Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Lorenzo Pierucci on May 30, 2014, 11:05:00 am
-
Hi everybody,
for who read this forum often you might had see all my "pilgrimage" from buying my first Valeo 22 and then my TOYO VIEW.
Im now happily using it for some months, and i have to admit it: i learn more in this few month that in 7 years ( I'm a young photographer ) with my 5DII then D800. I feel that the photos turns out different, more tridimensional. Im attaching 2 shots. One is a interior for a lounge bar, the other is my first ever real architectural assignment. I shoot it today, a university in Tainan, south of Taiwan. I never ever had such image with my D800 ( never used tilt shift lens tho, only monstrous the 14-24 ). But this is consequential to the major dedication and attention that the 4x5 push me to. But this images comes to such a prize:
-the system itself is around 5-6 kilos ( guessing ) plus mac
-25 ISO of the Valeo, bad in low light situation or extremely long to use.
-live view only tethered, extremely hard to find focus ( not a problem if i set it to infinity, but It really make me think twice before move the focus)
After edit my photos today, i come across at some post about the new TS lens ( especially canon one ) and how now days 35mm camera just are the way to go.
I don't care about the hard work and the "sacrifice" but did anybody feel that stitching 4 to 9 MF shots give a better result of a 35 mm camera?
Is not about resolution ( nowadays all my clients go straight for my "internet ready JPEG" and totally ignore the 10000x7000 TIFF), what i talk about is feel, color and distortion. There is no difference from a shoot with at 90 mm Large format and a 24 mm on a FF 35mm ? The same photos took at the same camera position, will look the same? or 35 mm will look more flat.
This question is puzzling me a lot. Maybe my ignorance is at the base of it.
Any comment or constructive insult is more then welcome :)
-
Is not about resolution ( nowadays all my clients go straight for my "internet ready JPEG" and totally ignore the 10000x7000 TIFF), what i talk about is feel, color and distortion. There is no difference from a shoot with at 90 mm Large format and a 24 mm on a FF 35mm ? The same photos took at the same camera position, will look the same? or 35 mm will look more flat.
This question is puzzling me a lot. Maybe my ignorance is at the base of it.
Funny, I have suffered a similar question as of late. Not so much in the distortion area, but more from the feel/color perspective. Mostly in a film (Ektar and Portra) vs digital realm.
Also, I like the shot of the exterior. The smoothness of tone is exactly what I am trying to achieve.
-
A good question. Its not ignorance, its what we all struggle with: somehow, shooting with MF digital backs, and with movements (or other large-format cameras) is harder, slows you down, yet produces better and more thoughtful images. If this weren't the case, many of us wouldn't do it. There is something special in shooting this way, and this can be seen very nicely in your shots. The interior shot is particularly interesting, with a wide range of tones, shapes and near/far. The subtlety of this shot would likely be lost with a DSLR, using a wider lens with more distortion and less tonal range.
Of course, there are no guarantees - a poor shot can be taken with any camera.
-
Funny, I have suffered a similar question as of late. Not so much in the distortion area, but more from the feel/color perspective. Mostly in a film (Ektar and Portra) vs digital realm.
Also, I like the shot of the exterior. The smoothness of tone is exactly what I am trying to achieve.
Film versus digital has been one of my struggle too last year. I spend quite a lot of money in film, developers and a scanner ( V600 ). Result, the best possible: i learn so much. I keep thinking that film has a special flavor, but the problem to me is that between the film and the screen there is the scanner. A fairly complicated ( to me ) tool to use. Plus cost.
Thanks for the comment on my photo. What i can say is that 90% of the success of this shoot is sun position ( 5.30 am ) + clear air. I have another shoot facing same direction ( different building ) just a hour later and is nothing to compare to that.
hope it helps
-
The interior shot is particularly interesting, with a wide range of tones, shapes and near/far. The subtlety of this shot would likely be lost with a DSLR, using a wider lens with more distortion and less tonal range.
Of course, there are no guarantees - a poor shot can be taken with any camera.
