Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: haring on January 22, 2011, 02:01:50 pm
-
Why is it that the color produced by the medium and large format cameras are better than colors produced by 35mm (Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. DSLR) cameras?
I don't think it is only that the digital back or the medium or large format film they are using. It also has to do with the size of the film and the digital back... Why are colors nicer, cleaner if they are recorded on a medium, large format media...? I am sure you know it better...Can anybody explain it briefly?
-
I would think one reason is most Digital Backs are true 16-bit allowing for vastly more colors and better tonality, in the case of multi-shot I believe each color channel gets its own exposure...or something to that effect I am not really clear on that. Most DSLR'S are 12 or 14 bit . As for film ...not sure why ;D
-
I am pretty sure that this has to do with the larger area which the image is recorded. Or at least this was the case with film. I remember when working with a 4x5 and ding some shooting with a 35mm, the same film type would give much better color and gradient flows on the 4x5 as with the 35mm.
-
Why is it that the color produced by the medium and large format cameras are better than colors produced by 35mm (Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. DSLR) cameras?...
For the same reason they have "six stops of dynamic range advantage, visible in a small print from 30 feet"? ;)
-
I am pretty sure that this has to do with the larger area which the image is recorded. Or at least this was the case with film. I remember when working with a 4x5 and ding some shooting with a 35mm, the same film type would give much better color and gradient flows on the 4x5 as with the 35mm.
I agree. There is something about recording on a larger surface, I guess.
-
I would think one reason is most Digital Backs are true 16-bit allowing for vastly more colors and better tonality, in the case of multi-shot I believe each color channel gets its own exposure...or something to that effect I am not really clear on that. Most DSLR'S are 12 or 14 bit . As for film ...not sure why ;D
I am sure Canon and Sony would produce true 16-bit chips for their professional DSLR cameras if that would be the only reason. The camera would be more expensive but pros would be able to afford it...
-
I would think one reason is most Digital Backs are true 16-bit allowing for vastly more colors and better tonality...
In addition to bit depth, I'm guessing that the color filter array on Bayer-pattern sensors can be optimized for either color quality or for high-ISO performance. It seems that all else being equal, cameras with the best color quality have the poorest high-ISO performance, and those with good high-ISO performance aren't particularly known for the best color quality. Does anyone know for certain?
-
In addition to bit depth, I'm guessing that the color filter array on Bayer-pattern sensors can be optimized for either color quality or for high-ISO performance. It seems that all else being equal, cameras with the best color quality have the poorest high-ISO performance, and those with good high-ISO performance aren't particularly known for the best color quality. Does anyone know for certain?
This would make sense...! Hmmmm!
-
Why is it that the color produced by the medium and large format cameras are better than colors produced by 35mm (Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. DSLR) cameras?
I don't think it is only that the digital back or the medium or large format film they are using. It also has to do with the size of the film and the digital back... Why are colors nicer, cleaner if they are recorded on a medium, large format media...? I am sure you know it better...Can anybody explain it briefly?
Nature of Bayer sensors. More than one pixel needed for each fine elements of color information. When lens under-resolves the sensor colors transitions are smoother and tones look silky. If someone makes 160MB back the pixels are not waisted because of optics and diffraction. Same noise at 40MP but much better tonality.
-
Why is it that the color produced by the medium and large format cameras are better than colors produced by 35mm (Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. DSLR) cameras?
I don't think it is only that the digital back or the medium or large format film they are using. It also has to do with the size of the film and the digital back... Why are colors nicer, cleaner if they are recorded on a medium, large format media...? I am sure you know it better...Can anybody explain it briefly?
The largeness of the sensor is not the only reason. An old Phase One Lightphase (6mp digital back circa 1998) had a sensor which is 36mm x 24mm and produced gorgeous color, especially compared to early 35mm dSLRs.
It would be really convenient if there was only one reason. But the answer is more complicated.
