Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Alex MacPherson on September 01, 2010, 04:09:38 pm
-
I am contemplating getting a Phase One P30 (not the plus) for my Hasselblad 553ELX for my beauty photography work.
I currently have been using a Canon 1Ds Mark III. Will there be enough of a difference in the files to warrant the expense?
I do all my beauty in studio on tripod. I was thinking the 31 mp would be great for provide larger files that would allow for
greater flexibility in regards to cropping.
Thanks in advance
-
Try one out of possible.
For me personally the quality of the mf files are just better, pixels can be pushed around a lot more and there is more "realness" in the images.
-
Because you're shooting from tripod and in a very controlled environment I think you would be pleased with MFD... if it shoots fast enough for you. Because of the expense in moving to MFD perhaps you could wait and rent the 1Ds IV for testing (32mp ???) when it becomes available? I think MFD will still be better but how much?
-
I currently have been using a Canon 1Ds Mark III. Will there be enough of a difference in the files to warrant the expense?
I use a 1Ds3 and have rented a Phase P30+ kit. The Phase sensor didn't have a anti-aliasing filter covering it, so the images had a much higher level of acuity. Fine details were not softened. However, moiré patterns showed up all over the fabrics I was photographing. After processing, the image retained a much higher degree of sharpness and acuity at the pixel level. Once the image has been reduced for magazine reproduction, or web use, that degree of detail is lost, though.
I also think that using Capture One with a fine-tuned ICC camera profile really helps, too.
-
I think part of the reason I want the Phase One is because I dislike the way the skin is rendered by the Canon. There is something
very "digital" about the look. I can't really put my finder on it.
The back I am looking at is sub $5k... while somewhat pricey seems to be a good investment for the type of photography I do.
-
Maybe you can try a different raw converter. I'm using C1 for thethering shooting, then the chosen files are processed with Raw Photo Processor. There is a huge difference in between, sometimes it seems the 5D shots are not in focus but the real thing is the converter is not able to get out all the details, so everything is muddy, not crisp as you expect...
the image is made with 5D MII and 90mm tse, the files are converted as linear in C1 and RPP, no sharpening. Then the USM indicated is done in CS4. There is a difference in skin detail and RPP gives a look which is not so digital. I like it better.
By the way... let's wait for the 1Ds M IV to test!
Bye
Roberto
___________________
www.pastrovicchio.com
-
I dislike the way the skin is rendered by the Canon. There is something
very "digital" about the look. I can't really put my finder on it.
Are you talking about the flat, pasty look in the quarter tones (i.e., the light skin tones)?
-
It's more than just the sensor size and megapixels here let's not forget. You'll also benefit from the Blad glass vs the Canon. As stated, the files from the P1 back will more easily hold up to moderate to heavy post work and the repurpose much better than the smaller Canon files. You really can't go wrong here IMO
-
Especially for skin tones you should take a look at the Leaf Backs as well, we use the Dalsa / Leaf combination for this reason. An Aptus II 7 or the older Aptus 75S is very good regarding speed as well.
Cheers, Ulf
-
You will be amazed over the quality compared to your canon.
I use both systems. Always my p30+ in my studio for fashion and for beauty. The whole process is alot smoother with the p30+ images turn up on the screen in a instance, the canon takes forever. Sharpness and color and depth is awesom. At this moment i think you could get a really good bargain picking up a used unit.
Good luck!
-
I am contemplating getting a Phase One P30 (not the plus) for my Hasselblad 553ELX for my beauty photography work.
I currently have been using a Canon 1Ds Mark III. Will there be enough of a difference in the files to warrant the expense?
It amasses me how some photographers can earn/find the money for a new BMW, but they are loath to spend money on what earns them the money.
An H4D-60 would be the obvious choice, as you might need to see every stitch in a full-length picture to be printed life size, and you might appreciate the clever focusing...
...but the benefit of Hasselblad backs is the Phocus software, and you would get that with any Hasselblad back.
I have a 555ELD that I hope to use with a CF39... and you would have the option to upgrade to an H2 without changing the back.