So there is indeed a distortion tonal range difference that probably give a better photo? this is a good sign that I'm not pushing in the wrong way :)
if i see my shoot with the D800 ( http://www.lorenzopierucci.com/architecture/ ) i do have the exactly same feeling of flatness. But maybe is because i focus less… even if i use to shoot tethered with strobes and different layers ( still a good 40 minutes for shoot ).
Also i feel lees likely to use artificial lights with this set up. Like i can capture better the scene… mumble mumble
-
Film versus digital has been one of my struggle too last year. I spend quite a lot of money in film, developers and a scanner ( V600 ). Result, the best possible: i learn so much. I keep thinking that film has a special flavor, but the problem to me is that between the film and the screen there is the scanner. A fairly complicated ( to me ) tool to use. Plus cost.
Thanks for the comment on my photo. What i can say is that 90% of the success of this shoot is sun position ( 5.30 am ) + clear air. I have another shoot facing same direction ( different building ) just a hour later and is nothing to compare to that.
hope it helps
It helps quite a bit. When I went to art school, I was all about hunting the right time of day for a shot, then my professional life and digital made me "lazy". By lazy, I mean "oh, I can correct that in post". Over the last couple of months I have realized my lack of focus on the sun position has been hurting me. So yeah, you basically reaffirm what I was thinking my issue was.
-
if i see my shoot with the D800 ( http://www.lorenzopierucci.com/architecture/ ) i do have the exactly same feeling of flatness.
From a quick comparison between that link and the picture posted here, the main difference appears to be the way the contrast is mapped.
-
From a quick comparison between that link and the picture posted here, the main difference appears to be the way the contrast is mapped.
Defiantly the ones on my website have been true a lot of edit. But i guess one of the reason is that 35 mm require more. The set up 4x5 plus MF seems to me more "ready to deliver" right after RAW conversion and stitching.
Lens might be a factor 55 rodenstock VS 14-24 Nikon.
-
i think the benefit is and as you likely already know the LF lenses will always be better since they do not have to make the sacrifice in engineering of going through a mirror like on the nikon. if you don't mind my asking what is the toyo camera and what is the sliding back adapter you have used? i use this kind of setup with sinar. also, great images! kind regards
-
Going through a mirror on the Nikon??????
-
How the mirror take down the quality? is it because the shake of the "slap"? or there is more?
I will keep this in mind every time i will find my self handling my hard case with my 4x5, plus back, plus profotos Acute 1200 or my 3 750 W lamps… It is a really pain, but if we all agree that image is better. I accept the "sacrifice". As i see it as the only way to set my self a part from the other million of photographer with 35 mm out there. Nothing against them of course, i also shoot 3 or 4 times a week with my D800 and my Sigma 12-24 ( dog lens but i use it for everyday casual jobs ). I really hope that all this hard work gonna give me a edge.
My set up by far:
TOYO G 45 ( RECESSED BOARD AND WIDE BELLOWS ), possibly change on a P1 soon or in a more compact system.
RODENSTOCK 55 APO SIRONAR, on my valeo give me 22 MP at 55 mm or 35-28 mm equivalent on at 1000x7000 file ( stitched ) or larger panorama. Image circle is really nice, plus i use a CENTER filter.
RODENSTOCK 90 WS Not as sharp as the 55 but on a 22 MP still ok.
-
Going through a mirror on the Nikon??????
Kirk, i just check your website. Your architectural work is what i want to do when i " grow up". Great technique. i will start to fallow you as a fan :D
-
Thanks for the kind words. FYI I shot everything LF for about thirty years or so-both my commercial and personal work and taught it at 4 universities. Now all my commercial work is DSLR and virtually all my personal work is still 4x5 LF. A DSLR with T/S lenses does all I need it to for architectural photography-never ran into a situation I couldn't make work with the DSLR. Amongst other things I could not meet the deadlines for commercial work shooting film as I would have to have the film processed, scan it and spot it before taking it into PS. Clients only want files so all the prepress is on you.
