Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: BobRoss on April 13, 2016, 03:30:13 am
-
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!
-
Why not the Hasselblad CFV 50c? Goes for a great price these days and does long exposure well.
Downside is that you will not have the option to use an autofocus SLR style body, if that matters.
-
Why not the Hasselblad CFV 50c? Goes for a great price these days and does long exposure well.
Downside is that you will not have the option to use an autofocus SLR style body, if that matters.
Thanks for your reply, synn. Yea like I mentioned I had been looking into all the CMOS sensors but feel as though if I was going to go for medium format I'd want that authentic medium format feel. My issues are not only that of smaller sensor size but less color depth and dimension, something CCD is renowned for. This perspective is of course coming from no experience though and only from research so if you wanted to better educate me I'm all ears :)
-
Landscape photographer with long exposure work ranging from 3-5 minutes and up to 10-20 minutes.
You will regret choosing any CCD for that purpose if you compare the end result against a Nikon D810. The dynamic range is simply too poor in 2016. I have had a long thread (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/52844-backlight-landscape-photography-realized-say-no-silhouette.html) before.
Bracketing is not practical due to the mandatory darkframe of CCD. If you take off the ND filter to bracket, then you run into alignment issues (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/53612-df-cmos-iq-backs.html#post627476).
Save your money to buy a camera with a modern Sony CMOS for that purpose, e.g. IQ250, Credo 50, IQ3 100MP, H6D-100 etc. Otherwise just stick with the Nikon D810 and forget about any CCD back.
-
I have had a long thread (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/52844-backlight-landscape-photography-realized-say-no-silhouette.html) before.
Thanks a lot for the link, Yunli Song, some very interesting information!
-
Thanks for your reply, synn. Yea like I mentioned I had been looking into all the CMOS sensors but feel as though if I was going to go for medium format I'd want that authentic medium format feel. My issues are not only that of smaller sensor size but less color depth and dimension, something CCD is renowned for. This perspective is of course coming from no experience though and only from research so if you wanted to better educate me I'm all ears :)
I shoot CCD MFD (Credo 40) and I love the color output for portraiture (Will not trade it for anything else), but I think the CMOS cameras should do fine for landscaping. I use mine for landscape work as well and in colder temparatures, 2 minute exposures are fine. Anything longer and you have to use the backs you mentioned (With the dark frame subtraction limitations you have noted) or go CMOS.
This is a 2 minute exposure with the credo.
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-dom-in-luebeck-sandeep-murali.html
I have had no issues with the dynamic range of my CCD back because I work with filters and expose properly and my workflow does not involve pushing everything to 11 in post.
-
You will regret choosing any CCD for that purpose if you compare the end result against a Nikon D810. The dynamic range is simply too poor in 2016. I have had a long thread (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/52844-backlight-landscape-photography-realized-say-no-silhouette.html) before.
Bracketing is not practical due to the mandatory darkframe of CCD. If you take off the ND filter to bracket, then you run into alignment issues (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/53612-df-cmos-iq-backs.html#post627476).
Save your money to buy a camera with a modern Sony CMOS for that purpose, e.g. IQ250, Credo 50, IQ3 100MP, H6D-100 etc. Otherwise just stick with the Nikon D810 and forget about any CCD back.
Sorry but that's just not true. The dynamic range is perfectly fine even in 2017 or 2018.
-
Sorry but that's just not true. The dynamic range is perfectly fine even in 2017 or 2018.
For long exposure when it's even much worse than a Nikon D800E in 2012, sorry it's far behind.
-
This is a 2 minute exposure with the credo.
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-dom-in-luebeck-sandeep-murali.html
I have had no issues with the dynamic range of my CCD back because I work with filters and expose properly and my workflow does not involve pushing everything to 11 in post.
Indeed. Beautiful result, syyn! Did you also take this (http://fineartamerica.com/featured/walk-with-me-sandeep-murali.html) one with the credo?
-
Indeed. Beautiful result, syyn! Did you also take this (http://fineartamerica.com/featured/walk-with-me-sandeep-murali.html) one with the credo?
Hi Bob,
Thank you very much and yes, that was with the Credo too. I think that was about 1.5 minutes, with an 8 stop ND filter.
p.s. You could try PMing Paul Caldwell, he has a lot of first hand experience with the P45+ and the IQ 260.
-
For long exposure when it's even much worse than a Nikon D800E in 2012, sorry it's far behind.
I've seen some "even much worse than a Nikon D800E in 2012" photos that are amazing and gorgeous - just look at the work from some of the people here in this forum. Pretty weird, huh?
Sometimes the numbers aren't as clear cut as one would like them to be.
-
I've seen some "even much worse than a Nikon D800E in 2012" photos that are amazing and gorgeous - just look at the work from some of the people here in this forum. Pretty weird, huh?
Sometimes the numbers aren't as clear cut as one would like them to be.
This is not a valid argument. Nobody is doubting that P45+/CCD backs can make amazing pictures. Absolutely they can.
But this in also true that the in long exposure shadow detail area the CMOS backs leaves the CCD backs in the dust - just look at several comparisons. This is what is being mentioned.
Since the OP was specifically concerned about that shooting condition, this is a valid point to bring up.
-
I was talking about the 260 which has a better DR and exposure shadow detail etc. :)
And yes, it is a valid argument. You don't need the latest of the greatest and the newest technology to take great pictures. If the OP was concerned about high ISO performance that's another matter. But for his purposes an IQ260 would do fine.
http://bulbexposures.com/home/2013/4/23/1-hour-exposure-with-the-phase-one-iq-260.html
-
I've seen some "even much worse than a Nikon D800E in 2012" photos that are amazing and gorgeous - just look at the work from some of the people here in this forum. Pretty weird, huh?
