Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 15   Go Down

Author Topic: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?  (Read 79471 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #120 on: March 04, 2014, 03:48:23 am »

Hi,

If you look at the print with a loupe the difference is huge. Looking at the file at pixel level the P45+/Planar combo is sharper and the file has about twice the numbers of pixels. So limitation is eyesight.

It is interesting to note that some of the respondants say that they see no or little difference at the print sizes discussed (17" on the short size) but all posters say the differences are obvious at larger sizes (say 22") and up.

There may be other factors than sharpness/resolution that you may observe in prints, like contrast, colour rendition, clarity.

I would also say that my observations are pretty close to the recommendation that 180 PPI is what you can observe in a print.
(Sources: Bruce Fraser, Jeff Shchewe, Bart van der Wolf and Tim Parkin)

Best regards
Erik


Erik,
Most people aren't going to look at the print with a lupe, they are going to step back a bit and look at the whole thing with both eyes.  If you can't see a difference when viewing the whole of both prints side by side, I'd be surprised, but if you don't that does not mean much to me.  I can see a difference in images shot with my DSLR and my MFDB in prints 4 inches big as well as larger. It's not just sharpness but also overall look and feel.  The MFDB images have more life to them, more depth, but these qualities you can not measure, you can only feel. 

Also I know you have your own opinion, but I'm always wondering if something is amiss with your hasselblad system.  Your images almost always look soft to me.  I couldn't say but it's possible your focus screen is off calibration and you misfocus, or you have a bum set of lenses or something else.  I just can't imagine you'd have such soft images even with those old zeiss lenses.  Have you had your system checked out?   

Some of these old Zeiss lenses were also offered on the Rolleiflex platform so I am familiar with them.  I don't think the Rolleiflex ones were made to a higher quality than those that went onto Hasselblad but I guess that's one other potential explanation, though unlikely.  The zeiss 120mm lens is a pretty good lens actually so I wonder about your shots.  It's not as good at infinity as close up though. 

Lastly, I know you have left C1 for LR, but I'm convinced you will get a better file from C1 v7 for at least the Phase P45 files.






Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #121 on: March 04, 2014, 05:52:40 am »

There may be other factors than sharpness/resolution that you may observe in prints, like contrast, colour rendition, clarity.

I would also say that my observations are pretty close to the recommendation that 180 PPI is what you can observe in a print.
(Sources: Bruce Fraser, Jeff Shchewe, Bart van der Wolf and Tim Parkin)

Hi Erik,

As said earlier, and on other occasions, viewing distance (angular visual resolution) will set the limit on achievable resolution, unless the image itself lacks resolution. I always find it a sobering experience when viewing my Star target (100mm diameter at the outer edge) from a distance of a few metres. When increasing the viewing distance there will be a distance where we will no longer be able and discern any detail in the star, at which point it becomes simple to calculate our personal visual acuity for reasonably high contrast at that distance. It's always interesting to observe how gradual that limit is reached with increasing distance, there is no hard transition between in/out of visual resolution, exactly because the contrast reduces with detail size.

There are other factors to image quality besides pure resolution, e.g. MTF and Visual Contrast sensitivity (wrapped together in the SQF metric) where larger format sensors can have a benefit due to a larger on sensor magnification factor and thus MTF, but there is also some additional capacity that postprocessing can achieve. A plug-in like Topaz Labs Clarity will lift a veil of drabness from all images without adding halos, and that helps tonal contrast.