-
I will keep this in mind every time i will find my self handling my hard case with my 4x5, plus back, plus profotos Acute 1200 or my 3 750 W lamps… It is a really pain, but if we all agree that image is better. I accept the "sacrifice". As i see it as the only way to set my self a part from the other million of photographer with 35 mm out there. Nothing against them of course, i also shoot 3 or 4 times a week with my D800 and my Sigma 12-24 ( dog lens but i use it for everyday casual jobs ). I really hope that all this hard work gonna give me a edge.
But the images aren't better. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the camera you're using. I won't deny the small influence that having a big complicated looking camera has on clients but the best and arguably most rewarding way to set yourself apart from your competition would be to focus your efforts on taking better architectural photographs - something that the particular camera you're using plays a very small part in.
That's the elephant in the room. And the longer you ignore it, choosing instead to undertake this camera gear "pilgrimage" as you call it, the longer your architectural images will suffer both technically and aesthetically.
You do fabulous fashion work. I can see in your behind the scenes video how you and your collaborators discuss and fine tune lighting, composition, make-up, wardrobe, camera position and posing. The camera has almost nothing to do with it all - because you're so in tune and focused on what you are putting in front of it. Why not this same mindset when shooting architecture?
-
A camera does not define your vision or distinguish your vision from other photographers. A camera is just a hammer-a tool. As I learned on LF, I use a DSLR just like a LF camera-my vision is no different-my vision is my vision. I was the last established AP in my area to switch to digital. I had film totally dialed in and was doing all the scanning in house. Film was part of my "signature". But my clients began to notice that I couldn't meet a tight deadline and giving work that needed a quick turn around to other photographers. This gave other photographers a foothold with my clients. It was a stupid strategy on my part that cost me a couple of years to turn around.
-
Hi,
Mirror slap is an issue, but it can be eliminated entirely by using MLU (Mirror Lock Up).
On the other hand, the mirror influences optical design of the lenses. Most classical lenses are symmetric designs, the contain two very similar lens groups grouped around the aperture. The back group is inverted (turned around). Such a design has many nice characteristics, but it has it needs a short flange distance and also has a large beam tilt. So, it does not leave room for a large mirror box and they don't play well with digital sensors (because of the beam tilt).
A classic example of this may be the Hasselblad Biogon 38, it needs a special housing (the SWC), but gives superior performance to the Distagon 40/4 FLE. The Distagons are inverted telephoto designs, highly assymetrical designs. In older times Distagon type lenses had significant distortion and significant sharpness fall off axis (on the edges and in the corners). But, excellent Distagon types designs are possible, the Zeiss 21/2.8 is an example of that. In the late 90-ex, Zeiss constructed a new version of the Distagon 40/4 FLE called FLE IF. That design is much improved over the classic Distagon.
Noteworthy is that Zeiss chose the Distagon design, that is inverted telephoto, for the Otus which seems to be a truly exceptional lens.
Another point is that the classic Biogon (symmetrical) design may be sensitive to thick IR filters that are normally used on digital sensors, and there are a few other issues, like issues with micro lenses when using tilt and shift and also crosstalk between pixels.
Getting back to the large format sacrifice, the main benefit I see with my Phase One P45+ compared to the Sonys I have is better resolution. Regarding ISO, I essentially shoot ISO 50 on both P45+ and Sony. I am shooting the P45+ a lot, but I am not sure the images are better. The resolution advantage is there, when pixel peeping on screen and doing it the proper way, but the difference is mostly gone in A2-size prints.
Best regards
Erik
How the mirror take down the quality? is it because the shake of the "slap"? or there is more?
I will keep this in mind every time i will find my self handling my hard case with my 4x5, plus back, plus profotos Acute 1200 or my 3 750 W lamps… It is a really pain, but if we all agree that image is better. I accept the "sacrifice". As i see it as the only way to set my self a part from the other million of photographer with 35 mm out there. Nothing against them of course, i also shoot 3 or 4 times a week with my D800 and my Sigma 12-24 ( dog lens but i use it for everyday casual jobs ). I really hope that all this hard work gonna give me a edge.
