is a known issue and many upgraded to the H4D  from previous models so as to be able to use one of the significant features of MF that is shallow depth of field.

Here is an article from Hasselblad regarding True focus and how it corrects focus and recompose errors:

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/2234814/when%20true%20focus%20makes%20a%20difference.pdf

Here is the first paragraph:

bcooter

  • Guest
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #269 on: March 15, 2013, 04:42:06 AM »

Well that's interesting that you claim there is not problem at all with focus and recompose with a single center focus point when shooting wide open.
Because that was I was talking about.
................


OK, you know what I replied.  

Few fashion images for commerce or editorial are shot wide open.

Also photographers have been working around ways to focus for years.

My medium format film cameras were customized as I had the grease in the lenses removed for faster focus.  Missed some, hit most.

My 35mm to medium format cameras all have focusing exactness and also focusing workarounds.

Live view, it's ok, but not that good for moving subjects.  Haselblad's system, I'm sure it works, but it's not vital for me.

You know in the time it takes to focus an image on liveview I can fire a frame, view it,  correct and shoot and hit almost every frame.

Everybody has a different system.

So far this week have shot over 6,000 frames.  As I mentioned before I have a very busy schedule starting out the door at 6:30 am, arriving back with crew at 8:30, two hours of resetting for the next day, a few hours sleep and back at it.

Out of the 6,000 frames I haven't looked at every single one but briefly went over every days' session and only seen 3 images that were soft.  

Then again we tether, I communicate with our first assistant working on the computer, I can look at almost any lcd including my p series and see if it's in focus or not, correct and shoot.

What i like about my Contax is they don't have to be auto or manual focus.  I can have both at will.  It's easy to let the auto focus work, if it's slightly off manually correct.

Maybe not automatic, but most decent photographs are not automatic.

Anyway, the difference between your view and mine is I respect the fact that a Nikon works for you, (though would love to see any compelling images YOU shot with it).

What I don't get is a lot of your responses you toss out are definitive in nature that "your" brand of  Multi point focus is the BEST way and it's not.

If i felt you were offering real world experience, under pressure for something like you mentioned . . .  full length fashion and you could show the results, there would be a lot more validity, but even if you did, that doesn't mean there are not other cameras that work.

This is just my opinion, but I think your attempting to compare and discredited a certain brand of medium format cameras, mainly the DF to your Nikon.

That is the part I don't understand, especially since good photographers use that camera everyday with excellent results.

But . . . if your goal is not to discredited, then i will stand corrected.

I am willing to accept that everyone has their own way of working and respect that.

Do you?

IMO

BC
Logged

FredBGG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1633
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #270 on: March 15, 2013, 04:49:29 AM »

Hi,

Here is a good article on the effects of the focus recompose technique: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/focus_recompose.html

The conclusion is that the effect exist but it is pretty negligible.

It would probably affect measurements more than real word subjects. The human vision can be quite forgiving sometimes. Also, the amount of sharpening I have seen often used with Capture One can mask some minor focusing errors.

Best regards
Erik


Erik... this little test by Biob Atkins is so full of flaws.... I surprized an analytically person like you would would miss them.

First of all he is using a crop sensor 8mp camera and a cheap consumer extreme wide angle that does not have a flat focus field.

However the icing on the cake is he focuses and then "locks the focus" or thinks he does by turning off autofocus.
Turning off the autofocus just turns off autofocus it does not lock the focus. More recent cameras have added a button on the back to engage autofocus
to use the AF in a sort of manual mode.

And one last thing... a 10mm 2.8 lens on a crop sensor has heaps of depth of field.
Logged

FredBGG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1633
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #271 on: March 15, 2013, 05:28:43 AM »

OK, you know what I replied.  

Few fashion images for commerce or editorial are shot wide open.

Also photographers have been working around ways to focus for years.

My medium format film cameras were customized as I had the grease in the lenses removed for faster focus.  Missed some, hit most.

My 35mm to medium format cameras all have focusing exactness and also focusing workarounds.

Live view, it's ok, but not that good for moving subjects.  Haselblad's system, I'm sure it works, but it's not vital for me.

You know in the time it takes to focus an image on liveview I can fire a frame, view it,  correct and shoot and hit almost every frame.

Everybody has a different system.