Whenever upsampling is involved, e.g. to meet the native printer resolution, an application like PhotoZoom Pro can really add resolution to existing image detail (edge detail remains/gets smaller than the magnification would produce). Also essential for the highest output quality is post up-sampling output sharpening. A plugin like Topaz Labs Detail allows to control the (micro-)contrast very well (in anticipation of additional media related losses further down the output chain), and it allows to use deconvolution sharpening to address any upsampling (and/or remaining capture) blur. Also adding some noise at that output magnification level, which will be invisible as noise at the intended viewing distance will help to suggest some detail where there isn't any, and it will smoothen gradients.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

synn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1235
    • My fine art portfolio
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #122 on: March 04, 2014, 06:18:29 am »

Erik K,

Without getting into this technical discussion, what I can say is this. The samples you post from the MFD are consistently soft; be it in this thread or the other. Therefore, there's a good chance that there's a dud element in your kit; be it hardware or software. If it's possible, do try using another Hasselbald V body and / or copies of lenses to see if there's any difference. I have seen files from 22MP backs that are sharper out of the box; which is why your samples are quite puzzling.

This is what Eric is saying too.
Logged
my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com

Hans van Driest

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #123 on: March 04, 2014, 08:10:43 am »

I while back I compared a 36Mp file with a 24MP file (a99 and a7r), both files RAW from imaging resources. On screen there was a very clear and obvious difference in resolution. Since printing is what I do with pictures, I printed both files, on 20x30 inch, which is my normal printing size. There was a difference, but disappointingly small.
From 24 to 36Mp is only a small step in linear resolution. I was curious in what is the room left for improvement, resolution wise, for my size of printing.
So yesterday I have set up an experiment that takes such a comparison to the extreme. I made picture with my nex-7 with a Touit 12mm f2.8 mounted (used at f5.6). This is an amazing lens and it also happens to be the one I use most of the time (I get better results with this combination as from my a99 with the 16-35mm f2.8 zoom at comparable length). I made the same picture again, but now as a stitch with my nex-7 and the e50mm f1.8 at f8. This file has a size of roughly 16 times 24Mp. 4 times the linear resolution. I reduced this file to 15000x10000 pixels, to make it more manageable. Using such a large amount of data not only improves resolution, but also dramatically reduces noise, increases DR etc. The subject for this exercise was a cityscape with a lot of fine detail. There was both housing with fine brickwork and all sort of plants in the scene.
On screen the differences was ridiculous. So much more detail, like comparing mf film with 8x10. Not only was there more resolution, but since I already reduced the resolution down to 150Mp, there where less artifacts. So even at 100%, the stitched file looked better.
Anyway, I printed both files, again on 20x30 inch. There is a very obvious difference in depth of field, should probably have stopped down the 50mm a bit more to f11 or 16. But I was after resolution, and f8 is already past optimum for the nex-7.
Apart from the depth of field, it depends on the distance you look from. At 50cm there is not much to choose between the two prints. There are some very subtle visual differences. At a viewing distance of say 20cm the differences become more clear. The larger file has a more natural look. everything looks 'easy', while at this distance the 24Mp file looks a bit strained at some places. and there is some more detail in the larger file.

I would not mind having a camera that would give a result like this every time, but the gain is modest. I showed some other people and the only thing they noticed was a small difference in lighting. This was a well lid subject and I did not do any post processing. The large file could handle almost anything you could do with it. The 24Mp aps-c file would break up much sooner. But still, it is amazing what an equalizer printing is. At this size. I could print the large file 100 inch wide and it would still look great at any distance. But I never print so large.

Printing was done with Qimage (handled the scaling and final sharpening for print) on an Epson 7800. This printer is probably not as sharp as the newer ones. Could make a difference when looking at 20cm.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2014, 08:44:15 am by Hans van Driest »
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #124 on: March 04, 2014, 10:06:20 am »

Erik K,

Without getting into this technical discussion, what I can say is this. The samples you post from the MFD are consistently soft; be it in this thread or the other. Therefore, there's a good chance that there's a dud element in your kit; be it hardware or software. If it's possible, do try using another Hasselbald V body and / or copies of lenses to see if there's any difference. I have seen files from 22MP backs that are sharper out of the box; which is why your samples are quite puzzling.

This is what Eric is saying too.