My set up by far:
TOYO G 45 ( RECESSED BOARD AND WIDE BELLOWS ), possibly change on a P1 soon or in a more compact system.
RODENSTOCK 55 APO SIRONAR, on my valeo give me 22 MP at 55 mm or 35-28 mm equivalent on at 1000x7000 file ( stitched ) or larger panorama. Image circle is really nice, plus i use a CENTER filter.
RODENSTOCK 90 WS Not as sharp as the 55 but on a 22 MP still ok.
-
Lorenzo, the only advice I can give you is to clean your sensor to avoir Post-production ! :D :D
-
First of all: yes i have to clean that sensor! :D
Also aaronleitz thanks for the kind comment about my fashion work. The behind the scene was actually a shoot for Vogue at W hotel Taipei so the team was really big. I wish i can work all the time like that. Unfortunately been a fashion photographer have more to do with politics then actual shooting.
Even in that scenario it seems to me that skin tones and sharpness is better from my AFD + valeo then my D800 + 85 1.4. And i shoot basically same way. Photos and skin look better to me and client.
Resuming the quality might be better ( might ) but the process is too long to meet dead line. Which is true. Also when it comes to interior shooting and stitching 9 frames at 15 seconds each…. plus noise in the shadow… plus long exposure noise. Yes is quite a mess.
I just say: old photographer had all the fun :D i wish i had my time with the 4x5 camera. Is honestly a pleasure to use.
This take to another question: seems that every AP using canon out there. Is that lens difference so critical? I'm a D800 user but honesty, beside the 1.5 x 4 meters poster of my and my family that i hang in my studio, i never use the 36 MP of my d800. Never. Even when I'm lucky enough to go to print 22 MP are more then enough.
In the long run: should i just take a 5DIII and a 17 tilst shift ? Or the PC 24 is enough ( even if not wide enough i ll say )
Thanks again for sharing guys
-
Hi,
To begin with, I looked at the images you posted on your web site and they seem to be great.
Some observations:
If you strive for wide angle shots with extended DoF, larger formats will not be helpful unless you can use Scheimpflug (tilted focus plane), but Scheimpflug just gives a tilted focal plane, I doubt it would work for you. With larger formats you need to stop down more.
The Canon T&S lenses are said to be truly excellent, they are actually quite usable on MFD backs. You can put a Canon lens on Sony A7/A7r but not on a Nikon.
Stitching is easily done on any format. I tend to use a lot of stitching on MFD, as I don't have zooms, so I often resort to stitching to fit something to the frame rather than zooming out. Photoshop is not the best program for stitching, though. I use Autopano Pro but many posters prefer PTGui. Photoshop works well in simple cases.
Regarding colour rendition, flatness etc. If two images are shot from the same tripod position, perspective will be the same. DoF differences may give an illusion of 3D. My guess (and experience) is that in proper comparisons differences tend to disappear. Use same tripod position, stop down the MF kit two stops for similar DoF shoot a grey card and process the images the same way and you may end up with very similar images.
It may be more about making the best of the stuff that we have than looking at equipment for a specific look.
Best regards
Erik
First of all: yes i have to clean that sensor! :D
Also aaronleitz thanks for the kind comment about my fashion work. The behind the scene was actually a shoot for Vogue at W hotel Taipei so the team was really big. I wish i can work all the time like that. Unfortunately been a fashion photographer have more to do with politics then actual shooting.
Even in that scenario it seems to me that skin tones and sharpness is better from my AFD + valeo then my D800 + 85 1.4. And i shoot basically same way. Photos and skin look better to me and client.
Resuming the quality might be better ( might ) but the process is too long to meet dead line. Which is true. Also when it comes to interior shooting and stitching 9 frames at 15 seconds each…. plus noise in the shadow… plus long exposure noise. Yes is quite a mess.
I just say: old photographer had all the fun :D i wish i had my time with the 4x5 camera. Is honestly a pleasure to use.
This take to another question: seems that every AP using canon out there. Is that lens difference so critical? I'm a D800 user but honesty, beside the 1.5 x 4 meters poster of my and my family that i hang in my studio, i never use the 36 MP of my d800. Never. Even when I'm lucky enough to go to print 22 MP are more then enough.