-
It amasses me how some photographers can earn/find the money for a new BMW, but they are loath to spend money on what earns them the money.
I would have written: it amazes me that any photographer can find the money for a new BMW.
You see the flaw in extrapolating from personal experience? What can I do? It's the only experience I have. I would add that this is because I learned to avoid hire-purchase (after my accountant twice convinced me it was worth it - and we pay those guys?) and leasing was never an option for a non-ltd. setup like mine... I would go further: I'd say that like Mercedes, you probably have to be prepared to pay extra for the wheels. All in all, I'd swallow the ego and buy someting that doesn't break your heart when the idiot beside you opens his door too far and too hard. When I had the little sports X1/9 my wife would sometimes drive it and hated having to park in a field or the most distant slot of the supermarket car park... and even then the guy with the Range Rover would instantly come out of the clouds and sit beside it.
Speaking of the X1/9, it had an amazing amount of space in the forward trunk/boot - I managed tripods, case with flashes, cameras, all that junk. Drawbacks? Well, it felt silly when Hillman Avengers passed me... I almost perfected the art of looking asleep at the wheel but never looking sideways.
Rob C
-
I would have written: it amazes me that any photographer can find the money for a new BMW.
You see the flaw in extrapolating from personal experience?
This is not my personal experience - my car is 12 years old, and I am investing in pro kit.
I know a professional photographer, who's work I do not admire, who uses a low-res DSLR for landscape, who has a BMW which he bought new.
...being diplomatic, sometime I think I should say:
"Such talent and skill - if you can sell crap like that, why do you not give up trying to take photographs; and join my marketing department"
-
It amasses me how some photographers can earn/find the money for a new BMW, but they are loath to spend money on what earns them the money.
An H4D-60 would be the obvious choice, as you might need to see every stitch in a full-length picture to be printed life size, and you might appreciate the clever focusing...
...but the benefit of Hasselblad backs is the Phocus software, and you would get that with any Hasselblad back.
I have a 555ELD that I hope to use with a CF39... and you would have the option to upgrade to an H2 without changing the back.
I have not yet reached a level where I am earning enough money to justify the expense of something like an H4D-60. I just want
to step up to MFD without breaking the bank.
-
This is not my personal experience - my car is 12 years old, and I am investing in pro kit.
I
I can match your 12-year-old car! It's one of the last Escorts: came with an 1800cc engine and the title of XRi (no 2, 3, 4 nor anything else). Gone round the clock and showing about 1250k at the moment. Rust on the roof looks terminal, but it's MOTd until next July... I was going to say it answers to 'Rusty', but to tell the truth, it doesn't answer to much of anything.
No, I'm not investing in any more kit. I said that before a few times but think I mean it this time...
I took myself off to the local Sunday market today, D700 with manual 1.8/50mm and that was it. Boy, does that mother get heavy after a couple of hours! Thank God the M9 is out of reach! So is the road, come to think of it. I believe there is one up in Perthshire? Stamper?
Take care
Rob C
-
I can match your 12-year-old car! It's one of the last Escorts: came with an 1800cc engine and the title of XRi (no 2, 3, 4 nor anything else). Gone round the clock and showing about 1250k at the moment.
A bit OT, but mine is 1,900cc, 212K miles, BMW Z3... the engine seems past it's prime.
I took myself off to the local Sunday market today, D700 with manual 1.8/50mm and that was it. Boy, does that mother get heavy after a couple of hours! Thank God the M9 is out of reach! So is the road, come to think of it. I believe there is one up in Perthshire? Stamper?
Take care
Rob C
I am thinking of getting a CF39 as a back-up system and 2nd camera... but having 2 4kg cameras round my neck for any length of time does not seem a good idea... especially as they could bang together and destroy each other!
-
Well i recently made the jump myself from a Canon EOS 5D mk2 to a Mamiya 645 AFD and a Phase One P25 back. Cost me roughly €3500 + vat which was a great price for a demo back from a reseller. And the quality jump really shows. The leap felt bigger than when i went from a crop sensor (40D/50D) to a full size sensor (5D) and for beauty work it's an absolute delight to work with. Just be prepared that you will retouch a lot more with a MFDB system than with the smaller systems, allthough the quality of the file it outputs is a lot nicer to work with.