I agree about the softness. However my P45+ was never really sharp. Detailed yes, subjectively super-sharp like  the first Phase backs and digital Hasselblads I shot, no. I tried several P45+and various bodies, they were all like that; for my own portrait/fashion/street use it was ok since skin tone, material texture and color are what you need, not sharpness.  At some point I got an original P45 value-added loaner and used it with my own body/lens - that was *very* sharp.  

Frankly, I know everyone thinks Phase One are saints, but they are a commercial company - they will respond to their customers.  It is possible that they needed to solve Moiré issues on textiles which were annoying fashion users, and did so by using a slightly diffusing mod. Remember that the time the competition were dSLRs with AA filters and half the pixels of a back. This competition did not suffer from Moiré, so there was detail to spare and an annoyance to lose. And older gen backs had much fewer pixels, so the new gen showed rez improvement over both the dSLRs and the older backs.

If you compare such a blurry device with a modern dSLR with no AA filter, then of course differences become harder to spot. Which is exactly what we are seeing,or more literally often ... not seeing :)

There is no earthly reason why moiré should suddenly disappear from backs "due to pixel size" if high frequency sharpness is maintained  - sorry guys, I do know that much mathematics with certainty, just as I know that mostly everything I drop will either fall down or be shown to be propped up, very few things sit there and just float in the air :)

Edmund
« Last Edit: March 04, 2014, 11:29:54 am by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #125 on: March 04, 2014, 11:25:46 am »

There is no earthly reason why moiré should suddenly disappear "due to pixel size" if high frequency sharpness is maintained  - sorry guys, I do know that much mathematics with certainty, just as I know that everything I drop will either fall down or be shown to be propped up.

Moire does not disappear, it's still there of course. I think it's more about usage statistics, for the most ugly moire to occur there should be patterns shot at a certain scale. With the 22 megapixel backs it seems to happen more often that objects important for the scene are pictured in a scale that cause moire. Fill factors (lower on the 22 megapixel sensor I think) and aperture combinations probably also take part in the general impression that 22 megapixel backs moire more often than even my 33 megapixel one.
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #126 on: March 04, 2014, 11:33:19 am »

Moire does not disappear, it's still there of course. I think it's more about usage statistics, for the most ugly moire to occur there should be patterns shot at a certain scale. With the 22 megapixel backs it seems to happen more often that objects important for the scene are pictured in a scale that cause moire. Fill factors (lower on the 22 megapixel sensor I think) and aperture combinations probably also take part in the general impression that 22 megapixel backs moire more often than even my 33 megapixel one.

Go and look at the "fat pixel" thread on getdpi. You'll see jump-out sharpness of the old backs, and the Moiré appearing on everything including natural rock faces. Which is to be expected as you're going to have a 1/f power spectrum in a lot of real world objects.

Edmund
« Last Edit: March 04, 2014, 12:09:33 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #127 on: March 04, 2014, 12:15:20 pm »

Update: Raw images posted here (as DNG): http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/PrintSize2/RawImages/


Hi Synn,

Yes, I am aware of the softness issue. I don't really have a good explanation. Let's see:

- All my five Zeiss lenses being substandard? Not very probable.
- Bad focus, not very probable with the amount of colour aliasing I have.
- Vibrations during exposure? MLU, Central shutter and RRS Versa 33 without center column with Arca Swiss D4 should avoid that. Colour aliasing still applies.

But this are valid questions and that is the reason I included the test I have done involving the Pentax 645D images from Imaging Resource.

More probable explanations:

- I may have a bad sharpening workflow.
- Doug Peterson made it clear that the Zeiss lenses are not very sharp. But they are still sharp enough to induce quite a lot of colour aliasing.
- Edmund has indicated that he had several samples of the P45+ and all were significantly less sharp than a P45 he had.

All these factors combined may give subpar results. The sharpening workflow I can improve upon.

