Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?

[bjanes]

Note: I had the wrong file and edited this post for the actual values in 8-bit parlance: I just went back and checked. The very brightest pixels in the center of the brightest, directly sunlit cloud in the P45+ image above are 235/234/237; the deepest black shadow I can find is 19/18/22.  this would indicate I am close to the ideal exposure and still have about 2/3rd stop leeway on either end...

Those don't sound like raw values in only the clouds. What I would like to know is the luminance ratio in your clouds not in the total image. Likely that range could be captured by a P&S, albeit perhaps some clipping in the non-cloud shadows of the image. It is time to put up or shut up.

[Guillermo Luijk]

I ain't no scientist but I think these sentences are just bad science.

I would be glad to hear from you why is that bad science.

[bjanes]

I took a RAW file from Camera: Hasselblad H3D II-31 doing a neutral RAW development (no NR, no sharpening). This was the complete scene:

The DR in that file is nothing than a D3X cannot match and probably improve. Unfortunately those who could have easy access to both machines in this thread prefer to speak about trained eyes and clipped clouds on JPEG files that demonstrate nothing, instead of taking some time in shooting both systems against exactly the same scene and share the RAW files.

BR

Bravo, Guillermo! If these "artists" who lack technical credentials would share their raw files we might get somewhere with scientific analysis. Certainly the Hasselblad DR is not that exceptional and the DR and tonality of Jacks camera are yet to be analyzed.

[Jack Flesher]

Those don't sound like raw values in only the clouds. What I would like to know is the luminance ratio in your clouds not in the total image. Likely that range could be captured by a P&S, albeit perhaps some clipping in the non-cloud shadows of the image. It is time to put up or shut up.

Uh, I don't CARE what the linear RAW sensor values are, I only care what the converted *usable* file values are!  And in this case, my MF back blows away my Canon, end of story.    

Now, speaking of putting up, how about showing us an original image of yours?

[bjanes]

Uh, I don't CARE what the linear RAW sensor values are, I only care what the converted *usable* file values are!  And in this case, my MF back blows away my Canon, end of story.

And my *enis is bigger than yours. Just ask me!

Now, speaking of putting up, how about showing us an original image of yours?

Look here

[phmg]

Jack,
         you might well be right on this issue. But the examples you have shown almost look like they have been cherry picked to prove a point.
Your mfdb example  has a heavily lit foreground ,so has put no stress on the dyanmic range of the camera to capture the clouds as well.It has
 already been  pointed out by others a P+S camera could handle the dynamic range of that,I'd have to agree with that.
                Yet your canon comparison is in a much more difficult lighting situation , overcast in places and backlit in others. The most grating
part for me is your comment about canon cyans. I do wonder if  you personally own one? . I do and I'm aware that even using  dpp and there
picture styles I can have 4 or 5 different versions of the color of a blue sky, and again its different in raw developer and different again in acr or
capture one . So it seems to me you are having problems with your choice of workflow rather than an inherent deficiency of the camera per se.

[Panopeeper]

I ain't no scientist but I think these sentences are just bad science.
There are others on this thread who have done exactly what the OP asked and have come to a different conclusion.  They looked at prints with their own eyes and formed an opinion.

You don't need to be a scientist to see the reason of contradiction.

I posted, that if there are differences in the two images, then those differences can be made visible. The fact, that someneone renders a raw image in a way, which eliminates the differences, reflects on the intention, and/or on the (lack of) skill of the user.

If one camera captures cleaner shadows than the other, then those shadows can be lifted and printed cleaner than the other. If you choose not to, then you don't need the better camera. It is typical, that the photographer submerges the very shadows in blackness by "black point" and shows the image as a demonstration of the lack of noise. Change "black point" (if you are using LR/ACR) to zero, increase the intensity ("exposure" or "brightness" in LR/ACR) and you see the difference; that difference is printable as well.

[jimgolden]

YES there is - now can we move on...

[Panopeeper]

I took a RAW file from Camera: Hasselblad H3D II-31 doing a neutral RAW development (no NR, no sharpening). This was the complete scene:

I have a problem with your method; averaging the intensity in the channels does not yield anything useful regarding the camera. I don't know with which ISO the image was created and how it was processed, but this blotchiness is not characteristic to any mid-range DSLR at -8 to -9 EV with lower ISOs, except perhaps the A900 with the built-in noise reduction.

Can you make this raw file available to me, or is it too private?

[bcooter]

Uh, I don't CARE what the linear RAW sensor values are,

I' don't understand this discussion.

What's the point, to prove a digital back gets 1/3 more stop detail than a Nikon, or a $7,000 Nikon is better than a $21,000 back?

There is a lot more to photography than that, but the thing that puzzles me most, especially from some of the people here that give seminars is the amount of fixation on equipment.

If I was even remotely in the seminar giving business, I wouldn't try to locate an audience that just wanted to touch or hold a $40,000 camera, I'd want to teach them how to take their $900 nikon, Sony or Canon and shoot like Steven Miesel, or Weston . . .  somebody that shoots pretty photographs.   I'd never stick up a bunch of semi grey clouds and say see, see, those babies are rock solid with detail.

It's funny because on a professional level, DR or whatever the term is just doesn't come up that much, if ever.  

We either use tools to balance the light, or fix it in post (usually both).

We don't just stand in the middle of a rock pile and shoot hoping the camera can cover 20 stops.  Actually the last thing I'd want is a flat 20 stop file that has to be manipulated for hours to look like any kind of film and if I did need twenty stops it takes like 2 seconds to change the exposure and then 20 minutes more to  blend them in post.