Oh and i drive a 1990's rustbucket with a Honda label, cost me €700 and will prob only live this year before it goes to the great scrapyard :P It has struck me as kinda funny that when i go on location with the Phase and a 7b pack, all the gear would buy me many cars just like this one :D
And if a client sees my crappy car, he never ever complains about my prices ;D
-
Mr. Rob, after looking at your work, I think you should try to have another run at the Vogues and the likes.
They all are redoing your gigs again and ask other people to do it.
They should go for the originals.
You may then go for one of those roadsters.
-
Ziocan
Thanks for the advice, which my ego forces me to see as a compliment, but no way!
The truth, in my case, was that the little magazine work that I did came to me from my non-mag stuff; it was the advertising and the collection shoots for manufacturers that brought in the work, but never did any money flow from magazines; in fact, it was embarrassing to work for so little, which just goes to show you how we all fall for our own ego-tripping, even when we know better. But, I did enjoy it - in its own way - and it feels a lot better from here than from there. But today? I wouldn't be able to cope with all the people that make up a 'team'. In my day, all the girls knew how to do their own makeup etc. and there were very few people around that didn't have to be there; on the calendar trips, it was sometimes just the two of us, but eventually I did see the wisdom of having my wife come into the business.
If what you say is right, I'm not surprised: how on Earth did people made with plastic ever become fashionable? I think skin is so much more interesting and appealing to another human being! But I think roadster money wouldn't be forthcoming from those sources... On the other hand, if they were to ask nicely?
;-)
Ciao
Rob C
-
on the calendar trips, it was sometimes just the two of us,
Rob C
On the one calender job I did (Farm Contractor, November 1980) the star was a tractor mounted mower... I remember I used a telephoto to make the background hill look bigger.
The sales manager knew that I was the expert, and did not even look into the view finder when I suggested it.
-
Ziocan
Thanks for the advice, which my ego forces me to see as a compliment, but no way!
It was a compliment indeed.
-
I shoot a H3DII-31. I still have my D3. Though it's not exactly the same I think you'll appreciate the jump in MP, dynamic range, bit-depth, etc. I shoot beauty/editorial/fashion (www.lucima.com). Focal length is key, so get the right lens so you don't have to crop away megapixels.
Good luck! I think you'll enjoy the P30 on the Hassy!
-
A bit OT, but mine is 1,900cc, 212K miles, BMW Z3... the engine seems past it's prime.I am thinking of getting a CF39 as a back-up system and 2nd camera... but having 2 4kg cameras round my neck for any length of time does not seem a good idea... especially as they could bang together and destroy each other!
Dick, I didn't know you were into American wheels!
I hate cameras around the neck too, but only on second reading did I realise you meant two cameras; on first reading I mistook it to mean it was fear of head and a 2-to-four kilo camera destroying each other: that was far more funny. To me. Not only funny, but quite realistic should you have to move rapidly.
Move slowly!
Rob C
-
I shoot a H3DII-31. I still have my D3. Though it's not exactly the same I think you'll appreciate the jump in MP, dynamic range, bit-depth, etc. I shoot beauty/editorial/fashion (www.lucima.com). Focal length is key, so get the right lens so you don't have to crop away megapixels.
Good luck! I think you'll enjoy the P30 on the Hassy!
Were all the picture on you web site taken with the H3D11-31?
I would have thought that it would have made the skin texture look better than that.
I have ordered a 300mm and an H4D-60, ¿which would be good for part-face shots?
I have a 50-110, and it would be nice to have a 200 as well.
-
Dick
I've just looked at the site too. I think that what offends you isn't the camera, but simply that it's the current 'look' that is too spaced from any sense of reality. I appreciate that that's where the business is at, but it doesn't mean that one has to like it. I think the photographer is perfectly capable of doing his job, it's just that digital is like doing it with one hand tied up behind your back. Why? Because it creates an identity that can end up fighting you. Or maybe it isn't a film v. digi thing, but a case of PS over-dependency. Look at any of the top (new) fashionista sites and it all looks exactly the same, regardless of the story they are telling. Do you remember when simple things like grain could create mood...?