Here's a partial list of equipment components (not techniques) that effect the technical quality of the image:
[Lens Hood / Flare > Lens coating > lens > aperture/shutter > body's internal blackness > IR filter > microlenses > AA filter (or lack thereof) > sensor size > sensor pixel type > readout speed > sensor-to-AD-convertor path, A/D convertor (both number of bits and quality) > heat sinking / cooling > raw file compression > black calibration > in camera raw data manipulation > characteristic curve > ICC profile > demosaic algorithm > deconvolution algorithm > noise reduction type > up-res or down-res algorithm > sharpening]
Medium format has always pursued the highest image quality even when it meant other things had to be sacrificed. It's not a surprise then to see the quality is very high.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) ([email protected])
__________________
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 (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
-
I'm not sure why colors would look better on a MF back than on a DSLR. They use different sensors (Kodak and Dalsa CCDs, not CMOS). So they certainly should produce a different look, but not necessarily better...
This will get me in trouble, but I prefer film's color rendering to digital's. At least with some films. You can get a good look out of both, but portra and velvia 50, in particular, produce noticeably nicer colors than my dSLRs do until the raw files are subjected to tons of correction. Granted, they're not very accurate colors, but they look great. Velvia only has 3-4 stops of dynamic range, but it compresses a lot into that so the tonality is pretty good. Unfortunately it's way too grainy for quality enlargements until you get to 6x7 (really 4x5) but the colors and tonality are great at 4x5.
The other reason is that lens flaws are reduced. I looked at some of the sample photos here:
http://diglloyd.com/articles/CoastalOptics60f4/examples-color.html
http://diglloyd.com/articles/CoastalOptics60f4/apo.html
And noticed that the colors looked better than I was used to seeing. I noticed that my slides shot with the apo-sironar-s lenses also had unusually good colors. I figured it was because both lenses claim to be "apochromatic" (well-corrected). Turns out it's not the case. The apo-sironar-s lenses have plenty of bokeh fringing (less than average, but still lots) and low quality bokeh in general, but the large format and high working aperture (f16) cancels it out. So lens flaws, many of which are color-related and many of which are worse with zooms, etc., are magnified on dSLRs, and I think that's another significant part of it.
-
Thanks Doug!
-
Why is it that the color produced by the medium and large format cameras are better than colors produced by 35mm (Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. DSLR) cameras?
Actually, I'm not sure "colors" are much better from medium format. However, I am convinced the image quality is considerably better for all the reasons Doug mentions. But how much all of that impacts just the color is, I think debatable.
Some software like C1 Pro, can render Phase One files with very good color rendition. Some people think Canon's DPP or Nikon's CNX do better color rendering for their cameras than 3rd party software. But I think Camera Raw and/or Lightroom can have very good color rendering as well, if you know how to use it. I would agree that the camera maker's software is often better at default, but I don't use the defaults.
I don't think my P65+ files are any easier nor harder to get good color from than my 1Ds MIII at base ISO. I think the conditions I often shoot one or the other under will have a big impact on the difficulties.
When I'm shooting the P65+ it's usually under decent lighting conditions either outside or in the studio. When shooting DSLRs, it's often because of either lens selection (super wide or really long) or because the lighting sucks...and when the lighting sucks, it's really hard to get good color.
But I think if you are shooting in reasonable daylight with low ISO, the color rendering you can get from DSLR compares favorably with medium format. There's no question in my mind the potential image quality of the medium format will be better.
High ISO, mixed lighting or even warm tungsten lighting is very different from the lighting I would expect to use medium format for. On the other hand, one can get shots with DSLR at high ISO and fast lenses hand-held that you really can't get with medium format. But those shots will be a challenge to color correct.
-
Hi!
I actually don't think that colors are better with MFDBs. On the other MFDBs have some advantages:
- They collect more light
- Lenses are less stressed, so we get better microcontrast (better MTF on small subject detail)
- MFDBs are probably not tuned for good ISO performance, so color filters may be more selective giving more saturation
I believe that MFDBs have better image quality for the reasons listed above. I don't think they have magic properties that cannot be explained by physics.
Best regards
Erik
Actually, I'm not sure "colors" are much better from medium format. However, I am convinced the image quality is considerably better for all the reasons Doug mentions. But how much all of that impacts just the color is, I think debatable.
Some software like C1 Pro, can render Phase One files with very good color rendition. Some people think Canon's DPP or Nikon's CNX do better color rendering for their cameras than 3rd party software. But I think Camera Raw and/or Lightroom can have very good color rendering as well, if you know how to use it. I would agree that the camera maker's software is often better at default, but I don't use the defaults.