This morning I sent my retoucher three images to rework a section the client requested a product change on and the cg sample they sent and  wanted inserted had about as much DR as a sharpie on a white piece of paper.

2 hours later the retouching was finished, the inserted product had detail and shadowing and it was on the server to the client who is probably dropping it into the layout as I write this.

From the film days to today I can't count the number of times we've balanced light in a room set, or picked a location specifically for the view out of a window, only to go up on a different roof two days later and shoot background plates to be placed in.

I'm not saying it should be this way, but in commerce it usually is, so this extra 1/3 a stop or whatever keeps being preached just doesn't make sense to me.

Getting pissed off about it makes even less sense.

Just use what you use and make beautiful photographs.

That's all that really matters.

BC

[ixpressraf]

... welcome to the never ending story........

[TMARK]

Irving Penn and Paolo Roversi don't give a shit about any of this.  

This thread is not about photography, its about computers.  Its a nerdier version of Ford vs. Chevy, Jeep vs. Toyota.  I'm not trying to be insulting, and I'm not saying this debate is meaningless, I just think it is meaningless to photographers.  

I see lots of agendas.  They include putting people who have mfdb in "their place" for not being technical/and having the means to buy an mfdb; people who justify the cost or their investment in MFDB; people who work with a dslr and need to afirm their choice. etc etc.  Its just a K-Hole of a thread and a waste of time, for photographers.  Perhaps it is better moved to the image processing area?

[Panopeeper]

Irving Penn and Paolo Roversi don't give a shit about any of this

Honestly, who cares if Irving Penn and Paolo Roversi and who ever gives a shit or not about this subject? This is meant for those, who actually understand what it is about; for those, it is about ohotography. For the digitally illiterate, it is nerd talk. I see no problem with that.

If you don't understand it, get over it. There are many threads I don't understand much of, but I don't post in each and every thread, that the others are nerds, because they know something I don't.

[Jack Flesher]

And my *enis is bigger than yours. Just ask me!

Okay, that's mature.  At least now we know where all your feelings of inadequacy originate...
~~~

Back to the topic at hand and this is my last comment in this rapidly deteriorating thread. IIRC, the OP asked if the DR differences could be seen in a print.  All I am saying is that based on my experience as a photographer having owned a plethora of equipment over the years and currently owning both a high-end DSLR and an MF DB, and having looked at and processed thousands of comparable images from each system, my answer is a definite yes.  

Oh, and for those of you who seriously believe I don't really own the systems, here is a quick snapshot of my working bags -- unfortunately taken with a P&S in bright sunlight, so you'll have to excuse the blocked up shadows and excessive noise:



Cheers,

[EricWHiss]

I took a RAW file from Camera: Hasselblad H3D II-31 doing a neutral RAW development (no NR, no sharpening). This was the complete scene:

Would you be able to tell us what software you used to process the RAW file and where it came from?   I still contend that any fair analysis will include the manufacturers supplied software and files will be evaluated post processing not prior.  

[bjanes]

Okay, that's mature.  At least now we know where all your feelings of inadequacy originate...

Mine is better than yours--that is your reasoning, not mine. I've tried to use reason and analysis to explain what we might or might not be seeing. Thus far to no avail and answered only with ad hominem attacks, which are the resort of those who are losing their side of the argument. Whether or not I have taken any pictures is irrelevant, but I expect my analysis to be answered with reason, not invective. Instead, you ignore my findings and I suspect that you can not rebut them. Thus far, no analysis from you but only unsubstantiated assertions that you think we should believe since you have high end equipment.

Back to the topic at hand and this is my last comment in this rapidly deteriorating thread. IIRC, the OP asked if the DR differences could be seen in a print.  All I am saying is that based on my experience a a photographer having owned a plethora of equipment over the years and currently owning both a high-end DSLR and an MF DB, and having looked at and processed thousands of comparable images from each system, my answer is a definite yes.  

Oh, and for those of you who seriously believe I don't really own the systems, here is a quick snapshot of my working bags -- unfortunately taken with a P&S in bright sunlight, so you'll have to excuse the blocked up shadows and excessive noise:

I don't doubt that you have the equipment that you claim, but if the results are really so much better why don't you demonstrate that? Thus, far your shot of clouds is uninspired and proves nothing. Personally, I prefer Bernard's images, whose quality has been demonstrated in multiple posts and is widely admired and your denigration of his work is out of place on this forum as are your ad hominem attacks. The quality difference you may be seeing in your clouds is likely explained by considerations other than dynamic range or perhaps your inability to process images from your Canon, which I am sure is capable of capturing the limited dynamic range in your cloud shots. Instead you show an image of your impressive gear as if to establish your authority.

[BlasR]

Please do the analysis with the 3 photos 1ds,p45+ and Hasselblad 50

I like to know if one is better then the other.  

I like the h 50 more.

Blas

[bjanes]

Please do the analysis with the 3 photos 1ds,p45+ and Hasselblad 50

I like to know if one is better then the other.  

I like the h 50 more.

Blas

Another completely irrelevant post. Different scenes, taken under different conditions and processed under unspecified conditions. I like the H50 shot better also, but that does not mean that the Hasselblad is the best camera.

[tho_mas]

Just use what you use and make beautiful photographs.
That's all that really matters.

[Panopeeper]

I like the h 50 more.

I reduced them to 1/10 and I like the P45+ more :-)

Or how do you imagine an "image analysis"? It is understandable that you don't post the raw files, but the only image analysis regarding the cameras' characteristics can be conducted on the raw images.