Long Exposures, Dark Frames and IQ260 vs P45+

[voidshatter]

I am sure that if Frank Dorhof wanted to, he could have maintained detail completely in that background.

Not with a CCD (single exposure). Because not even the most expensive Broncolor can illuminate a background that far away.

[synn]

Not with a CCD (single exposure). Because not even the most expensive Broncolor can illuminate a background that far away.

Jesus Christ, dude. YOU. DON'T. NEED. A. STROBE. POINTED. AT. THE. BACKGROUND. TO. HAVE. A. PROPERLY. EXPOSED. BACKGROUND. IN. THAT. SHOT.

If Frank wanted to have the trees and hills exposed higher, all he would need to do is to use a slower shutterspeed to increase the background exposure a bit more and if needed, lighten the shadows a bit in post. The strobe, which is used in that shot to light the model will be left as it is. The model will be lit exactly the same because flash exposure is irrespective of shutter speed.

Doing that would also rob the picture of all the character it has and knowing Frank, he is an artist first and formost, so he wouldn't want to do that.

tl;dr: What you see is a creative decision, not a camera limitation.

Please, please stop talking about things you do not understand. You're much better off in the world of Rawdiggers and all that.
I know I stepped outside this topic, but such asinine posts just beg for responses.

[voidshatter]

Jesus Christ, dude. YOU. DON'T. NEED. A. STROBE. POINTED. AT. THE. BACKGROUND. TO. HAVE. A. PROPERLY. EXPOSED. BACKGROUND. IN. THAT. SHOT.

If Frank wanted to have the trees and hills exposed higher, all he would need to do is to use a slower shutterspeed to increase the background exposure a bit more and if needed, lighten the shadows a bit in post. The strobe, which is used in that shot to light the model will be left as it is. The model will be lit exactly the same because flash exposure is irrespective of shutter speed.

If he uses a slower shutter speed then the sun and sky would overexpose.

[synn]

I'm out.

[voidshatter]

Please, please stop talking about things you do not understand. You're much better off in the world of Rawdiggers and all that.

If you have never taken portrait pictures that shoots directly against the sun (backlight) as the examples I posted at #38 of this thread, then how could you claim to be good at it or understand it?

[siddphoto]

tl;dr: What you see is a creative decision, not a camera limitation.

To be fair though - Mr. Song is kind of right. Not the part about lighting the background, but being able to have details in the trees.

The creative decision to have the trees silhouetted works well here. But in the same shot, if another creative director, for whatever reason, wants to have some details in those background trees, one will run into a technical limitation of the camera. A CMOS back with a leaf shutter lens will be able to create this shot, *as well as* bring back details in the trees *if someone wants to*.

[synn]

No, "Mr. Song" is making a whole lot of assumptions in addition to his complete lack of undrstanding how strobe based photography works. I would suggest that he reads up david Hobby's blog for a while before engaging in such discussions to provide further embarrassment to himself.
RE: Frank's image, I don't know if he shot that with a CCD back or a CMOS back (He shoots both). I don't know how much the shadows were crushed in post. I DO know that Frank likes strong shadows and a 24stop DR will do nothing for him and his shooting style. And I DO know from actual experience that the sun is not the most challenging element a strobe based photographer has to deal with during a shoot.

Landscapers think that the sun is the brightest thing one has to deal with, which is true when one works with available light. While working with strobes, this is not true. A strobe close to the camera at the right settings will meter as a brighter light source than the sun, if both are in the same shot. The whole "overpower the sun" technique is a big deal for flash photography. When one has overpowered the sun, the entire background is exposed at a level where everything can be brought back, if need be.

Total available dynamic range is only an issue for landscapers. Strobe based portrait shooters have long done such images with film, CCD and CMOS cameras. The only thing CMOS MF Does for portraiture is the ability to shoot in a more versatile fashion in available light.

No good deed goes unpunished and of course, when one posts samples, there will be those who insist that the images are not shot to the precise requirements that they were asking for. Well, Google is just as a good friend of yours as it is mine.

I am not going to discuss this topic further because it has nothing to do with the thread. The only reason I posted about this was to see if I could educate someone who seemingly was under the impression that portrait shooters point strobes at hills and mountains to light them up. Clearly, the said person had no interest to learn more and is only here to further is very one sided agenda, as he has done for years in this forum. If anyone else wants to talk about this topic, feel free to PM me.