BUT, none of the factors explain that the P45+ print is significantly much sharper when viewed with a 5.5X loupe but there is little difference that can be seen by the naked eye. I had a colleague who has long experience working with the leading photographers in Sweden and he found that the there was no visual advantage to the P45+ print. The only reasonable explanation I can see is that the P45+ image is significantly sharper, but that the Sony SLT 99 image is sharp enough for an A2 print.

The actual images sent to the printer are shown below at 720PPI. This images have been uprezzed by Lightroom and sharpened for output. They are shown below. Sony Alpha on the left P45+ on the right.

 The second image is a scan of the printed image at 100PPI (normal screen resolution), here the P45+ is on the left and the Sony Alpha 99 on  the right.

Best regards
Erik





Erik K,

Without getting into this technical discussion, what I can say is this. The samples you post from the MFD are consistently soft; be it in this thread or the other. Therefore, there's a good chance that there's a dud element in your kit; be it hardware or software. If it's possible, do try using another Hasselbald V body and / or copies of lenses to see if there's any difference. I have seen files from 22MP backs that are sharper out of the box; which is why your samples are quite puzzling.

This is what Eric is saying too.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2014, 02:30:18 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

EricWHiss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2639
    • Rolleiflex USA
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #128 on: March 04, 2014, 02:49:42 pm »

Erik,
You need to also review the prints by standing back and looking a the 'big picture' meaning the whole image like a typical viewer would do. Lupe and 100% view is fine, but most print viewers will not do this, and looking in a lupe for detail is only one tiny facet of an image, and for small 40cm prints much less important anyhow.

Take a step back and see if you can determine if one of the prints has more life, more depth, more presence, more real looking quality to it than the other.  These qualities are more important than sheer detail,  unless you are making maps or test charts anyhow.

Logged
Rolleiflex USA

synn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1235
    • My fine art portfolio
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #129 on: March 04, 2014, 06:44:30 pm »

I have posted the link before, but I have seen very sharp images made by the Bulb Exposures blog guy with the P45+ , which makes me think that there's something wrong with Erik's setup. I also recall seeing similarly sharp images from other users when the P45+ hit the market and the 1 hour plus exposures were all the rage.

p.s. The Bulb Exposures guy uses a Mamiya platform, so it might be down to the lenses. I am not certain.
Logged
my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4066
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #130 on: March 04, 2014, 08:00:03 pm »

Eric:

I downloaded one of the P45+ dng files and looked at it Lightroom 5.3.  The dng had your original settings and all I did was decrease the detail slider (I believe you had it on 100%) and backed it off to around 50% and then added a bit more from the sharpening slider.  I exported the image at 300dpi, which is what I do for everything I work with.  (I will print from either PS or LR and most times will select 180 or 240 for the print output),  On the P45+ image I would have picked 240 if I was going to make a print.

After export, I used Focus Magic to give the image a bit more sharpening to my like.  I prefer this method and get very good results when printed with either my 9900 or 7800 Epson.  I did not upgrez this image to anything larger than what the default image was at 300 dpi. 

Net, your P45+ image looks great, the areas that were in the focus plane of the camera/lens are very very sharp.  The growth rings on the cut tree to the left and the lichens on the center rocks all look very good.  The overall image looks very good to me nice shadow detail and no noise to speak of.   With the Hassi Zeiss lenses you are getting some great fine details.  The other thing that caught my eye was the small ferns towards to the top, even though these were a bit past the focus point, they still resolved very well also, with detail extending into the individual fern fronds.  Also the out of focus areas have an excellent transition, note the pine tree trunk on the right of the image. No smearing or increase in noise artifact, which I tended to get with my Mamiya 35mm AF or 28mm AF and the P45+

I attached a crop below from the center. 

Paul C

Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

synn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1235
    • My fine art portfolio
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #131 on: March 04, 2014, 08:24:43 pm »

For what it's worth, I processed the same file in Capture One Pro 7.2 (With no sharpening in Photoshop later) and it looked sharper there (than Paul's version) to me.
I am at work now, but I will post the finished file later when I am back home.
Logged
my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com

FMueller

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 74
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #132 on: March 04, 2014, 10:01:09 pm »

Are you using a wide aperture?