So far this week have shot over 6,000 frames.  As I mentioned before I have a very busy schedule starting out the door at 6:30 am, arriving back with crew at 8:30, two hours of resetting for the next day, a few hours sleep and back at it.

Out of the 6,000 frames I haven't looked at every single one but briefly went over every days' session and only seen 3 images that were soft.  

Then again we tether, I communicate with our first assistant working on the computer, I can look at almost any lcd including my p series and see if it's in focus or not, correct and shoot.

What i like about my Contax is they don't have to be auto or manual focus.  I can have both at will.  It's easy to let the auto focus work, if it's slightly off manually correct.

Maybe not automatic, but most decent photographs are not automatic.

Anyway, the difference between your view and mine is I respect the fact that a Nikon works for you, (though would love to see any compelling images YOU shot with it).

What I don't get is a lot of your responses you toss out are definitive in nature that "your" brand of  Multi point focus is the BEST way and it's not.

If i felt you were offering real world experience, under pressure for something like you mentioned . . .  full length fashion and you could show the results, there would be a lot more validity, but even if you did, that doesn't mean there are not other cameras that work.

This is just my opinion, but I think your attempting to compare and discredited a certain brand of medium format cameras, mainly the DF to your Nikon.

That is the part I don't understand, especially since good photographers use that camera everyday with excellent results.

But . . . if your goal is not to discredited, then i will stand corrected.

I am willing to accept that everyone has their own way of working and respect that.

Do you?

IMO

BC

Sometimes you are really pathetic. YOU STATE THAT I AM 100% WRONG on the focus and recompose issue but.....

The leader of MF digital cameras designed a system called true focus to correct the focus and recompose error.

Here is is again, maybe if you read it again you may understand it a bit better:

Quote
The True Focus mode in the H4D camera is a refinement of
an already very precise autofocus system. It will allow focus
to be locked at a part of the subject and if the photographer
decides to recompose the image, the camera will calculate
a necessary focus correction to keep the area of interest
still in focus. This mode will allow the photographer to use
the shallow depth-of-field of the medium format camera in a
more flexible way.

Rather than discuss the technicality of the issue you choose to make you're petty attacks.

It's actually quite simple geometry and I find the Hasselblad article quite honest on the issue as well as the limitations of True focus.

Regarding Fashion photos shot wide open or with very shallow depth of field there are plenty.

Here is a random search: Jenifer Lawrence / Marie Claire

http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/celebrity/pictures/33819/10/jennifer-lawrence-for-marie-claire.html#index=2&slider=off

Or how about Peter Lindbergh shooting Natalie Portman for a fashion spread in Vogue
http://popbee.com/image/2010/12/natalie-portman-by-peter-lindbergh-for-vogue-january-2011-161210-1.jpg

Arthur Elgort shooting Kate Moss for Italian Vogue
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3KvjyHSjCoY/SjWtRCszozI/AAAAAAAAArA/BQdRU0U-t_A/s1600/arthur+elgort+vogue+italia.jpg

Lets look at something far more fashion/commercial

http://www.victoriassecret.com/sleepwear/lingerie/lace-applique-satin-slip-very-sexy?ProductID=5896&CatalogueType=OLS

http://www.victoriassecret.com/clothing/supermodel-off-duty/mini-skirt?ProductID=105002&CatalogueType=OLS


Logged

FredBGG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1633
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #272 on: March 15, 2013, 06:47:52 AM »

Have to agree both my DF and Nikon the center points where or are very accurate. The Nikon outside the Center point is not very accurate. I just shot 4 models in two days in the studio at F8 shooting clothing. I would never shoot commerce articles wide open. Frankly I always used focus and recompose for years on every cam I have had. The Nikon does not have the market on focus , sorry its pretty much just like everything else inside the center very good outside and even one movement up to the top on a horizontal shooting podium type work was off. I went to manual focus that day and or focus recompose to get my take. I shot that stuff for 4 days and tried every trick in the book to get that upper point to be dead on. I resorted back to focus and compose . And no nothing wrong with my cam either. Ill give it maybe some issues when very tight on focus and compose can be problematic but its not the rule either.

I have no problem at all with external focus points I regularly use the far left and far right focus points on both my Canons and Nikons.
Here is a crop of the eyes from a 3/4 length shot using the far right focus points. Shot was shot at f4 with strobes through a tiny modified leko to produce very crisp
light. I had little light to focus with because my hacked together frankenstien leko/elinchrom hack would only give me f4 or f5.6 from a 3,000 w/s head for a full length coverage. So you can imagine how little light was coming from the pilot light.