[eronald]

If you have never taken portrait pictures that shoots directly against the sun (backlight) as the examples I posted at #38 of this thread, then how could you claim to be good at it or understand it?

I could answer the "How could ... ?" question, hypothetically. Society teaches citizens that some have considerably more artistic talent than most others who will then be considered to have none, but promulgates the idea that every man is equally endowed with IQ. As some are seen to be capable of technical competence, all then assume they are equally technically competent.


Edmund

[jvpictures]

I am afraid I have to chime in here and "Mr. synn" is right and "Mr. Song" is wrong!

Overpowering the sun and especially shooting against the sun (with the sun ball inside the frame) is an extremely contrasty scenery (you could call it a high dynamic range) and thus a flash light is used to reduce the contrast between the highlights and the shadows it would otherwise create. Mr synn is perfect on the setup of such a flash and camera; the ambient ist measured e.g. f16 and 1/125 sec (sunny 16 rule @ISO 100) and the flash power is set to match f16 and will illuminate only the foreground (the model). The final camera settings would be f16 and 1/180 sec...1/250 sec, depending on how much underexposure of the background one wants to achieve.
However, with leaf shutters and faster flash syncronisation it makes life much easier than with slower x-syncs as in DSLR's. The attached image was shot with a Nikon DSLR with only 1/250 sec and a small aperture, which requires a high flash output (I think it was 1200 Joules from my Broncolor). With leaf shutter lenses and higher x-synch one can easily widen the aperture and same time reduce flash power output.

Due to the reducing of the contrasty scenery using artificial lights on the foreground a CMOS back does not have any specific advantages versus CCD in my opinion. I have both CMOS and CCD and did not see any material advantages or disadvantages in such a scenery with CCD or CMOS. However, I see differences in high contrasty sceneries where one cannot change the lighting, such as landscapes. And here the higher dynamic range on my H5D-50c (CMOS) is certainly superior than on the H5D-40 (CCD).

[voidshatter]

I am afraid I have to chime in here and "Mr. synn" is right and "Mr. Song" is wrong!

Overpowering the sun and especially shooting against the sun (with the sun ball inside the frame) is an extremely contrasty scenery (you could call it a high dynamic range) and thus a flash light is used to reduce the contrast between the highlights and the shadows it would otherwise create. Mr synn is perfect on the setup of such a flash and camera; the ambient ist measured e.g. f16 and 1/125 sec (sunny 16 rule @ISO 100) and the flash power is set to match f16 and will illuminate only the foreground (the model). The final camera settings would be f16 and 1/180 sec...1/250 sec, depending on how much underexposure of the background one wants to achieve.
However, with leaf shutters and faster flash syncronisation it makes life much easier than with slower x-syncs as in DSLR's. The attached image was shot with a Nikon DSLR with only 1/250 sec and a small aperture, which requires a high flash output (I think it was 1200 Joules from my Broncolor). With leaf shutter lenses and higher x-synch one can easily widen the aperture and same time reduce flash power output.

Due to the reducing of the contrasty scenery using artificial lights on the foreground a CMOS back does not have any specific advantages versus CCD in my opinion. I have both CMOS and CCD and did not see any material advantages or disadvantages in such a scenery with CCD or CMOS. However, I see differences in high contrasty sceneries where one cannot change the lighting, such as landscapes. And here the higher dynamic range on my H5D-50c (CMOS) is certainly superior than on the H5D-40 (CCD).

You just gave another perfect example to show the limitation of a CCD regardless of flash usage - the tree far behind the lady is still in shadow

[fdisilvestro]

You just gave another perfect example to show the limitation of a CCD regardless of flash usage - the tree far behind the lady is still in shadow

Why do you want detail in those trees? This is fashion, not landscape. The same comment applies to Frank Doorhof's image. Moreover, in the previous post, jvpictures said it was taken with a Nikon DLSR, which likely was a CMOS (unles it was a D200 or earlier)

[voidshatter]

Why do you want detail in those trees? This is fashion, not landscape. The same comment applies to Frank Doorhof's image.

Don't you think the review pictures I posted on #38 of this thread looks so great with details in the background which make up a complete picture of the whole romantic scene?