I don't think my P65+ files are any easier nor harder to get good color from than my 1Ds MIII at base ISO. I think the conditions I often shoot one or the other under will have a big impact on the difficulties.
When I'm shooting the P65+ it's usually under decent lighting conditions either outside or in the studio. When shooting DSLRs, it's often because of either lens selection (super wide or really long) or because the lighting sucks...and when the lighting sucks, it's really hard to get good color.
But I think if you are shooting in reasonable daylight with low ISO, the color rendering you can get from DSLR compares favorably with medium format. There's no question in my mind the potential image quality of the medium format will be better.
High ISO, mixed lighting or even warm tungsten lighting is very different from the lighting I would expect to use medium format for. On the other hand, one can get shots with DSLR at high ISO and fast lenses hand-held that you really can't get with medium format. But those shots will be a challenge to color correct.
-
Doug,
You are absolutely right about the factors but many of those factors are not related to sensor size. For instance it is quite possible to put a compendium on a DSLR.
In general I'd guess that MFDBs are used in a more meticulous way, giving better results. DSLRs are often used with zoom lenses while MFDBs often go with primes of medium apertures.
Best regards
Erik
The largeness of the sensor is not the only reason. An old Phase One Lightphase (6mp digital back circa 1998) had a sensor which is 36mm x 24mm and produced gorgeous color, especially compared to early 35mm dSLRs.
It would be really convenient if there was only one reason. But the answer is more complicated.
Here's a partial list of equipment components (not techniques) that effect the technical quality of the image:
[Lens Hood / Flare > Lens coating > lens > aperture/shutter > body's internal blackness > IR filter > microlenses > AA filter (or lack thereof) > sensor size > sensor pixel type > readout speed > sensor-to-AD-convertor path, A/D convertor (both number of bits and quality) > heat sinking / cooling > raw file compression > black calibration > in camera raw data manipulation > characteristic curve > ICC profile > demosaic algorithm > deconvolution algorithm > noise reduction type > up-res or down-res algorithm > sharpening]
Medium format has always pursued the highest image quality even when it meant other things had to be sacrificed. It's not a surprise then to see the quality is very high.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) ([email protected])
__________________
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 (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
-
Here's a partial list of equipment components (not techniques) that effect the technical quality of the image:
[Lens Hood / Flare > Lens coating > lens > aperture/shutter > body's internal blackness > IR filter > microlenses > AA filter (or lack thereof) > sensor size > sensor pixel type > readout speed > sensor-to-AD-convertor path, A/D convertor (both number of bits and quality) > heat sinking / cooling > raw file compression > black calibration > in camera raw data manipulation > characteristic curve > ICC profile > demosaic algorithm > deconvolution algorithm > noise reduction type > up-res or down-res algorithm > sharpening]
Res helps colour as if you do not have res, all the colours are mixed up (by diffraction, OOF un-sharpness, Bayer interpolation, frosted glass windows {I mean AA filters}, and you get low colour micro-contrast, or muddiness in low-tech-speak.
Yes Bayer interpolation/MultiShot res is a major omission in your list.
-
Why is it that the color produced by the medium and large format cameras are better than colors produced by 35mm (Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. DSLR) cameras?
I don't think it is only that the digital back or the medium or large format film they are using. It also has to do with the size of the film and the digital back... Why are colors nicer, cleaner if they are recorded on a medium, large format media...? I am sure you know it better...Can anybody explain it briefly?
i shoot with a p40+ (previously p25, a22, p45+), and also shoot with a 1dsmk3 and 5d, and since the canons turned 14bit, theres not hardly anything in it. i dont know about dynamic range, but canons have a heap more details in the dark, and medium format seems to have a heap head room in the lights for grading. but that might have something to do with what they set the "idea" iso as. it seems that med format has a bit more latitude.
but when it comes to colour, i haven't seen any difference. and all my shots get graded very heavily, and my retouchers have no problem voicing their opinions.
paul
-
The color quality does not depend on the sensor surface, but essentially on the 16-bit sampling. Just compare the results of a Nikon or a Canon next to an "antique" 24/36 format digital back to be convinced. Even when images are made with the same lens (Nikon, in this case), the result is always better with de digital back, especially in multishoot. Already in mode 1 shot, the soft tones are more detailed.