Here is the crop from a 3/4 length shot with the eyes high up in the frame on the outermost focus point.

It was a cover and fashion spread so I was moving around quite a bit because when ever I liked the expression I would set in close and do head shots for cover options too for
each outfit. It was a 4 hour shoot for 8 pages and cover.



Here is another example



Focus point chosen for models right eye shot at f2 with a 100mm lens had held.

Here is a crop:

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6009/5961735537_d78f0487f3_z.jpg

I also did a live view focus test when familiarizing myself with the D800. Lets see how it compared to
the DF test

Phase One DF. This is to show the extent of the recomposition that is actually not that extreme


Focus error with Focus and recompose.


And here is the same feature, but framed in the center of the screen to show what it should look like.


Here is a 100% crop from the very top of the frame shot with the Nikon d800 using live view
with no recomposition.
There is less contrast in this because it was cloudy, but the focus is spot on.



Here is a 100% crop using live view with target focus. This is a function where you start your focusing on a feature and you can more around and the camera automatically seeks the feature moving the focus area.




I shot that stuff for 4 days and tried every trick in the book to get that upper point to be dead on. I resorted back to focus and compose .
And no nothing wrong with my cam either.

You say you tried every trick in the book. What did you try?
I'm not having the same problems you are having.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 06:55:03 AM by FredBGG »
Logged

Guy Mancuso

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1133
    • http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/index.php
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #273 on: March 15, 2013, 11:42:12 AM »

Just to be clear shooting a 3/4 shot with a mid tele with subjects that are pretty flat to the focus plane is not really the issue its with a 200mm wide open shooting someone giving a speech and your very tight on the face. The center focus point is basically on there neck not the face at all and to keep the framing you would have to move the center point up higher which is not critically on the mark. Longer lenses pose a much bigger focus error than a short tele at 3/4 length. This is diffrent type of shooting with low light on a monopod and high ISO work. It just flat out misses critical compared to the dead center AF point and this is one click up on a horizontal. Yesterday in another case outside tethering issues at one point with a 85 1.8 the whole AF system shut down. I mean completely would not give me anything. It was very strange and not sure what to make of that one but a reboot of cam did bring it back to life. Tethering was a big issue also but I'm going to blame the length of my USB3 cable for that one a 20 footer and I will change that out to a SIIG with repeater and see if it holds better. I was losing communication at several points one at about 413 frames one day the next day at about 583 with just completely shut down with communication between body and laptop.

Sorry but I don't care what anyone says my Phase one backs where bullet proof tethered and faster as well. I never lost a single frame with all 5 backs. The Nikon I lost and I mean lost twice during two days 5 frames one day to thin air and 6 the next to thin air. I don't give a shit what anyone says I'm not exactly thrilled to be embarrassed on set with clients having a model stand there for 10 minutes waiting for me to get this shit rolling again. I'm keeping my thoughts as a communication issue and leave it at that and revisit that next week with a repeater built in. That whole tethering crap I will chalk up to that but I am disappointed I had to fight this issue in the first place , good cam but sorry people can defend it to the cows come home its not any better than anything else either. BTW I had 5 Phase backs 2 DFs several versions of AFD1,2and 3 and sure I had my bitches with some of the bodies but never what I read here with the DF outside a battery issue which I solved with diffrent batteries. I understand a lemon does shake from a tree but that does not constitute a whole tree just like this Nikon issues I been running into, it takes nothing away from Nikon as a system. I ve been doing this 37 years as a Pro and have pretty much seen it all with failures and system glitches. This is not something new believe me. It's how you recover what counts. Not how much you whine.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 11:45:09 AM by Guy Mancuso »
Logged

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1085
    • on YouTube
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #274 on: March 15, 2013, 11:53:39 AM »

Or how about Peter Lindbergh shooting Natalie Portman for a fashion spread in Vogue....

Peter Lindberg shoots both MF and Nikon dslrs, wide open or not. It just depends, but I personally find those recurrent threads completly meaningless.
Those are just tools and it's very common that high-end image makers wouldn't limit themselves with one system only but a vast palette .
Lindberg likes to shoot untether in some cases, uses often 1 or 2 assistant following his movements with CLs. In other cases he would use a Blad tethered.
It just depends on what he has in mind for the final look and the requirements of prod.