I've read some of your observations on the P45+ and just figured you were a real tough critic. I downloaded one of your dng's and think, now I understand why you are not wowed by the MFDB. It doesn't seem to have the snap of sharpness that I see in my P40+. I use my P40+ with a 503 CW and late vintage 50, 80, and 120mm Zeiss lenses and with a Cambo Wide DS and a Schneider 24,35,47 and a Rodenstock 55. The tech cam lenses are a step above the Hasselblad kit, but the Hasselblad with the Zeiss lenses still blow away my 5D3 and A7r (with Sony lenses) kits for technical quality. I rarely using anything but default sharpening on my images, they just don't need it and if I sharpen them they will simply be another in the modern style of over sharpened images. The major motivation for hauling out the MF equipment, for putting up with the expense and hassle is the native sharpness. Without that, we have much better options in smaller cameras.
 


Update: Raw images posted here (as DNG): http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/PrintSize2/RawImages/


Hi Synn,

Yes, I am aware of the softness issue. I don't really have a good explanation. Let's see:

- All my five Zeiss lenses being substandard? Not very probable.
- Bad focus, not very probable with the amount of colour aliasing I have.
- Vibrations during exposure? MLU, Central shutter and RRS Versa 33 without center column with Arca Swiss D4 should avoid that. Colour aliasing still applies.

But this are valid questions and that is the reason I included the test I have done involving the Pentax 645D images from Imaging Resource.

More probable explanations:

- I may have a bad sharpening workflow.
- Doug Peterson made it clear that the Zeiss lenses are not very sharp. But they are still sharp enough to induce quite a lot of colour aliasing.
- Edmund has indicated that he had several samples of the P45+ and all were significantly less sharp than a P45 he had.

All these factors combined may give subpar results. The sharpening workflow I can improve upon.

BUT, none of the factors explain that the P45+ print is significantly much sharper when viewed with a 5.5X loupe but there is little difference that can be seen by the naked eye. I had a colleague who has long experience working with the leading photographers in Sweden and he found that the there was no visual advantage to the P45+ print. The only reasonable explanation I can see is that the P45+ image is significantly sharper, but that the Sony SLT 99 image is sharp enough for an A2 print.

The actual images sent to the printer are shown below at 720PPI. This images have been uprezzed by Lightroom and sharpened for output. They are shown below. Sony Alpha on the left P45+ on the right.

 The second image is a scan of the printed image at 100PPI (normal screen resolution), here the P45+ is on the left and the Sony Alpha 99 on  the right.

Best regards
Erik





Logged

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4066
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #133 on: March 04, 2014, 10:12:45 pm »

For what it's worth, I processed the same file in Capture One Pro 7.2 (With no sharpening in Photoshop later) and it looked sharper there (than Paul's version) to me.
I am at work now, but I will post the finished file later when I am back home.

Synn,  I agree my crop looks a bit soft.  Not sure what happened in the transform to jpg.  The original seemed very sharp to me except for the areas that were not in the plane of focus.

Paul C



Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

synn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1235
    • My fine art portfolio
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #134 on: March 04, 2014, 10:16:25 pm »

Synn,  I agree my crop looks a bit soft.  Not sure what happened in the transform to jpg.  The original seemed very sharp to me except for the areas that were not in the plane of focus.

Paul C






Hi Paul,

It might be the forum upload engine applying a compression. Perhaps, you could try uploading to Flickr? My observation is that Flickr doesn't degrade image quality in any perceptible way.
Logged
my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #135 on: March 05, 2014, 01:31:08 am »

Hi,

Thanks for taking time. I looked a bit at your suggested sharpening and it works better than mine. I have been playing around with Focus Magick, too. Back to sharpening school!