Sometimes the numbers aren't as clear cut as one would like them to be.
It doesn't change the fact that you could achieve better image quality with a D800E when it comes down to dynamic range for long exposure.
-
I have seen a few examples of IQ260 long exposures and it does seem to perform reliably. I do think pushing the limits of what it can achieve in DR and high ISO is out of my work flow but it's great to take into account all different perspectives and factors.
-
It doesn't change the fact that you could achieve better image quality with a D800E when it comes down to dynamic range for long exposure.
And that doesn't change the face that it actually does not matter. Could you give me an example of a shot you were not able to take with a 260 because of its DR for long exposures?
-
BobRoss,
I'm seeking help... 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.
Further to synn's mention of Paul Caldwell, Paul's 'screen name' is Paul2660, here at Luminous Landscape and at GetDPI.
With regard to the P45+, you may find this (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/37872-p45-back-whats-so-special.html#post424752) post by Paul to be of interest.
-
Further to synn's mention of Paul Caldwell, Paul's 'screen name' is Paul2660, here at Luminous Landscape and at GetDPI.
With regard to the P45+, you may find this (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/37872-p45-back-whats-so-special.html#post424752) post by Paul to be of interest.
Thanks for the reply, Rob.
-
And that doesn't change the face that it actually does not matter. Could you give me an example of a shot you were not able to take with a 260 because of its DR for long exposures?
I already gave the link containing so many examples, including side by side comparisons. Just scroll up and read the thread. The IQ260 got beaten hard by the D800E in terms of image quality when it comes down to dynamic range in long exposure.
If you don't care about image quality, then the same argument can be made that you could just shoot with an iPhone instead of a digital back.
-
I already gave the link. Just scroll up and read the thread. The IQ260 got beaten hard by the D800E in terms of image quality when it comes down to dynamic range in long exposure.
If you don't care about image quality, then the same argument can be made that you could just shoot with an iPhone instead of a digital back.
Thanks to your link it is clear that pushing the limits of the back has it's weaknesses, especially when compared to other systems. So, I think what C+B is mentioning is to not go outside of those limits.
-
Thanks to your link it is clear that pushing the limits of the back has it's weaknesses, especially when compared to other systems. So, I think what C+B is mentioning is to not go outside of those limits.
If you can live with limiting yourself to shoot only low contrast scenes (and hence missing backlit sunset/sunrise which are most desirable and challenging) then it's perfectly fine to choose a CCD you like. Even for the scenes Synn posted, if you look into the 100% crop of his picture you could still observe noise and artifacts left by noise reduction. It cost me a fortune to realize that CCD backs are not for me. Now that Phase One, Hasselblad, Pentax and Leica all moved to CMOS for their flagship models. Good luck with your decision.
-
If you can live with limiting yourself to shoot only low contrast scenes (and hence missing backlit sunset/sunrise which are most desirable and challenging) then it's perfectly fine to choose a CCD you like. Even for the scenes Synn posted, if you look into the 100% crop of his picture you could still observe noise and artifacts left by noise reduction. It cost me a fortune to realize that CCD backs are not for me. Now that Phase One, Hasselblad, Pentax and Leica all moved to CMOS for their flagship models. Good luck with your decision.
Thanks for your wishes, you've definitely helped a lot in gaining an understanding of the bigger picture with some invaluable information. As you say I think it does all come down to your stye of shooting. Beautiful long exposures in your 500px by the way, you've opened my eyes to the power of the CMOS medium format!
-
If you can live with limiting yourself to shoot only low contrast scenes (and hence missing backlit sunset/sunrise which are most desirable and challenging) then it's perfectly fine to choose a CCD you like. Even for the scenes Synn posted, if you look into the 100% crop of his picture you could still observe noise and artifacts left by noise reduction. It cost me a fortune to realize that CCD backs are not for me. Now that Phase One, Hasselblad, Pentax and Leica all moved to CMOS for their flagship models. Good luck with your decision.
I don't buy it. Sorry. I know they all move to CMOS because CMOS is 'in'. Sure it offers nice advantages too and CMOS is better for liveview and movies etc. But the rest is (sorry for the expression) bullshit. I have recently shot scenes in sunrise with the old P65+ and I had 0 issues, no blown highlights or drowned shadows even though some party were directly hit by sunlight and others still in the shade.
Think of it this way: the 14 stops of the IQ250 vs the 13 stops of the IQ260 isn't that big of a deal. Not at all. It's only half a stop at the top and half a stop at the bottom. If you're unable to get the shot with one it's very unlikely you'll be able to get it with the other. That's why I said numbers aren't the end-all and be-all of photography. Real life does not work that way.
-
The use of the CCD backs for longer exposures can be done and with the right technique, you can produce some very good images. There are some limits however to each of the backs, P45+ and IQ260, I have never shot the 645D, but it being CCD more than likely will have some of the same issues.
Of the Phase backs, the P45+ to me is still the best for long exposures. Phase did a very nice job on this back, and you can easily get to a 1 hour exposure. There are some considerations:
1. The P45+ long exposure must be accompanied by a corresponding dark frame exposure of the same time. So if you just exposed for 45 minutes, the back has to take another 45 minute exposure. Failure to allow this, will ruin the first exposure. So battery life becomes important. You can expect to get maybe 4 45 minute exposures (and that is a with a new 3400 milliamp battery), so 2 actual shots.