In the long run: should i just take a 5DIII and a 17 tilst shift ? Or the PC 24 is enough ( even if not wide enough i ll say )
Thanks again for sharing guys
-
I would say your pictures shot with D800 have no image quality at all.
Please stick on your 4x5.
Xin
-
I would say your pictures shot with D800 have no image quality at all.
Please stick on your 4x5.
Xin
Finally someone that sound a different blues. But what make you say that are better? To me, what i feel ( but seems is just feeling ) is:
Color + contrast ( probably lens due )
Space feeling: i have this feeling that space is less distorted. Example: if u take a photo with a 28 mm on a FF camera, and a 55 mm on a 6x7 the space seems more tridimensional. Or it is not? ( this is what my all concern is about honestly )
-
In total honesty, I don't get it. I wondering whether you are speaking first or second degree here?... ???
The images you pointed to shot with your D800 are perfectly fine. I assume that you did follow the requests from your customers in terms of framing, so I won't comment on that, but they are technically ok and convey a feel of transparency and sharpness that is adequate.
The image shot with the back is fine too, but I frankly don't see anything special in it. If anything DR seems to be fairly limited in the first one.
But anyway, what matters is your own satisfaction I guess, so great if you love it. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
In total honesty, I don't get it. I wondering whether you are speaking first or second degree here?... ???
The images you pointed to shot with your D800 are perfectly fine. I assume that you did follow the requests from your customers in terms of framing, so I won't comment on that, but they are technically ok and convey a feel of transparency and sharpness that is adequate.
The image shot with the back is fine too, but I frankly don't see anything special in it. If anything DR seems to be fairly limited in the first one.
But anyway, what matters is your own satisfaction I guess, so great if you love it. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Bernard, thanks for your grade joke. Was hilarious.
Now, yes the images are fine. And clients are happy, and i make money in the most amazing way possible ( be a photographer ) so all is great.
What i struggle with is: the best tool to get architectural images is a tech cam with a IQ sensor. We all know that. So best i can do to get close to that was have that lens ( a rodenstock ) with the most affordable movement camera ( a toyo ) and then: the most affordable back.
Now, i see my images are actually get better. But at a series of prices: weight, slow and low iso. So i do see a difference in the 3Dimensional feel of the image. What i will like to ask to you guys ( way more expert then me ) is if this is just in my brain or is real. A 4x5 image advantage is just in resolution, or having longer lens cover a bigger area give actually a different dimensional feel. It might sound silly but I'm a self learn photographer so no one ever explain those things to me.
If the advantage is just resolution, well i go for the full frame DSLr camera. But if a medium format back stitched give me a better looking image ( which sometime i feel ) i will stick with it.
Hope my post is clear enough and the question not to silly.
Thanks again guys to read this :)
-
I do think I see slight differences between small and medium format digital with respect to rendering of subtle tonal variations. Assuming that is so, I am not sure most commercial clients would pay a substantial premium for that.
As for architectural photography, non-reflex cameras can use wideangle lens designs that have lower inherent rectilinear distortion, which varies with the distance from the camera to the subject, and so cannot always be completely corrected with software. Currently, the only lenses of this type suitable for architectural photography are available for medium and large format technical or view cameras. However, with the advent of high quality small format mirrorless digital cameras, perhaps perspective correction lenses with lower distortion might become available for use with these cameras. In any case, again, I am not sure most clients are willing to pay a substantial premium to avoid what is really a very small amount of rectilinear distortion that shows up only occasionally with reflex cameras, wideangle lenses and architectural subjects. Since many architectural photographers are working successfully with small format, it does not seem to be a practical issue.
-
To my eye the first shot looks better technically. It is sharp with no strangeness in the shadows. The second shot may be more impressive as a shot, but is technically worse in terms of the hardware output. The shadows under the balconies have color splotches. There is a bit of an artificial feel to the brick edges, its like the software was rendering from CGI info. I think it is the lack of AA filter which may give a sharp edge at the expense of natural look.