Rob C
-
Dick
I've just looked at the site too.... PS over-dependency.
Rob C
... and I thought that "plastic complexion" was a Canon "feature".
-
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4081/4909336284_9c3e1fb950_z.jpg)
Link to "original": http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyeh01/4909336284/sizes/o/in/photostream/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyeh01/4909336284/sizes/o/in/photostream/) (not exactly but the largest I uploaded).
We can do grain too. These were shot with the H3DII-31
What's a "part face shot"? You mean a headshot with head and shoulders? Or a close-up of the face? Obviously you'll need more reach to fill the frame with more face.
The OP wanted beauty didn't he? Beauty is about perfection :) I challenge you to submit any non-PS'd image client paying for beauty images :)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4074/4907568397_3d2a45eb15_z.jpg)
-
... and I thought that "plastic complexion" was a Canon "feature".
Show me one picture on my site where the model face is without pores :) I don't do plastic :)
-
What's a "part face shot"? You mean a headshot with head and shoulders? Or a close-up of the face? Obviously you'll need more reach to fill the frame with more face.
A mean a close-up of part of the face, for which I would like to use 300mm on 645 (or 53.7 * 40.2)
-
Show me one picture on my site where the model face is without pores :) I don't do plastic :)
Some like to sharpen the hair and eyes and soften the complexion, but "they" now want sharpened pores?
-
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4081/4909336284_9c3e1fb950_z.jpg)
Link to "original": http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyeh01/4909336284/sizes/o/in/photostream/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyeh01/4909336284/sizes/o/in/photostream/) (not exactly but the largest I uploaded).
We can do grain too. These were shot with the H3DII-31
What's a "part face shot"? You mean a headshot with head and shoulders? Or a close-up of the face? Obviously you'll need more reach to fill the frame with more face.
The OP wanted beauty didn't he? Beauty is about perfection :) I challenge you to submit any non-PS'd image client paying for beauty images :)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4074/4907568397_3d2a45eb15_z.jpg)
I was careful in my post to say that your work is perfectly good, and that the ‘look’ is what’s going down at the moment. What I would also say, is that the ‘grain’ example you post simply doesn’t look like grain at all.
I have no idea how old you are, but if you experienced film, you’d see at once that what you offered bears no resemblance to film grain. It was never that crisp, that’s the point of it: it is a structural device which, when the correct relationship between size of image and type of film is struck, the effect is unobtrusive and looks natural. I suggest you find some Sarah Moon or David Hamilton and look very closely. Think Moon’s Pirelli or Cacharel. Look at Frank Horvat’s site:
http://www.horvatland.com
In larger versions, the little headshot on the Home Page of my wee site shows grain, but even that isn’t right because the original was Kodachrome which was always as grain-free as it comes; but, since the pic is a crop from an original that covers from top of head to groin, it does let me get a gentle impression of granularity simply because of magnification.
But please, don’t see this as any attack on you: it isn’t.
Rob C
-
Some like to sharpen the hair and eyes and soften the complexion, but "they" now want sharpened pores?
Last time I checked, plastic doesn't have pores. Not sure if we're talking about the same thing.
-
Hey Rob,
While digital images don't organically create that type of grain, it can be reproduced digitally (we can argue quality later). To my knowledge there are two ways to create the type of grain present in film. You can recreate from scratch digitally (generating noise/grain etc in PS) or sample grain from existing film images. While there isn't a huge database of different types of grain available from different film stock, I think it's a matter of time that either of the aforementioned solutions bridge the gap between digital and film effects.
Is digital reproduction of film grain there yet? No. But you can't stop evolution. You're absolutely right about the size of the image and the size of the grain having a nice relationship that makes for a pleasing effect. On the other hand, IMHO it's irresponsible for as photographers to relegate grain effects strictly to film :) we should keep pushing for ways to develop whatever effects we seek in digital.