2. The actual outdoor temperature needs to be at 69 degree F or lower for full 1 hour exposures. You also don't want to use the back for a long exposure in time of high humidity.
3. The best long exposures from the P45+ are taken at 50 ISO, so for astrophotography, this can limit your capabilities depending your conditions.
4. There is no way to turn off the dark frame on the P45+.
The P45+ can do a very good job, right up to 1 hour, it's not a great back for stacking (which is what I do now) for several reasons, no intervalometer support and the dark frame requirement. But if the conditions the results can be very rewarding. The files will still hold up with good color saturation and details.
IQ260:
This back will go to 1 hour, but in my experience the results really don't compare well to the P45+. Some considerations:
1. The IQ260 needs to be in the Long exposure mode, which starts at a base ISO of 140.
2. The 260, will need to shoot a dark frame just like the P45+, however on shorter exposures, say 5 minutes to 10 minutes you might be able to get away
shooting in aerial mode, which means no dark frame will be shot.
3. Results vary, but I never saw the same clean detailed files that I saw from my P45+, at 30 45 and 60 minutes.
4. With the XF body you could stack with the 260 using the timer feature (as now Phase as added a intervalometer to the XF) but you would need to turn
off the dark frame and be in aerial mode. So you will get quite a few stuck pixels.
5. The files I took with the 260 were all 30 minute tests and none of them really had the same clarity of the P45+ images, so I quickly stopped using it for
LE work. The files lack both good saturation and showed quite a bit of noise and loss of finer details.
To me if you want a CCD back for LE work, I would still go with the P45+. Make sure you test one and a 260 if you can. The interface on the P45+ is very old and the LCD pretty much worthless (similar to the screen on the Canon 1ds MKI), so image review is not easy. You also can only tether via old style firewire. The 260 has the IQ interface, which is 100% better and will work with the XF body.
The newer CMOS backs have been mentioned, and the older 50MP in the IQ150, IQ250 and Credo 50, will out perform the IQ260 for sure and possible the P45+, but these are more expensive and to be honest, the Pentax 644Z would be the better choice, as you get a back and body. I don't know if there is a intervalometer for the 645Z, I have never seen one mentioned so stacking might be a problem. But the camera does a great job with the Sony sensor and you can turn off the dark frame on it.
You might be able to get a good price on a IQ150 or Credo50 as Phase One is now starting to make some attractive pricing offers on kits featuring these backs.
For sure try to locate a Phase One dealer in your location, and set up a demo. The dealer can provide you with a certified used back, for all of the backs mentioned if you wish to go that route and they will be your 1st point of contact for support.
This is an image taken with the P45+ @ around 50 minutes with the older 35mm Mamiya lens and AFDIII camera.
Paul C
-
If you can live with limiting yourself to shoot only low contrast scenes (and hence missing backlit sunset/sunrise which are most desirable and challenging) then it's perfectly fine to choose a CCD you like. Even for the scenes Synn posted, if you look into the 100% crop of his picture you could still observe noise and artifacts left by noise reduction. It cost me a fortune to realize that CCD backs are not for me. Now that Phase One, Hasselblad, Pentax and Leica all moved to CMOS for their flagship models. Good luck with your decision.
You're a good photographer and I know you have an agenda against CCD cameras and yes, I agree that CMOS cameras produce cleaner files, but to hint that CCD cameras cannot be used to shoot sunrise/ sunset shots is utter bullshit. Many great sunrise and sunset images have been made with CCD cameras before CMOS was a thing and none of those cameras have magically stopped working. I highly doubt Phaseone sent Joe Cornish a special version of their backs with much better DR and shadows than the regular one each time he bought a CCD back from them. Yes, they are more limited in the field and the key is to learn to use them within their limits to achieve the results you want. Hell, Velvia has less than half the DR of a CCD back and you could shoot amazing sunsets with it if you know how to work within its limits.
As for my files, I don't quite care how they look at 100%. Quite a few of them have been printed at 40" or so and at the intended viewing distance, they kick ass. Maybe if my priorities were more oriented towards pixel peeping, I'd tend to see it differently.
Anyway, all this is taking away from the thread.
@bob: if you can, rent each of these backs to see if they suit your style. And yes, I still recommend the Hasselblad CFV50C, it is amazing value for money.
-
I don't buy it. Sorry. I know they all move to CMOS because CMOS is 'in'. Sure it offers nice advantages too and CMOS is better for liveview and movies etc. But the rest is (sorry for the expression) bullshit. I have recently shot scenes in sunrise with the old P65+ and I had 0 issues, no blown highlights or drowned shadows even though some party were directly hit by sunlight and others still in the shade.
Think of it this way: the 14 stops of the IQ250 vs the 13 stops of the IQ260 isn't that big of a deal. Not at all. It's only half a stop at the top and half a stop at the bottom. If you're unable to get the shot with one it's very unlikely you'll be able to get it with the other. That's why I said numbers aren't the end-all and be-all of photography. Real life does not work that way.
This thread is specifically about long exposure. For long exposure the difference is not just 13 stops vs 14 stops, but significantly greater. If you only have a P65+ instead of an IQ260 then I bet that you might even don't know that for the dedicated "long exposure mode (LEM)" of the IQ260 the lowest possible ISO setting is ISO 140 instead of ISO 50. Are you indeed experienced in long exposure?