Moreover, in the previous post, jvpictures said it was taken with a Nikon DLSR, which likely was a CMOS (unles it was a D200 or earlier)

If it was taken by a D810 (modern Sony CMOS) then yes he has the flexibility to bring back the shadow details if he wants to. If it was taken by a CCD then no the shadow details will be filled by noise when you push, even with flash.

[jvpictures]

It is a Nikon D4 and I doubt that pushing on the shadows in the trees there is much noise on this specific CMOS sensor.
But that is not the intention of the image, it is the foreground, which could be emphasized even more by blurring the background with a wider aperture (bokeh; but as I said there are technical limitations in DSLR's with such scenery).

But, I give up as well....

[voidshatter]

It is a Nikon D4 and I doubt that pushing on the shadows in the trees there is much noise on this specific CMOS sensor.
But that is not the intention of the image, it is the foreground, which could be emphasized even more by blurring the background with a wider aperture (bokeh; but as I said there are technical limitations in DSLR's with such scenery).

But, I give up as well....

The D4 has better DR than the D5 or whatever pre-2016 Canon or whatever CCD digital backs, but is not so good as the Sony CMOS sensors e.g. IQ3 100MP, IQ250, D810 etc.

The review pictures I posted on #38 of this thread had the intention to retain the details of the background on purpose and that is one thing which the CCD backs cannot do well, not even with the most expensive Broncolor.

[fdisilvestro]

Don't you think the review pictures I posted on #38 of this thread looks so great with details in the background which make up a complete picture of the whole romantic scene?

If it was taken by a D810 (modern Sony CMOS) then yes he has the flexibility to bring back the shadow details if he wants to. If it was taken by a CCD then no the shadow details will be filled by noise when you push, even with flash.

Aesthetic choices. Do you think those photographers left those trees in dark shadows because they wanted or because they could not do otherwise?

I am up for thechical arguments and discussions, and I think those images are not examples of results due to technical limitations but to the photographer's intention

[voidshatter]

Aesthetic choices. Do you think those photographers left those trees in dark shadows because they wanted or because they could not do otherwise?

I am up for thechical arguments and discussions, and I think those images are not examples of results due to technical limitations but to the photographer's intention

With a modern Sony CMOS you have the flexibility to choose between the pictures on #38 of this thread, or to choose to leave the background in shadow.

With a CCD you have no choice - you have to leave the background in shadow, even with flash.

[eronald]

Aesthetic choices. Do you think those photographers left those trees in dark shadows because they wanted or because they could not do otherwise?

They could not do otherwise *cheaply*.

As the sun is *behind*  the trees *and* the model, and the trees are far away, I see no *cheap* way a photographer could have pushed as much -in fact more- light into the backlit shadow below the far trees and the backlit tree branches as onto the close by freestanding model.

Let me clarify here: The trees are dark not because the flash is overpowering the sun, but because they are backlit by the sun. Where the trees are, the sun is the light source. Take a flash meter under the trees, and it won't even register the flash.

There is such a thing as the square distance law, and it is very hard to light stuff which is far away. Unless it was "Cooter" or Annie, and a truckful of lights could be set up below the trees. On the other hand, five minutes of retouch may recover some tree shadow and branch detail if the sensor has enough DR.

BTW, this is exactly the reason why the cinema guys and really big shoots travel with tons of large heavy light equipment. They can and routinely do what your average photographer cannot - set up lights on far backgrounds.

I don't have any issues with this nicely done image - just don't tell me that those shadows under the trees could have been easily lit out for a camera with low DR like the 10-bit dSLRs we were all using 10 years ago, or the slide film we had earlier.

Photographer came, balanced backlit brown model body against blue complementary color sky with fill flash, got a nicely composed and colorful image, walked away. Trees and background were collateral damage

Last not least, I have zero experience and competence here; as an "amateur", I own one single flash shaper, a 6 foot Elinchrom Octabank, which I pull out once a year when I have to, and have done less than 20 flash shoots in my life, although I sometimes do video lighting.  But any photographic amateur needs to be able to read the light in a scene, and the level of the discussion participants has at this point sunk so low that I feel as entitled as anyone else to participate. ...