I also looked at the images in Capture One, and I see some clear advantages, worth discussing.

The main question on this thread is still if there is visible difference between a DSLR and an MFDB when printed in relatively small prints, like A2. Reasonably, the same sharpening or even better could be applied to the Sony Alpha 99 image, too.

This is very relevant for anyone printing small and cares about spendings. My test here is done with a 10-25 year old kit (except the back) that costs about 12K$, compared to one that costs something like 4k$, and it is a zoom vs. a prime that is a bit soft but highly regarded. Hartblei.de sells the same optical group for 4595€, something like 6k$. (Stefan says it is same optical group but round aperture and improved internal shielding, and also it works best at f/11 which I think was used here.)

Now, you can get 24MP kit with an excellent lens like the Sony A7 with the Sony 55/18 ZF lens for 2696$, that lens seems to be very good. It may be a better choice for small prints than a 12K used MFD kit if there is little difference at that print size, if economy matters. I guess that economy matters for most readers on these forums. (Regarding the A7r, I would not really consider it right now. I would rather wait a year or so for next generation but the A7 seems attractive). You can of course buy Canons, Nikons too, and Sigma seems to make some very good lenses at attractive prices.

For someone not caring about spendings and wanting the best I guess that a technical camera with Rodenstock HRs is the way to go, or may be even buying a drum scanner and working with 8x10" film.

Best regards
Erik


Eric:

I downloaded one of the P45+ dng files and looked at it Lightroom 5.3.  The dng had your original settings and all I did was decrease the detail slider (I believe you had it on 100%) and backed it off to around 50% and then added a bit more from the sharpening slider.  I exported the image at 300dpi, which is what I do for everything I work with.  (I will print from either PS or LR and most times will select 180 or 240 for the print output),  On the P45+ image I would have picked 240 if I was going to make a print.

After export, I used Focus Magic to give the image a bit more sharpening to my like.  I prefer this method and get very good results when printed with either my 9900 or 7800 Epson.  I did not upgrez this image to anything larger than what the default image was at 300 dpi. 

Net, your P45+ image looks great, the areas that were in the focus plane of the camera/lens are very very sharp.  The growth rings on the cut tree to the left and the lichens on the center rocks all look very good.  The overall image looks very good to me nice shadow detail and no noise to speak of.   With the Hassi Zeiss lenses you are getting some great fine details.  The other thing that caught my eye was the small ferns towards to the top, even though these were a bit past the focus point, they still resolved very well also, with detail extending into the individual fern fronds.  Also the out of focus areas have an excellent transition, note the pine tree trunk on the right of the image. No smearing or increase in noise artifact, which I tended to get with my Mamiya 35mm AF or 28mm AF and the P45+

I attached a crop below from the center. 

Paul C


Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #136 on: March 05, 2014, 03:30:17 am »

The main question on this thread is...
... whether your workflow is really appropriate to show meaningful differences. Paul showed you a much better processing of your capture and you might want to do the print comparison again. And while we're at it ... since you can't safe the very obvious advantage of the P45+ file into the print I doubt that your printing workflow is really appropriate to make generalized statements about the differences.
That said you can of course make great A2 prints out of 24MP files (also 18MP or even 10MP will do... depending on the subject, the desired look and the printing workflow).
Logged

synn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1235
    • My fine art portfolio
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #137 on: March 05, 2014, 08:07:47 am »

Erik,

As mentioned earlier, I edited your P45+ RAW in C1P 7.2. Did some basic adjustments. Changed color profile to P45+ daylight, curve4 to film high contrast, Custom WB, did some highlight recovery, added a little bit of clarity and increased the sharpness a little.

A 100% crop of this is as below:



I took the file to Photoshop CC as 16 bit profoto RGB TIFFs and added 1 Pixel sharpening in Focus magic.  A 100% crop is as below:




The forum software resizes them. Just right click and choose "View image" to see them properly.