Below is one of my picture which was used as the cover of a photography magazine. It was shot by an IQ250, with Rodenstock 23mm + Rodenstock center filter + Lee Big Stopper + Singh-Ray 3 stops Reverse. There is no way you can shoot this with a CCD back with usable image quality. Even for this simple scene with straight skyline where you can apply the traditional filters, it is not possible to avoid the cloud above the sun to get underexposed which forces you to push shadow in post processing.
If you look into my recent SNR and dynamic range measurements throughout the IQ3 100MP and the IQ3 80MP you could easily see the huge difference.
-
Many great sunrise and sunset images have been made with CCD cameras before CMOS was a thing and none of those cameras have magically stopped working.
Image quality improves over time when technology advances. If you look back to the great photos of World War II you could easily tell that the image quality is far behind today's iPhone. I certainly agree that you could make fantastic images with CCD backs. I just know that CCD is beaten hard by a Nikon D800E in terms of image quality in the long exposure territory when shooting a contrasty scene.
I highly doubt Phaseone sent Joe Cornish a special version of their backs with much better DR and shadows than the regular one each time he bought a CCD back from them.
Where is his comparison against a D800E in terms of image quality in the long exposure territory when shooting a contrasty scene?
As for my files, I don't quite care how they look at 100%. Quite a few of them have been printed at 40" or so and at the intended viewing distance, they kick ass. Maybe if my priorities were more oriented towards pixel peeping, I'd tend to see it differently.
Well if you a satisfied then it's good for you.
-
Where is his comparison against a D800E in terms of image quality in the long exposure territory when shooting a contrasty scene?
I am fairly confident he's too busy making money from his images to do side by side comparisons for the sake of the internet.
Well if you a satisfied then it's good for you.
Thanks.
-
I am fairly confident he's too busy making money from his images to do side by side comparisons for the sake of the internet.
This is why I can bet that if he chooses a D800E instead of an IQ260/IQ380 to shoot long exposure of contrasty scenes he can achieve better image quality. He may know this, may not, but this doesn't matter, as he's just doing a marketing job for Phase One.
-
This thread is specifically about long exposure. For long exposure the difference is not just 13 stops vs 14 stops, but significantly greater. If you only have a P65+ instead of an IQ260 then I bet that you might even don't know that for the dedicated "long exposure mode (LEM)" of the IQ260 the lowest possible ISO setting is ISO 140 instead of ISO 50. Are you indeed experienced in long exposure?
Below is one of my picture which was used as the cover of a photography magazine. It was shot by an IQ250, with Rodenstock 23mm + Rodenstock center filter + Lee Big Stopper + Singh-Ray 3 stops Reverse. There is no way you can shoot this with a CCD back with usable image quality. Even for this simple scene with straight skyline where you can apply the traditional filters, it is not possible to avoid the cloud above the sun to get underexposed which forces you to push shadow in post processing.
If you look into my recent SNR and dynamic range measurements throughout the IQ3 100MP and the IQ3 80MP you could easily see the huge difference.
I'm well aware that this thread is for. I was giving an example for an even older back that isn't even equipped with a dedicated long exposure mode but still delivers excellent results and has ample DR for sunrise and sunset photos with direct sunlight.
The problem is that some people can't expose. They instead rely on technology to make up for their mistakes - and that's okay.
And yes, I've seen that photo, you've shown it around a lot of times, thank you. But that's no proof for anything - you didn't make a comparison and a side by side shot. And if you really think that the quality of a 260 wouldn't be sufficient for a magazine print you must be very biased indeed - even more than you seem.
-
The problem is that some people can't expose. They instead rely on technology to make up for their mistakes - and that's okay.
Unfortunately the magazine cover example was exposed correctly and I can put my money in it that you can't expose better with whatever CCD back you have.
you didn't make a comparison and a side by side shot.
Well it appears that you are so lazy to read my threads and posts. I could certainly post here again for you.
-
And here's the problem: even my old P65+ back has better long exposure files with less noise than YOUR examples of the 260.
What are you doing wrong?
-
And here's the problem: even my old P65+ back has better long exposure files with less noise than YOUR examples of the 260.
What are you doing wrong?
Where is your side by side comparison between your P65+ and a D800E then? (long exposure of contrasty scene)
If you haven't done any comparison at all then why mislead the others with your imagination?
-
I don't need to. It's not my imagination, I'm just looking at your examples and the only conclusion that I can come to is that you're doing something wrong. My files look very clean... So what did you do to these files? I highly doubt they aren't manipulated.
In any case - good for you.
-
I don't need to. It's not my imagination, I'm just looking at your examples and the only conclusion that I can come to is that you're doing something wrong. My files look very clean... So what did you do to these files? I highly doubt they aren't manipulated.
In any case - good for you.
You imagine your P65+ files to be cleaner without a side by side comparison against a D800E. Good for you. If you are satisfied with your P65+ then I suggest you not to compare it against a D800E because you might regret it. I regret comparing my IQ260 agaisnt my D800E after all.
My steps are so simple: just push the shadow in post processing. My RAW files are published for download (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ky8yrvotxj16z91/AABsGoyWMfmuVCA4qtkHFdAKa?dl=0) and you could try it yourself.
-
I compared my worst files to your latest comparison shot. No further inquiry needed but thanks for trying! :)
My steps are even simpler: correct exposure and no need to ruin the shadows!
-
My steps are even simpler: correct exposure and no need to ruin the shadows!