On the other hand, there are people who don't want to push ahead. People who think digital photography is a fad just like the Internet is a fad. People who are afraid of Photoshop and don't like retouching. Hell, there are still people that think retouching is "cheating".
But there's no right answer. Different strokes for different folks. And I sure as hell don't have all the answers. That said, I for one am still seeking ways to reproduce grain better than the current methods I use now. I absorb and digest as much knowledge regarding post-processing as possible.
Here's another image. I didn't try to replicate any particular film stock or anything so I'm sure it falls short of traditional grain effects. I simply applied several techniques to generate grain in this look. It's sharper than most of the older film images but that's because I like my images sharper:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4128/4968537771_6c4b9659ee_z.jpg)
Cheers :)
Charles Lucima
-
I think this is a style that most photographers on this forum would stay away from. If it works for you, go for it.
If you are going to try to replicate film, why not shoot film?
This most recent shot's shadows and highlights are clipped. I'm sure you did this on purpose, I'm just not sure why. Technical image quality of a photograph is understood across the board for having certain qualities.
I've seen images with textures layered over the image before. It was interesting at first, but a photographer can't hide behind it. It has also been grossly overused by amateurs, much like HDR.
just my opinion
-
I understand that most people on this board aren't shooting beauty/editorial/high fashion so they don't have a good gauge on what that market wants. It's totally understandable coming from an architecture/landscape/still life point of view as you have in your portfolio. That's my opinion though.
There isn't much else that I need from film. Easier to shoot digital and maintain all the benefits of digital and just reverse engineer grain the few times I need it rather than shoot film and try to reverse engineer convenience and workflow ;) Also clients expect a lot more now that there's digital ya know? :)
-
This is not my personal experience - my car is 12 years old, and I am investing in pro kit.
I know a professional photographer, who's work I do not admire, who uses a low-res DSLR for landscape, who has a BMW which he bought new.
...being diplomatic, sometime I think I should say:
"Such talent and skill - if you can sell crap like that, why do you not give up trying to take photographs; and join my marketing department"
After years of spending on kit, Sinar Hasselblad Canon and much more and driving old cars, I decided that a new BMW would make a nice change. If sometimes you don't put what you want out of life over buying yet more kit, then what exactly is the point in working flat out. I've had more fun out of driving the BMW than decades of new kit has given me. I take more holidays to instead of more gear. And here's a thing I just bought a 550d for a specific task, I like it so much the so called pro cameras are the backup to the cheapo throw away.
Buying new kit would not earn me one penny more. If what you have works spend on yourself or family.
Kevin.
-
If at all possible try/hire/borrow before you buy and see if you like it and how the other differences in shooting speed, file size, higher iso performance, moire etc affect you.
Tony May
-
After years of spending on kit, Sinar Hasselblad Canon and much more and driving old cars, I decided that a new BMW would make a nice change.
Kevin.
I hope that the money you spent on Pro kit helped you to earn the money to buy the BMW... I am 61, and I have no plans to upgrade the kit I am buying now.
-
Beauty & Fashion photography is all about selling an impossible reality. Very few clients are willing to use images of "real" people in their ads. Your selling the sizzle. I just think the debate is a circular argument that only photographers care about. I've never had a model or client ask for the photos to be un-processed. They want body parts slimmed, smoothed, rounded, straightened etc...the list goes on. There is a good way to solved your objection to Photoshop...shoot for yourself.
The gear argument is also circular...really? it's older than the contents of most gear bags. I still use very old bodies that i've paired with newer glass. The old bodies can still out-resolve the best lenses on the market. The only reason I have a newer body is for the resolution. Some client require very large base files. when I compare the image files from my 20D & 5D MK2...i'm hard pressed to see a huge difference in IQ. Half the time when I use it, the thing is set to sRAW. I personally don't need 20+ MB files for the majority of my work. 8 to 10MB suits me just fine and clients can't tell. I've shot Mamiya's, Hasseys etc. And ya they all have qualities I admire. The average Joe looking at your images can't tell. We are harder on ourselves I think!