With a larger back, there is a huge difference.
PdF
-
i shoot with a p40+ (previously p25, a22, p45+), and also shoot with a 1dsmk3 and 5d, and since the canons turned 14bit, theres not hardly anything in it. i dont know about dynamic range, but canons have a heap more details in the dark, and medium format seems to have a heap head room in the lights for grading. but that might have something to do with what they set the "idea" iso as. it seems that med format has a bit more latitude.
but when it comes to colour, i haven't seen any difference. and all my shots get graded very heavily, and my retouchers have no problem voicing their opinions.
paul
I'm with Paul on this.
I don't see "better" colors with medium format. I do see more sensitivity to color such as any blotchiness on the skin, or ambient color from a room or a practical light source.
So I think my Medium Format backs are more color sensitive, but since I shoot people I love to see the color a little more dumb, or slightly less sensitive.
Though at the end of the day it doesn't matter that much because nearly every image goes through layers of corrections, regardless of capture device and from processing to post photoshop work everything gets changed to your liking.
IMO
BC
-
… With a larger back, there is a huge difference...
Care to demonstrate?
-
Hi,
I think that the issue with color has much to do with perception and processing, so it would be hard to demonstrate. Correct color, defined in terms of dE, may not be pleasant color.
Best regards
Erik
Care to demonstrate?
-
Hi!
I actually don't think that colors are better with MFDBs. On the other MFDBs have some advantages:
- They collect more light
- Lenses are less stressed, so we get better microcontrast (better MTF on small subject detail)
- MFDBs are probably not tuned for good ISO performance, so color filters may be more selective giving more saturation
I believe that MFDBs have better image quality for the reasons listed above. I don't think they have magic properties that cannot be explained by physics.
Best regards
Erik
I think that Erik's basically right (as he usually is, when it comes to a question that can be explained by examining the physics involved).
ISO 50 Velvia's famous colour arises in its narrow, sharply peaked, hardly overlapping RGB sensitivity curves. Down the years, I've spent a lot of time collecting and examining film datasheet PDFs for their spectral response curves (in search of astro-suitable films), and Velvia's graph looks like no other.
In digital, more selective colour filters within the Bayer array are the equivalent of Velvia's colour layer response. MF digital backs may well be more selective than most DSLRs. Certainly, one trick to boost signal sensitivity is to have CFA RGB filters with large spectral overlaps (typically with response curves which are relatively broad, flat-topped and steep-sided); and DXOmark measurements show that Canon does a bit of this. The downside is that colours are less saturated and wavelengths (hues) within the bandpass of each filter are harder to distinguish.
MFD also struggles to achieve high ISO. While this is mainly due to the high readout noise in all MF CCDs to date (12 e- being the current best...even Canon's ancient 300D was better than that, at 10 e- rms!), it may also be partly due to more selective CFA filters.
Ray
-
… I think that the issue with color has much to do with perception and processing, so it would be hard to demonstrate...
So… once again, we are asked to believe "it is there, but you can not see it"… yet another example of the emperor-has-no-clothes syndrome. You have to be the one-in-the know, the chosen one, the believer, to actually "see" it. Like the ones who can spot a "six-stop DR difference in a small print, from 30 feet". If you can not see it, then you must be an ignorant infidel.
The power of belief is huge: the latest research suggests that patients benefit from the placebo effect even when told explicitly that they're taking a placebo. Then again, some people swear they saw Virgin Mary.
-
So… once again, we are asked to believe "it is there, but you can not see it"… yet another example of the emperor-has-no-clothes syndrome. You have to be the one-in-the know, the chosen one, the believer, to actually "see" it. Like the ones who can spot a "six-stop DR difference in a small print, from 30 feet". If you can not see it, then you must be an ignorant infidel.
The power of belief is huge: the latest research suggests that patients benefit from the placebo effect even when told explicitly that they're taking a placebo. Then again, some people swear they saw Virgin Mary.
In the world of art reproduction and historical preservation there is an enormous effort to extract. Almost all the high-end art reproduction and historical preservation in major museums/galleries/societies is done on digital backs. That should tell you something.
Color accuracy and color gamut and other spectral analysis are actually quite non subjective.