My steps are very similar to yours! Must be a coincidence. ;)
I have a D800 as well and sure, I can underexpose 4 stops on it and push in post and go "WOW", but I don't need to do that in any real world shooting scenarios.
-
I compared my worst files to your latest comparison shot. No further inquiry needed but thanks for trying! :)
My steps are even simpler: correct exposure and no need to ruin the shadows!
You have no side by side comparison so that's not a valid argument for me.
I would be surprised that you could do a better exposure for my magazine cover photo.
-
My steps are very similar to yours! Must be a coincidence. ;)
I have a D800 as well and sure, I can underexpose 4 stops on it and push in post and go "WOW", but I don't need to do that in any real world shooting scenarios.
Not only for backlit landscape of sunset/sunrise, but also for weddings and portrait it is still a use case where one needs to push the shadow details out of a RAW file.
This is not wrong exposure. It's the correct exposure. Even with flash and lighting it is not practical to illuminate the background. As technology advances we can achieve what was not easy for our previous generations.
Here are reviews from Chris, Philip, etc.
http://chrisgilesphotography.com/blog/pentax-645z-review-pt2-dynamic-range/
https://www.storehouse.co/stories/o061f
-
I know you would! :)
And by the way, your 'comparison shots' are really badly exposed and there's nothing to compare here. Different exposure times and ISO settings everywhere, nothing to make sense of...what were your trying to achieve? I mean seriously... that was a huge waste of time!
That's not an offence but it's a fact - and I said earlier: if you can't expose correctly you're better off with a CMOS back to correct your mistakes. So if a CMOS works for you I'm happy for you. Congratulations! :)
But that doesn't mean that others can't work with CCD backs.
-
This is not wrong exposure. It's the correct exposure. Even with flash and lighting it is not practical to illuminate the background. As technology advances we can achieve what was not easy for our previous generations.
My dear Mr. Song,
I am sorry, but you have absolutely no idea how portrait lighting works. You dont use the flash to illuminate the background and the only people attempting to do that are your garden variety tourists walking around with their pop up flashes up. What any competent portrait photographer will do is to set the flash power in such a way that the subject is slightly higher exposed than the background, then set the camera exposure to expose the subject properly (Which ensures a slightly under exposed background). You don't need a ton of DR for this or the ability to push shadows a lot. In fact, you can do this with film and not do any post work. Whether you're working against a sunset or harsh midday sun, the technique is exactly the same. The extent to which the background is underexposed is usually left to the artist's vision.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3772/12869114085_3926418780_c.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3824/12927878634_c432d0e358_c.jpg)
The examples you've quoted are again, one of those internet special tests where gear is pushed to the limits on purpose to showcase some technical achievement. It once again has no bearing on real world use.
Looking at your body of work, I realize that portrait work is not within your area of expertise. So perhaps, you should leave such discussions to others who have a bit more experience in it. Please stick to discussing long exposure landscapes. You're quite competent at that.
-
I know you would! :)
And by the way, your 'comparison shots' are really badly exposed and there's nothing to compare here. Different exposure times and ISO settings everywhere, nothing to make sense of...what were your trying to achieve? I mean seriously... that was a huge waste of time!
That's not an offence but it's a fact - and I said earlier: if you can't expose correctly you're better off with a CMOS back to correct your mistakes. So if a CMOS works for you I'm happy for you. Congratulations! :)
But that doesn't mean that others can't work with CCD backs.
The lowest possible ISO setting for the IQ260 in normal mode is ISO 50 and in long exposure mode is ISO 140. Read the product manual if you have never touched it in person.
The exposure times were offset to achieve the same levels of exposure saturation of the four channels of the bayer array (R G B G2) among different cameras. This could be verified by RawDigger and was posted here (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/52844-backlight-landscape-photography-realized-say-no-silhouette.html#post616079). If you are not even familiar with the technical details then this makes no sense for you and it is indeed a waste of time.
-
The lowest possible ISO setting for the IQ260 in normal mode is ISO 50 and in long exposure mode is ISO 140. Read the product manual if you have never touched it in person.
The exposure times were offset to achieve the same levels of exposure saturation of the four channels of the bayer array (R G B G2) among different cameras. This could be verified by RawDigger and was posted here (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/52844-backlight-landscape-photography-realized-say-no-silhouette.html#post616079). If you are not even familiar with the technical details then this makes no sense for you and it is indeed a waste of time.
So you agree that your comparisons were useless then? Thanks! :)
Next time keep it short and simple!
edit: and I was of course referring to your comparison of the 50mpx cmos and 60mpx ccd back where the exposure times and ISO weren't even close and in any case completely underexposed.
-
My dear Mr. Song,
I am sorry, but you have absolutely no idea how portrait lighting works. You dont use the flash to illuminate the background and the only people attempting to do that are your garden variety tourists walking around with their pop up flashes up. What any competent portrait photographer will do is to set the flash power in such a way that the subject is slightly higher exposed than the background, then set the camera exposure to expose the subject properly (Which ensures a slightly under exposed background). You don't need a ton of DR for this or the ability to push shadows a lot. In fact, you can do this with film and not do any post work. Whether you're working against a sunset or harsh midday sun, the technique is exactly the same. The extent to which the background is underexposed is usually left to the artist's vision.
The examples you've quoted are again, one of those internet special tests where gear is pushed to the limits on purpose to showcase some technical achievement. It once again has no bearing on real world use.
Looking at your body of work, I realize that portrait work is not within your area of expertise. So perhaps, you should leave such discussions to others who have a bit more experience in it. Please stick to discussing long exposure landscapes. You're quite competent at that.