Edmund

[Richard Osbourne]

Hi Bob,

I've used both the P45+ and currently work with the IQ260 both with Cambo tech cams and 645 cameras. I haven't done a lot of long exposure so others may be able to speak more to that. I would say however that going from 35mm digital to medium format was a bigger step up than I thought it would be. You can read about it here: http://www.richardosbourne.com/blog/2012/6/a-new-camera

Generally, medium format, especially on tech cams, is trickier and sometimes requires a lot of post-processing. But the end results, especially with Capture One, can be exceptional. I often didn't feel that about using full frame cameras, though they are a lot easier to use.

A few thoughts about the P45+: I just loved the colours straight out the back. It did a beautiful job of sunrises and sunsets - actually it was quite the drama queen in the blues but that's a good thing - magic hour files just sang. It also has a somewhat useable ISO 200, though 50 is optimum. The screen, though very small and rough was quite accurate with colours and exposure. It needed to be slightly underexposed as it blew the highlights easily. Reliability wasn't great with the P45+ - the CF card regularly wasn't recognised and towards the end I was keeping the battery in using tape as the latch had failed.

Re. the IQ260: it took me around a year to get comfortable with this one after the P45+. The files are much flatter and although it has slightly better dynamic range, Phase profiled it quite differently to protect the highlights. It also has a slight greenish cast, especially when used with Lee filters. The output when used with a Rodenstock lens on my Cambo is exceptional, even for 8 minute exposures, and the files are malleable at ISO 50 or 140. Don't try to use ISO 200 though - the files are horrible in a way I haven't seen in any digital camera: it's as though they've just fallen apart and can't be rescued. Being able to do big shifts on a tech cam is one of the reasons for having this back - I've got the Rodenstock 28HR, 40HR and Schneider 60XL and all can be used to the limits of their image circles.

Good luck with the decision - not an easy one I know!

Richard

Hi Luminous,

I'm seeking help and am confident you can deliver! I'm looking to get back into photography after a decent hiatus, previously worked with the 5D MkII many years ago but had always aspired to medium format. Landscape photographer with long exposure work ranging from 3-5 minutes and up to 10-20 minutes. Through my research these camera systems provide reliable long exposure capabilities:

     - Phase One IQ260
     - Phase One P45+
     - Pentax 645D

The Phase One P45+ has been touted as the king of long exposures and since the IQ260 is fairly new it's out of my immediate price range. The Pentax performs well with long exposures but I like the idea of expanding into technical cameras and film at a later date so having a streamline system is beneficial. I'm really impressed with the IQ260/P45+ but the Dark Frame deters me. Taking a 15 minute exposure and then having to wait around for another 15 minutes in fading light situations kind of puts me off. The H4D-50 doesn't require a Dark Frame but from what I've read can only reliably handle exposures of up to 4 minutes which would cut short some of my capabilities. Having said all that I'm more than happy to work with a Dark Frame if it comes down to it, just wondering if there are any other options available. There are of course the CMOS censors which from what I can tell don't require mandatory Dark Frames. However, these sensors aren't a favorable option due to their smaller sensor size and 14 bit color, if I was going to go for medium format I'd want that authentic medium format feel.

Now just to make sure I'm not missing anything are there any systems or backs that I've left out? Any recommendations or advice on medium format long exposure work appreciated.

At the moment my funds can allow for a kitted out D810 or a starter pack P45+. If I were to get the D810 I would be looking to upgrade to a IQ260 in a few years and keep the D810 as a back up. However, if I were to get the P45+ I wouldn't see myself needing to do that for quite some time. So my question is should I take the plunge with a P45+ or wait out for an IQ260?  IQ260 vs P45+ your experiences?

Thanks a lot!

[BobRoss]

I've used both the P45+ and currently work with the IQ260 both with Cambo tech cams and 645 cameras. I haven't done a lot of long exposure so others may be able to speak more to that. I would say however that going from 35mm digital to medium format was a bigger step up than I thought it would be. You can read about it here: http://www.richardosbourne.com/blog/2012/6/a-new-camera

Excellent post, Richard, thanks a lot for sharing your experiences! I'm going to go read through your blog post now. Thanks mate!

[DrakeJ]

With a modern Sony CMOS you have the flexibility to choose between the pictures on #38 of this thread, or to choose to leave the background in shadow.

With a CCD you have no choice - you have to leave the background in shadow, even with flash.

I don't understand this post. Surely, modern CCD backs have a pretty good dynamic range at base ISO? Why would it imply that using a CCD would leave the background in shadow?