The subjective part is whether or not the color you get from your camera matches your vision, and if not, how much of your time/energy is wasted getting it to that point.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) ([email protected])
__________________
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 (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
-
In the world of art reproduction and historical preservation there is an enormous effort to extract. Almost all the high-end art reproduction and historical preservation in major museums/galleries/societies is done on digital backs. That should tell you something...
What it tells me is there might be numerous reasons for that, color may or may not be one.
Color accuracy and color gamut and other spectral analysis are actually quite non subjective...
Fair enough… why not demonstrate it then?
For the record, I've been shooting Hasselblad with film backs, alongside 35 mm film and (currently) digital, since the seventies. I could SEE the difference/advantage back then (in the film days).
I am much more skeptical when told, with digital, "it is there, but you can not see it". Especially when told the difference is "huge" but can not be demonstrated.
-
Almost all the high-end art reproduction and historical preservation in major museums/galleries/societies is done on digital backs.
Hi, Doug... do they not mostly use Multi-shot MFD?
-
I think our perception of colour is highly subjective, and has very little to do with colour accuracy. My favourite film was and is Portra 160 NC, but it is nothing like as accurate as E6 Ektachrome. The nicest digital colour I have ever used comes out of an old Nikon Coolpix 4600, which you folks wouldn't give the time of day to. The colours (to me) are gorgeous, but nothing much like reality.
In contrast, I don't like the colour from my Hasselblad CFV-39 very much at all. So it's just as well that I use it solely for B/W.
John
-
I think our perception of colour is highly subjective, and has very little to do with colour accuracy. My favourite film was and is Portra 160 NC, but it is nothing like as accurate as E6 Ektachrome. The nicest digital colour I have ever used comes out of an old Nikon Coolpix 4600, which you folks wouldn't give the time of day to. The colours (to me) are gorgeous, but nothing much like reality.
In contrast, I don't like the colour from my Hasselblad CFV-39 very much at all. So it's just as well that I use it solely for B/W.
John
John:
Sounds like you need to get a good demo of a Phase One back.
I have been involved in the pioneering of digital photography since the first Leaf back was announced. I have never shown a Phase One digital back to a photographer that did not see the vast difference between either film and/or DSLR. Scanners are like cameras, when you are capturing 16 bit color, you get more more highlights and shadows which equals more dynamic range. It is up to you how you distribute them. Lower end scanners that were based on 12 bit or even 14 bits did not produce as good of color or shadow detail as high end drum scanners. It is the tones in between the shades of colors that you see with true 16 bit camera backs. Add the use of a good ICC camera profile and you have a great recipe for color that can be transformed into any color space you want.
I had the pleasure of working with some of the best scanner operators during this transition who were using million dollar scanners and in the end not one of them thought film medium was better than the current high end digital capture devices. Test after test proved this. I live in Florida where getting film (E-6) went away. You cannot get a roll of E-6 film processed in South Beach or Miami where the major advertising and catalog campaigns are being shot. In the old days you shot the film and went to the bar at night and hoped you got the shot. Today you can see if you got the shot and show it to everyone in the creative process. I have seen digital camera backs capture better color than film for 15 years now and no one wants to go back to that medium.
Chris Snipes (e-mail Me) ([email protected])
Ask me about Phase One IQ Digital Camera Backs
__________________
Sales Manager, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year, Again
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 813-335-2473
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
-
Chris
I am sure that you are right, within the criteria for good colour which you might set for yourself. I am not, though, talking about the technical qualities of DR, shadow detail, smooth tonal transitions, or whatever.
I was rather trying to express what I felt about the colour palette itself, which is a different thing. When I shoot colour (which isn't very often, I have to admit), I don't want the end result to look like what is in front of my camera. I want it to be transformed into something other, something magical. Certain films used to do this for me, like Portra with its kind of chalky subdued intensity in the blues, and singing warmth in the yellows. I had the same problem with slides. I must have shot hundreds of Ektachromes for stock work, but I never liked any of them.
This is the huge problem with digital cameras. They come loaded with just one film, and if you don't like it, you are sunk.
John
-
I think our perception of colour is highly subjective, and has very little to do with colour accuracy.
I'm with you on this, John!