Thank you for attaching your examples but I'm afraid there is no sun inside your pictures - you are not shooting against the sun.
-
Mybe you didn't understand what I explained. It's immaterial if the sun is in the shot or not, the technique is the same. It doesn't matter how bright something is (a strobe close to the camera can be 3x as bright as the sun, for example), you can ALWAYS underexpose it. The key is to ensure that you light the subject in such a way that the background is a stop (or more) under it, then expose the shot for the subject.
This is easily achieved with leaf shutter lenses and strobes, which allows the photographer to use faster shuuter speeds to kill strong ambient (Such as direct sun in the shot).
Example from Frank Doorhof:
https://frankdoorhof.smugmug.com/Portfolio/Fashion/i-99WfdjM/A
-
and I was of course referring to your comparison of the 50mpx cmos and 60mpx ccd back where the exposure times and ISO weren't even close and in any case completely underexposed.
I don't think attaching RawDigger screenshots could make sense for you but others can see it :)
-
Mybe you didn't understand what I explained. It's immaterial if the sun is in the shot or not, the technique is the same. It doesn't matter how bright something is (a strobe close to the camera can be 3x as bright as the sun, for example), you can ALWAYS underexpose it. The key is to ensure that you light the subject in such a way that the background is a stop (or more) under it, then expose the shot for the subject.
This is easily achieved with leaf shutter lenses and strobes, which allows the photographer to use faster shuuter speeds to kill strong ambient (Such as direct sun in the shot).
Example from Frank Doorhof:
https://frankdoorhof.smugmug.com/Portfolio/Fashion/i-99WfdjM/A
Thanks - you just gave me a perfect example showing the limitations of a camera with limited DR! Do you see the background shot as silhouette? Little details can be seen for the trees and mountains far away from the lady.
-
I don't think attaching RawDigger screenshots could make sense for you but others can see it :)
That's nice. but it doesn't help you. Make similar exposures with similar settings, they you have a valid comparison.
I know you're having a hard time but try to remain polite, otherwise I won't and you wouldn't want that. I'm pretty good at insulting people.
-
That's nice. but it doesn't help you. Make similar exposures with similar settings, they you have a valid comparison.
I know you're having a hard time but try to remain polite, otherwise I won't and you wouldn't want that. I'm pretty good at insulting people.
The RawDigger screenshots already proves almost identical exposures between these two cameras :)
Well you could of course keep trying ;)
-
Thanks - you just gave me a perfect example showing the limitations of a camera with limited DR! Do you see the background shot as silhouette? Little details can be seen for the trees and mountains far away from the lady.
I don't think you're an idiot, so I am pretty sure you're being dense on purpose.
When one is using lighting, you are in complete control. You can expose the background higher, use a different modifier to light up the model more evenly and make the shadows lighter and so on. You can make the entire scene devoid of shadows. It'll make a terrible picture, though. The DR of the camera is irrelevant as you don't even use half of it in strobe lit portraiture. This is not opinion, this is fact.
The reason that picture has a dark background is that Frank's work always has strong shadows. This is how he shoots with CCD, with CMOS, with Leaf, Canon and Sony. The DR of the camera is the least interesting thing to him.
Stupid or dense, at this point it's clear to me that a discussion with you is a waste of time.
Good day.
-
The RawDigger screenshots already proves almost identical exposures between these two cameras :)
Well you could of course keep trying ;)
I'm not trying. But it's amusing to see you squirm.
-
I don't think you're an idiot, so I am pretty sure you're being dense on purpose.
When one is using lighting, you are in complete control. You can expose the background higher, use a different modifier to light up the model more evenly and make the shadows lighter and so on. You can make the entire scene devoid of shadows. It'll make a terrible picture, though. The DR of the camera is irrelevant as you don't even use half of it in strobe lit portraiture. This is not opinion, this is fact.
The reason that picture has a dark background is that Frank's work always has strong shadows. This is how he shoots with CCD, with CMOS, with Leaf, Canon and Sony. The DR of the camera is the least interesting thing to him.
Stupid or dense, at this point it's clear to me that a discussion with you is a waste of time.
Good day.
I guess you still don't get my point. I don't believe the previous portrait examples I gave are terrible pictures. The backgrounds are indeed very natural (instead of purely black).
In Frank's example, the background is very far away from your light and there is no way you can light up the trees from such a long distance away. Next time if you shoot directly into the sun you will understand what I'm talking about.
Have a good day ;)
-
To get this relatively back on topic...
You may find it in your interest to contact either Digital Transitions or Capture Integration and get a demo done. I would seriously try out the systems before diving in. I used the the IQ series as my first dive in digital MF and I much prefer those backs. The P45 has a worthless screen. If you need to confirm anything in the field, your only tool is a roughly the histogram. Expect to shoot at ISO 50 all the time. Why would you not want a dark exposure? Aside from the extra time, the noise reduction is usually beneficial in my experience. Would you be making your own darks after the fact? Honestly, between the P45 and the 260...you have a groundbreaking difference. Ide go with the newer one for the interface alone. I own a P45 though, price made a difference for me at the time I purchased.
Also, keep in mind how you will work landscape photography and what kind of work you like. Even with a Hasselblad or Phase body, shooting is still slower paced than a Nikon dslr i find. Depending which system you go with, keep in mind your filters may get MUCH larger. The dslr lens filter rings are usually 77mm with a few in the 80s. Hasselblad lenses are in the 90s.