I echo Paul's sentiments. Your file, after being processed properly renders wonderfully. Colors really pop, the in-focus areas have tonnes of detail even before sharpening and the transition from in focus to out of focus is very buttery. Overall, you have a lovely frame there. I am convinced that there's nothing wrong with your hardware and that it's the post production that needs some sharpening. Pun intended.

If you want to get the most out of your P45+ files, I strongly suggest that you rethink your post production workflow, in terms of the tool used and also the steps involved.

The full size files can be downloaded here:

Unsharpened:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3668/12948198543_c255a83ed7_o.jpg

Sharpened in Focus Magic:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3782/12948029025_793088c959_o.jpg


p.s. I downloaded your A99 RAW too and tried to open it in C1P, but C1P won't recognize the file. This is another debate altogether, but I also suggest that you upload IIQs and ARWs and not DNGs on your site if you want other people to try things with your files.

However, judging from my experience with the D800, I can confidently say that you won't be able to sharpen the A99 files as much as the MF files before things start to look too "Digital" and artificial.
Logged
my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #138 on: March 05, 2014, 11:40:12 am »

Hi,

Paul suggested a small modification and use of focus magic. I tried his settings and I will look into this.

Still,as I said before the P45+ advantage was very much visible in print using a 5X loupe, but not really visible with the naked eye. Eyesight may play a role here, of course. But I did consult a colleague and his findings were similar.

More work ahead…

Best regards
Erik


... whether your workflow is really appropriate to show meaningful differences. Paul showed you a much better processing of your capture and you might want to do the print comparison again. And while we're at it ... since you can't safe the very obvious advantage of the P45+ file into the print I doubt that your printing workflow is really appropriate to make generalized statements about the differences.
That said you can of course make great A2 prints out of 24MP files (also 18MP or even 10MP will do... depending on the subject, the desired look and the printing workflow).
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #139 on: March 05, 2014, 11:44:12 am »

Synn,

Thank you very much for your effort. I realize I get some unexpected learning experience from this which I appreciate very much.

It may take a day or two, until I reevaluate my position.

As a note, my perception of the day was that it was very, very green. A pretty dark winter day with heavy overcast very intensive dark green, no yellow at all.

Why do I always carry a grey card and never use it?!

Best regards
Erik

Erik,

As mentioned earlier, I edited your P45+ RAW in C1P 7.2. Did some basic adjustments. Changed color profile to P45+ daylight, curve4 to film high contrast, Custom WB, did some highlight recovery, added a little bit of clarity and increased the sharpness a little.

A 100% crop of this is as below:



I took the file to Photoshop CC as 16 bit profoto RGB TIFFs and added 1 Pixel sharpening in Focus magic.  A 100% crop is as below:




The forum software resizes them. Just right click and choose "View image" to see them properly.

I echo Paul's sentiments. Your file, after being processed properly renders wonderfully. Colors really pop, the in-focus areas have tonnes of detail even before sharpening and the transition from in focus to out of focus is very buttery. Overall, you have a lovely frame there. I am convinced that there's nothing wrong with your hardware and that it's the post production that needs some sharpening. Pun intended.

If you want to get the most out of your P45+ files, I strongly suggest that you rethink your post production workflow, in terms of the tool used and also the steps involved.

The full size files can be downloaded here:

Unsharpened:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3668/12948198543_c255a83ed7_o.jpg

Sharpened in Focus Magic:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3782/12948029025_793088c959_o.jpg


p.s. I downloaded your A99 RAW too and tried to open it in C1P, but C1P won't recognize the file. This is another debate altogether, but I also suggest that you upload IIQs and ARWs and not DNGs on your site if you want other people to try things with your files.

However, judging from my experience with the D800, I can confidently say that you won't be able to sharpen the A99 files as much as the MF files before things start to look too "Digital" and artificial.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 03:06:11 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 15   Go Up