As a color-blind photographer, I am often amused by all the talk here of "color accuracy," and especially assertions that "the way the human eye sees it is...," as if we all see everything alike. IMHO, "what the eye sees" is probably about as precise as "the height of a human being is xxx feet and yyy inches."
Eric
-
… When I shoot colour… I want it to be transformed into something other, something magical. Certain films used to do this for me, like Portra with its kind of chalky subdued intensity in the blues, and singing warmth in the yellows...
Man, I love this poetic description of color!
-
This is the huge problem with digital cameras. They come loaded with just one film, and if you don't like it, you are sunk.
Wow...I don't see it that way at all. With digital shot raw, you have an infinite variety of potential renderings based on what YOU want. In that regard, film at least transparency film, has ALWAYS been very limiting. Color neg offered variety in the color balance of the resulting print but there were severe limits to what you could do with the color relationships. If you see digital capture as somehow more limited than film, I think you need to learn how to process raw captures to achieve what you want. It's pretty easy and very powerful...
-
Man, I love this poetic description of color!
As do I! I think those two characteristics are almost what defines it as my favorite colour film; it requires little post work from me other than a subtle white balance tweak, contrast boost and some chroma noise reduction for the scanning process. It's a palette I like to work with, and I find it does well for people and (my style) of landscapes.
The closest digital reproduction of the creamy Portra look involved creating a black and white layer, setting it to 50% or so opacity and layering that on the colour file, then tweaking the HSL channels. Or something, it seemed like too much work for me; I guess I'm too lazy for digital, RAW & creating presets.
The Fuji offerings give me more problems with skin-tones and magenta casts on the neutrals, but I know that's probably workflow dependent.
All that being said, I had an acquaintance shoot some family portraits at Christmas for us, and the results from his Leaf back & 'blad were incredible (clarity, resolution & colour). If I could afford a MFDB for my Mamiya I'd consider it, but for now I'd rather scan 120 portra than shoot APS-C or 35mm digital.
-
+1
That said, I don't think all sensors are made equal, the CGA (Color Grid Array can be quite different).
Color film does quite extreme manipulation on curves by itself. If we use negative film we have density curves for paper and film multiplied. So paper and film is actually quite complex.
Best regards
Erik
Wow...I don't see it that way at all. With digital shot raw, you have an infinite variety of potential renderings based on what YOU want. In that regard, film at least transparency film, has ALWAYS been very limiting. Color neg offered variety in the color balance of the resulting print but there were severe limits to what you could do with the color relationships. If you see digital capture as somehow more limited than film, I think you need to learn how to process raw captures to achieve what you want. It's pretty easy and very powerful...
-
Color film does quite extreme manipulation on curves by itself. If we use negative film we have density curves for paper and film multiplied. So paper and film is actually quite complex.
Yes indeed. And that is really the key for me. With film (the right film) I don't have to spend loads of time in PS or LR trying to get my picture to look how I want it - and frankly, I'm not at all skilful with colour. I just don't know which sliders to push or in what direction to get a 3FR file to look like Portra, for example. I always seem to end up with a sort of digital Ektachrome. So, strangely enough, if I want to shoot colour rather than B/W I leave my digital back at home and load a film magazine. Luckily, with my setup, I can shoot digital or film with the same cameras and same lenses, no issues. I can get C41 processed and scanned locally, and I get what I want straight off.
John
-
Well,
Anything that works is OK. There is significant work behind the way films and paper were made.
There are some guys who developed presets for different films, sometimes using pretty scientific methods.
Best regards
Erik
Yes indeed. And that is really the key for me. With film (the right film) I don't have to spend loads of time in PS or LR trying to get my picture to look how I want it - and frankly, I'm not at all skilful with colour. I just don't know which sliders to push or in what direction to get a 3FR file to look like Portra, for example. I always seem to end up with a sort of digital Ektachrome. So, strangely enough, if I want to shoot colour rather than B/W I leave my digital back at home and load a film magazine. Luckily, with my setup, I can shoot digital or film with the same cameras and same lenses, no issues. I can get C41 processed and scanned locally, and I get what I want straight off.
John
-
Film and paper manufacturers went to the extremes to make them look right out of the box. The digital equivalent would be the "styled" jpg output. Raw on the contrary is supposed to be neutral and heartless. Is up to the photographer to give the image its soul. "Raw is the score...." (you finish it). As someone wrote years ago, "If you don't enjoy computer time, you better not sell your film cameras"
And this is exactly why I love digital. It's not because of the many butt hours involved but because of the total control I have throughout the whole process.