If you intend to work with a tech cam in the field, the better screen view of the 260 will serve you well. I shoot with a tech cam as well and have traveled to shoot landscape with it before. I rarely use it as my landscape camera any more. Keep in mind the need for LCC shots if you stitch movements together. If you are doing long exposures this can be annoying too. Unless you make REALLY good notes of your settings and reshoot the LCCs later in better light. It's just a lot to deal with in the middle of nowhere late at night. I can get results that please me equally as much with gear that requires less work to produce.
That being said...the MF colors and tones are still way nicer than the dslrs out there. IMO.
-
To get this relatively back on topic...
You may find it in your interest to contact either Digital Transitions or Capture Integration and get a demo done. I would seriously try out the systems before diving in. I used the the IQ series as my first dive in digital MF and I much prefer those backs. The P45 has a worthless screen. If you need to confirm anything in the field, your only tool is a roughly the histogram. Expect to shoot at ISO 50 all the time. Why would you not want a dark exposure? Aside from the extra time, the noise reduction is usually beneficial in my experience. Would you be making your own darks after the fact? Honestly, between the P45 and the 260...you have a groundbreaking difference. Ide go with the newer one for the interface alone. I own a P45 though, price made a difference for me at the time I purchased.
Also, keep in mind how you will work landscape photography and what kind of work you like. Even with a Hasselblad or Phase body, shooting is still slower paced than a Nikon dslr i find. Depending which system you go with, keep in mind your filters may get MUCH larger. The dslr lens filter rings are usually 77mm with a few in the 80s. Hasselblad lenses are in the 90s.
If you intend to work with a tech cam in the field, the better screen view of the 260 will serve you well. I shoot with a tech cam as well and have traveled to shoot landscape with it before. I rarely use it as my landscape camera any more. Keep in mind the need for LCC shots if you stitch movements together. If you are doing long exposures this can be annoying too. Unless you make REALLY good notes of your settings and reshoot the LCCs later in better light. It's just a lot to deal with in the middle of nowhere late at night. I can get results that please me equally as much with gear that requires less work to produce.
That being said...the MF colors and tones are still way nicer than the dslrs out there. IMO.
The fullframe CCDs have corner issues when you do exposure longer than 10 minutes. Both the IQ380 and the IQ260 are susceptible to this problem. This can be observed even from the sample images you can get from the dealers.
-
Tiling issue is also another artifact for the fullframe CCDs (and if you do long exposure it is more susceptible to this).
IQ180: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/53546-help-wb-exposure-when-shifting.html
IQ180: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/45242-issue-iq180.html
IQ180: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/35873-iq180-frustrations.html
IQ160: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/52161-tiling-how-remove-post.html
IQ160: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/50367-iq160-tiling-issue.html
-
To get this relatively back on topic...
You may find it in your interest to contact either Digital Transitions or Capture Integration and get a demo done. I would seriously try out the systems before diving in. I used the the IQ series as my first dive in digital MF and I much prefer those backs. The P45 has a worthless screen. If you need to confirm anything in the field, your only tool is a roughly the histogram. Expect to shoot at ISO 50 all the time. Why would you not want a dark exposure? Aside from the extra time, the noise reduction is usually beneficial in my experience. Would you be making your own darks after the fact? Honestly, between the P45 and the 260...you have a groundbreaking difference. Ide go with the newer one for the interface alone. I own a P45 though, price made a difference for me at the time I purchased.
Also, keep in mind how you will work landscape photography and what kind of work you like. Even with a Hasselblad or Phase body, shooting is still slower paced than a Nikon dslr i find. Depending which system you go with, keep in mind your filters may get MUCH larger. The dslr lens filter rings are usually 77mm with a few in the 80s. Hasselblad lenses are in the 90s.
If you intend to work with a tech cam in the field, the better screen view of the 260 will serve you well. I shoot with a tech cam as well and have traveled to shoot landscape with it before. I rarely use it as my landscape camera any more. Keep in mind the need for LCC shots if you stitch movements together. If you are doing long exposures this can be annoying too. Unless you make REALLY good notes of your settings and reshoot the LCCs later in better light. It's just a lot to deal with in the middle of nowhere late at night. I can get results that please me equally as much with gear that requires less work to produce.
That being said...the MF colors and tones are still way nicer than the dslrs out there. IMO.
Sage advice mate, thanks a lot!
-
Tiling etc are mainly a software and calibration issues and should not occur if you "just" take photos and not torture files unnecessarily.
If you use CaptureOne (which you should) it will most likely eliminate those issues anyway.
Doug said it in the "issue with IQ180"-topic: "Again, if you see any form of tiling in Capture One with supported lenses with any reasonable photographic adjustment (e.g. +4 stops, +50 contrast, +50 saturation is not a reasonable adjustment) the back should be recalibrated."
-
In Frank's example, the background is very far away from your light and there is no way you can light up the trees from such a long distance away. Next time if you shoot directly into the sun you will understand what I'm talking about.
In so many words, you just showed the difference between a photographer and a technician that happens to use photography.
To a technician, Frank's image makes no sense. Why on earth would you want no detail in the background when modern technology allows it to be recorded.
The a photographer though, that picture is awesome! Nothing need be improved!
I am sure that if Frank Dorhof wanted to, he could have maintained detail completely in that background. But that is not his style, and would have distracted from the image.
-
In so many words, you just showed the difference between a photographer and a technician that happens to use photography.