Nikon is not better than Phase or Leaf or Hassy. It's as pointless as those debates about is Alexa better than Red. Any serious production house would
ever consider that there is one holly grail system vs the evil rest. Arri and Red are covering convergent and different territories and even within the Alexa workflow,
not always it's convenient to choose the ArriRaw workflow but Prores. It depends very much on the budget.

It's not really important if Fred may be an infiltrated Nikon's agent or if he has a top world portfolio. Everybody's free to opinate in a forum, from the wanabee
to the top pros, that's the rule; ultimately we are big boys and it's our business to filter what we read in internet, but I'm not sure a Peter Lindberg would have the time nor the interest to
spend on war threads about systems, deficiencies of brand engineering, magic properties of some and the hugly of others.
I know it from experience in the forum, but one has to have a lot of free time to be regularly involved into "vs" debates, otherwise we are busy doing our job and making money. And when one really
works like crazy under pressure, and specially in the demanding high-end, the little free time left will more likely be used in some more interesting areas, like for ex having sex with the abandoned wife.
(Coot in this aspect is a lucky man because the wife is involved in the job, so she understands why one is broken at 4 in the morning)

And by the way, for those who like spreading cataclysmic predictions on MF future, if tomorrow one of those "evil" brand close the door, I'm not sure people would jump in complete happyness about that.
Remember what happened to Contax.

Dslrs, MF, tethered or not, liveviewed or not, AFed or not, reliable or not...those are just tools, and the more tools we have in our arsenal,
the better IMO.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 12:00:06 PM by fredjeang2 »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 14715
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #275 on: March 15, 2013, 12:05:00 PM »

Just to be clear shooting a 3/4 shot with a mid tele with subjects that are pretty flat to the focus plane is not really the issue its with a 200mm wide open shooting someone giving a speech and your very tight on the face. The center focus point is basically on there neck not the face at all and to keep the framing you would have to move the center point up higher which is not critically on the mark. Longer lenses pose a much bigger focus error than a short tele at 3/4 length.



I've sometimes wondered why people feel obliged to use the focussing aid as if there is no alternative.

I've also spent a lot of years behind cameras, and I also know that you can focus pretty well on eyes simply by using the groundglass provided in the camera; the eyes don't have to be central to focus upon them.

An answer is to ditch the monopod for a light tripod and open only two legs for those conditions where you'd usually have a mono. It instantly cuts down on movement off level, and holding the camera in the right vertical positon for the shot is no hassle at all compared to trying to steady a monopod which only saves you from gravity, but still lets you waltz around like a lunatic in all other directions!

I really do recommend any of you guys working out-of-studio with people shots try it; I wouldn't offer it unless I'd found it to work damned well. It'll take you ten minutes of down time to test; could save you a session.

Rob C
« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 12:11:03 PM by Rob C »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 14715
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #276 on: March 15, 2013, 12:07:21 PM »

Peter Lindberg shoots both MF and Nikon dslrs, wide open or not. It just depends, but I personally find those recurrent threads completly meaningless.
Those are just tools and it's very common that high-end image makers wouldn't limit themselves with one system only but a vast palette .
Lindberg likes to shoot untether in some cases, uses often 1 or 2 assistant following his movements with CLs. In other cases he would use a Blad tethered.
It just depends on what he has in mind for the final look and the requirements of prod.

Nikon is not better than Phase or Leaf or Hassy. It's as pointless as those debates about is Alexa better than Red. Any serious production house would
ever consider that there is one holly grail system vs the evil rest. Arri and Red are covering convergent and different territories and even within the Alexa workflow,
not always it's convenient to choose the ArriRaw workflow but Prores. It depends very much on the budget.