Eduardo
-
I always seem to end up with a sort of digital Ektachrome.
I think that has "colored" your viewpoint...(pun intended).
I realize many photographers don't want to become overly invested in image manipulation. I respect that...a good friend, Stephen Johnson (http://www.sjphoto.com/) is probably the ultimate non-manipulator when it comes to maintaining the integrity of the scene he shoots...while he'll ONLY remove sensor spots, he will use Photoshop for the purpose of adjusting tone and color to return it to what he saw (or thought he saw ;~)...
But learning the tools to the point you have control over the craft is important to any photographer and the tools for controlling digital captures are Lightroom/Camera Raw and Photoshop. I kinda think you owe it to your craft to learn how to achieve what your viewpoint and vision requires...
Compared to digital capture, film was far more limited and crude in its rendering of a scene or production of a print. Having learned hot to make dye transfers and my own color prints and color film processing schooled me on the severe limitations of traditional chemical based photography.
I understand the nostalgia for a time and process gone by (the last Kodachrome plant just shut down) but if you have even basic Photoshop skills, you can accomplish far more on the computer than you ever could in a darkroom...as I recall, you've only just recently started shooting medium format digital and your primary palette is B&W? That's fine...but know, learning how to process digital color is pretty easy to learn.
Shameless plug, PhotoKit Color 2 (http://www.pixelgenius.com/color2/index.html) has some pretty good processing effects to replicate various film looks. Martin Evening did a lot of work shooting color targets of various films and used the scans as a baseline to create effects to replicate the various films. Yes, I'm a partner of PG and was involved with Martin's efforts so I'mm admit to a potential bias...but we have a free download for a 7 day demo :~)
-
Hi,
You also have high end audio, high grade speaker cables and gold plated optical cables, all in search of the optimal sound. Then you put the stuff in a underdampened room with dozens of reflections, room modes and enjoy the pure undistorted sound.
On the other hand, it is also possible that MFDBs are better calibrated and profiled. Phase One for instance has a lot of different color profiles in Capture One, and the raw images from Phase One also contain a lot of proprietary information that may be utilized by Capture One but not competitors producst.
Best regards
Erik
So… once again, we are asked to believe "it is there, but you can not see it"… yet another example of the emperor-has-no-clothes syndrome. You have to be the one-in-the know, the chosen one, the believer, to actually "see" it. Like the ones who can spot a "six-stop DR difference in a small print, from 30 feet". If you can not see it, then you must be an ignorant infidel.
The power of belief is huge: the latest research suggests that patients benefit from the placebo effect even when told explicitly that they're taking a placebo. Then again, some people swear they saw Virgin Mary.
-
I understand the nostalgia for a time and process gone by (the last Kodachrome plant just shut down) but if you have even basic Photoshop skills, you can accomplish far more on the computer than you ever could in a darkroom...as I recall, you've only just recently started shooting medium format digital and your primary palette is B&W? That's fine...but know, learning how to process digital color is pretty easy to learn.
Jeff
Yes you are absolutely right, of course. I am very comfortable with working in digital B/W, and I do very little colour anyhow, except when I have to because publishers or paid work demand it. I think I am just going to have to spend some time on digital colour and learn the ropes, but maybe part of the problem is with LR. I notice that if I use Phocus for colour work I get a lot nicer "look" straight off. Having said that, I do quite enjoy putting a roll of film through the old 'Blad from time to time, anyway.
John
-
Yes, digital delivers a form of intermediate state. You have to roll your own flavor of 'film' after this. If you don't want to spend a lot of effort in this you might also want to check out Alien Skin Exposure 3.0. Excellent plug-in to emulate film with a lot of room for adjusting to taste in a simple way.
-
Peter van den Hamer article "DxOMark Sensor for Benchmarking Cameras" shows in figure 7 that larger sensors have better color depth at low-iso meaning the ability to distinguish more colors. Is this what the OP meant by "better colors"?
For me better color would be the said property above, plus color accuracy from subtle to saturated shades.
Eduardo
-
Hi, Doug... do they not mostly use Multi-shot MFD?