To a technician, Frank's image makes no sense. Why on earth would you want no detail in the background when modern technology allows it to be recorded.
The a photographer though, that picture is awesome! Nothing need be improved!
I am sure that if Frank Dorhof wanted to, he could have maintained detail completely in that background. But that is not his style, and would have distracted from the image.
One could argue however that as photographer you are a technician also! Lovely work by the way.
-
One could argue however that as photographer you are a technician also! Lovely work by the way.
Yes and no, and thanks; due a little to my mindset and the clients I work with. However, I do contest that I am not 100% technician; I do light my work for feeling and shadows where as the pure techies just HDR it. (To them, "why light when HDR allows you to balance the image?")
Lately, I have been trying to be not so uptight and to just let somethings go. I am also looking to add other types of clients who would allow we to work a little looser too.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/1290449/picard-facepalm-o.gif)
I'm out.
-
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?
-
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*.
-
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.
-
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
-
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).
-
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 :)
-
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)
-
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 (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=109852.msg903269#msg903269) 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.
-
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....
-
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 (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=109852.msg903269#msg903269) 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.
-
Don't you think the review pictures I posted on #38 of this thread (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=109852.msg903269#msg903269) 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
-
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 (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=109852.msg903269#msg903269), 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.
-
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
-
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!
-
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!
-
With a modern Sony CMOS you have the flexibility to choose between the pictures on #38 of this thread (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=109852.msg903269#msg903269), 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?
-
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?
Forum consensus is that one of the main distinguishing features of the new Sony backs is higher DR. Which also translates into higher *usable* ISO in practice, going from 200 to 1600 or so.
Many here have older equipment, not the latest generation CCD.
And anyway ... it's just a pretext for a debating match :)
Edmund.
-
Forum consensus is that one of the main distinguishing features of the new Sony backs is higher DR. Which also translates into higher *usable* ISO in practice, going from 200 to 1600 or so.
Many here have older equipment, not the latest generation CCD.
And anyway ... it's just a pretext for a debating match :)
Edmund.
Higher DR means you can push even more, but still, the post implies that you need to leave shadows dark. That, to me, is a bit disingenuous? Surely you must be able to push shadows quite a bit even with a CCD even from pre 2010 without losing image quality? How do you define "older equipment"?
-
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?
It doesn't, for those of us who actually know how to use our equipment and software.
(https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/1530432_10151947704168196_550812448_n.jpg?oh=68f1a3c6b8340cae357af282d4a4ffc3&oe=57B85D62)
3 stops underexposure.
(https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/1489118_10151947650268196_1035251969_n.jpg?oh=c2c5502108fd0fcaeea4e00ea3ea2f39&oe=57B258B9)
3 stops overexposure.
But hey, what do we know? Apparently, usable dynamic range did not exist before Sony CMOS sensors came along one fine day!
-
But hey, what do we know? Apparently, usable dynamic range did not exist before Sony CMOS sensors came along one fine day!
Obviously CCD backs stopped working after CMOS backs were released. Duh!
-
Excellent post, Richard, thanks a lot for sharing your experiences! I'm going to go read through your blog post now. Thanks mate!
My pleasure Bob. Good luck with the decision!
-
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?
There is no "modern" CCD back as all have been or will soon be discontinued. The most recent king of the CCD backs is the IQ3 80MP and that's based on 5-year old Dalsa technology. It cannot beat a 4-year old Nikon D800E (which features a modern Sony CMOS sensor) at base ISO in terms of dynamic range. If you shoot with MFDB and want to have matching dynamic range at base ISO then you need to use the Sony CMOS backs, e.g. IQ3 100MP, IQ250 etc.
-
There is no "modern" CCD back as all have been or will soon be discontinued. The most recent king of the CCD backs is the IQ3 80MP and that's based on 5-year old Dalsa technology. It cannot beat a 4-year old Nikon D800E (which features a modern Sony CMOS sensor) at base ISO in terms of dynamic range. If you shoot with MFDB and want to have matching dynamic range at base ISO then you need to use the Sony CMOS backs, e.g. IQ3 100MP, IQ250 etc.
So 4 years old with 14 stops = modern, 5 years old with 13+stops = old.
Let me guess: 60MP and 80 MP = low, 50MP and 100MP = high, right?
-
There is no "modern" CCD back as all have been or will soon be discontinued. The most recent king of the CCD backs is the IQ3 80MP and that's based on 5-year old Dalsa technology. It cannot beat a 4-year old Nikon D800E (which features a modern Sony CMOS sensor) at base ISO in terms of dynamic range. If you shoot with MFDB and want to have matching dynamic range at base ISO then you need to use the Sony CMOS backs, e.g. IQ3 100MP, IQ250 etc.
What is this, the twilight zone? In all respects dynamic range is roughly the same with D800E and the older CCD digital backs. "It cannot beat a 4-year old"... well in what way does this translate to "With a CCD you have no choice - you have to leave the background in shadow, even with flash."
Did you miss there is a shadow slider, even with a CCD digital back or something?
-
What is this, the twilight zone? In all respects dynamic range is roughly the same with D800E and the older CCD digital backs. "It cannot beat a 4-year old"... well in what way does this translate to "With a CCD you have no choice - you have to leave the background in shadow, even with flash."
Did you miss there is a shadow slider, even with a CCD digital back or something?
Well naturally you have to underexpose the image for like...4 stops, then push it in Capture One back to normal and also push the shadows. Then when it look really bad you can blame the CCD and buy a CMOS sensor back! Problem solved! ;D