It's not really important if Fred may be an infiltrated Nikon's agent or if he has a top world portfolio. Everybody's free to opinate in a forum, from the wanabee
to the top pros, that's the rule; ultimately we are big boys and it's our business to filter what we read in internet, but I'm not sure a Peter Lindberg would have the time nor the interest to
spend on war threads about systems, deficiencies of brand engineering, magic properties of some and the hugly of others.
I know it from experience in the forum, but one has to have a lot of free time to be regularly involved into "vs" debates, otherwise we are busy doing our job and making money. And when one really
works like crazy under pressure, and specially in the demanding high-end, the little free time left will more likely be used in some more interesting areas, like for ex having sex with the abandoned wife.
(Coot in this aspect is a lucky man because the wife is involved in the job, so she understands why one is broken at 4 in the morning)

And by the way, for those who like spreading cataclysmic predictions on MF future, if tomorrow one of those "evil" brand close the door, I'm not sure people would jump in complete happyness about that.
Remember what happened to Contax.

Dslrs, MF, tethered or not, liveviewed or not, AFed or not, reliable or not...those are just tools, and the more tools we have in our arsenal,
the better IMO.



Welcome back, Fred!

Rob C

Guy Mancuso

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1133
    • http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/index.php
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #277 on: March 15, 2013, 12:20:03 PM »



I've sometimes wondered why people feel obliged to use the focussing aid as if there is no alternative.

Its called manual focus, I use it all the time but i'm strictly speaking of the AF not working to my satisfaction and cant hit what I want. Than I switch to my fall back , manual focus. We are talking people here that move as well not a statue in the park.

I've also spent a lot of years behind cameras, and I also know that you can focus pretty well on eyes simply by using the groundglass provided in the camera; the eyes don't have to be central to focus upon them.

Manual focus on any new DSLR that has AF built in simply does not use the focusing screens we used with our older manual focusing Nikon/Canon bodies. Basically they suck for manual focus and have been in recent years. Let me be very clear I dont like AF, never have and I never trusted it because it simply can't think at all. It is useful at times though but I never depend on it

An answer is to ditch the monopod for a light tripod and open only two legs for those conditions where you'd usually have a mono. It instantly cuts down on movement off level, and holding the camera in the right vertical positon for the shot is no hassle at all compared to trying to steady a monopod which only saves you from gravity, but still lets you waltz around like a lunatic in all other directions!

 Sorry in these kinds of shooting situations a tripod is actually a problem and a monopod in the right hands is a rock. Im a rock and I never move. I will give myself credit for that one.

I really do recommend any of you guys working out-of-studio with people shots try it; I wouldn't offer it unless I'd found it to work damned well. It'll take you ten minutes of down time to test; could save you a session.

Rob C
« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 01:31:55 PM by Guy Mancuso »
Logged

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1085
    • on YouTube
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #278 on: March 15, 2013, 12:31:08 PM »



Welcome back, Fred!

Rob C

Nice to read you again Rob.

Cheers.

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #279 on: March 15, 2013, 02:49:15 PM »



When I was 18 I worked for AP.  Did the PJ stint from the time I was 16 (local papers then a stringer of AP/UPI).  I shot lots of press conferences, lots of speaches, lots of important people talking in DC.  With the F4 and even the dim but acurate FM2 and manual lenses (which I still have and use on my D800) I could hit focus and get frames good enough for a newspaper, TriX at 1600, by the way.  Also of note is that I often times zone focused.  I had the distances from various spots in certain rooms memorized, or I took a distance reading by focusing on a fixed point and reading the scale.

I've tried zone focusing and manual focusing with every digital camera I've ever owned.  Zone focusing is out, as the distance scales don't translate to digital, and modern lenses don't really have them.  You can aproximate by taking an AF reading and chimping, but its not as fast as with 35mm film cameras and older lenses.  Manual focusing is a mixed bag.  The Canon S screens help LOTS, but still nowhere near as bright or accurate as an F4 or F5, or even the dim but acurate FM2 or Nikkormat screens.  The EOS lenses have inacurate distance scales, and that is being kind. The D800 screen is bright enough, but not accurate enough and doesn't have enough magnification.  The ds3 and d3x are big and bright enough, but not as good as the F4/F5/F3HP. 

For MF, its a mixed bag as well, but better than the modern crop of dslrs.  I could hit focus with the Afd1/2 manually more so than when using AF.  The H is a pleasure, so is the 6008/Hy6, as is the Hass V, even with the crop.   The RZ is great with teh waist level and magnifier.  This is, to me, the biggest advantage to MF:  The finders.

EVF's aren't there yet.  They may be soon, but not yet, even the clean HDMI out of the D800 into a Red monitor, while cool and usable in a studio, is a BIT cumbersome.

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16   Go Up