Multi-shot is theoretically attractive, but Mark Dubovoy (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/h3d50ii.shtml) preferred the color from the P65+ to the Hasselblad H3D 50 II Multishot. His evaluation was subjective, but he is a scientist as well as a photographer. Does Phase One have multi-shot?
Regards,
Bill
PS I recently saw an article in a major newspaper about a guy who made big money reproducing artwork for catalog sales. It showed him taking a shot with what appeared to be a Phase One. Does anyone have a link to that article (?WSJ or NYT)
-
Multi-shot is theoretically attractive, but Mark Dubovoy (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/h3d50ii.shtml) preferred the color from the P65+ to the Hasselblad H3D 50 II Multishot. His evaluation was subjective, but he is a scientist as well as a photographer. Does Phase One have multi-shot?
Regards,
Bill
PS I recently saw an article in a major newspaper about a guy who made big money reproducing artwork for catalog sales. It showed him taking a shot with what appeared to be a Phase One. Does anyone have a link to that article (?WSJ or NYT)
For judgement on color the last thing I would base a decision on is someone's opinion. It's well established that many people see color differently and in fact lots of people (mainly men) don't have the full range of color vision. The best way to evaluate the differences is with something like Imatest that will show you how far each color is off in a quantifiable way. That would be a starting point but one would still have to figure out how to measure what we are calling tonality and richness or depth of color.
-
For judgement on color the last thing I would base a decision on is someone's opinion. It's well established that many people see color differently and in fact lots of people (mainly men) don't have the full range of color vision. The best way to evaluate the differences is with something like Imatest that will show you how far each color is off in a quantifiable way. That would be a starting point but one would still have to figure out how to measure what we are calling tonality and richness or depth of color.
If you are a professional photographer, color will be judged by your client. If you are a amateur photographer who is also a hermit, then you can use your own preferences. ;)
Imatest is a good starting point, but accurate color and pleasing color are two separate things. Most people prefer increased chroma, but hue shifts are generally not desirable, especially with memory colors such as blue sky, foliage, and human skin. With Imatest, I get the best accuracy with ACR and a linear tone curve, but images with those parameters appear dull and dark.
Regards,
Bill
-
Test your color vision:
http://www.xritephoto.com/ph_toolframe.aspx?action=coloriq
-
Test your color vision:
http://www.xritephoto.com/ph_toolframe.aspx?action=coloriq
On a cold, wet, miserable day, that's one more bit of information that I'm glad I didn't have when I worked in a colour lab; but then, I was younger and more awake then... Ah! Just understood: the guys setting up the test are not perfect either! The sun might come out soon.
;-)
Rob C
-
Test your color vision:
http://www.xritephoto.com/ph_toolframe.aspx?action=coloriq
I did, and i just played with the first upper one and i've got the score 188, then i shacked my .... and played with all the 4 bars, i've got the score: 4
-
Peter van den Hamer article "DxOMark Sensor for Benchmarking Cameras" shows in figure 7 that larger sensors have better color depth at low-iso meaning the ability to distinguish more colors. Is this what the OP meant by "better colors"?
For me better color would be the said property above, plus color accuracy from subtle to saturated shades.
Eduardo
The following is a quote from the article:
"Here is DxOMark's definition for their Color Depth score:
Color Depth is the maximum achievable color sensitivity, expressed in bits. It indicates the number of different colors that the sensor is able to distinguish given its noise.
The metric thus looks at local color variations caused by noise. It does not cover color accuracy – presumably because that can be corrected in post processing and maybe because it opens an eXtra Large can of worms."
So the larger sensor can differentiate more colors up to noise, but an essential question is how many colors can the human visual system perceive simultaneously?
One answer is given in the RIT Color FAQ (http://www.cis.rit.edu/research/mcsl2/outreach/faq.php?catnum=1#219). The answer is millions and millions, but is well short of 24 bits (16,777,216).
Color accuracy may be more important, and as anyone who has tried to profile a digital camera knows, accuracy is not that easy to obtain and is in fact impossible with current technology. DXO does mention a Sensitivity Metamerism Index (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Learn-more/DxOMark-database/Measurements/Color-sensitivity) as a measure of color accuracy but does not integrate it in DxO Mark.
Regards,
Bill