I think the first image would be more similarly impressive if the light was longer with tea lights on the tables.
This sample, IMO, does not give an advantage to the larger format. I think the large format wins in a dynamic scene where you need the big single shot detail.
-
Thanks guys for all the infos. So is now basically clear that image are better nut just slightly, or in a way that just a photographer might appreciate.
In this case i will rent a 5DIII with a TS my next case, and give a run test. And i guess i will keep my 4x5 set up for table top photography or personal work.
-
Thanks guys for all the infos. So is now basically clear that image are better nut just slightly, or in a way that just a photographer might appreciate.
In this case i will rent a 5DIII with a TS my next case, and give a run test. And i guess i will keep my 4x5 set up for table top photography or personal work.
My apologies if this has already been mentioned but there is also the very real effect of the larger formats slowing down the process of framing and preparing the shot. I certainly take a different approach to photography with MF and persevering with non dSLR's may well add an extra something not always present with a smaller camera, it's far too easy to find oneself rushing with a dSLR although you promise yourself you won't.
BTW, is there a term to describe this process and effect? Something like 'Frame Time' and 'Format delay' to describe the period spent getting the shot right.
-
Hi Lorenzo
IMHO -
If you say 22mp is enough for you - perhaps initially I would work with a dslr and tilt-shift lenses for a while, paying meticulous attention to detail and technique (in post-production also).
Spend time thinking about the spaces and look carefully at the shapes and forms of the spaces and furniture, very small adjustments in angle etc. make a difference.
These small adjustments may be easier when you can see through the lens and may have a bigger impact on your images than the dslr vs large format.
Use of light / direction may have more impact on the 3D look you are looking for than the format also..
Like Kirk I used large format and now use dslr for much of my work, the 17 /24 / 90 TS lenses are good - the 45 not so good but with correction can be made ok.
All the best
Sam
-
Hi everybody,
for who read this forum often you might had see all my "pilgrimage" from buying my first Valeo 22 and then my TOYO VIEW.
Im now happily using it for some months, and i have to admit it: i learn more in this few month that in 7 years ( I'm a young photographer ) with my 5DII then D800. I feel that the photos turns out different, more tridimensional. Im attaching 2 shots. One is a interior for a lounge bar, the other is my first ever real architectural assignment. I shoot it today, a university in Tainan, south of Taiwan. I never ever had such image with my D800 ( never used tilt shift lens tho, only monstrous the 14-24 ). But this is consequential to the major dedication and attention that the 4x5 push me to. But this images comes to such a prize:
-the system itself is around 5-6 kilos ( guessing ) plus mac
-25 ISO of the Valeo, bad in low light situation or extremely long to use.
-live view only tethered, extremely hard to find focus ( not a problem if i set it to infinity, but It really make me think twice before move the focus)
After edit my photos today, i come across at some post about the new TS lens ( especially canon one ) and how now days 35mm camera just are the way to go.
I don't care about the hard work and the "sacrifice" but did anybody feel that stitching 4 to 9 MF shots give a better result of a 35 mm camera?
Is not about resolution ( nowadays all my clients go straight for my "internet ready JPEG" and totally ignore the 10000x7000 TIFF), what i talk about is feel, color and distortion. There is no difference from a shoot with at 90 mm Large format and a 24 mm on a FF 35mm ? The same photos took at the same camera position, will look the same? or 35 mm will look more flat.
This question is puzzling me a lot. Maybe my ignorance is at the base of it.
Any comment or constructive insult is more then welcome :)
The second image shows an awesome level of detail and micro contrast. Very nice. But man, that sensor is just god awful filthy. It needs a thorough cleaning. You can get the Digi Clean and Sensor wipes for CCD backs HERE (https://digitaltransitions.com/product/other) , or from a source closer to where you live.
-
Hi everybody again.
So the " pilgrimage " keep on.... :-\
I was so close to trow away my LF camera. Im in Bali at the moment working on a Villas case. I was shooting some marble bathrooms with a 25 ISO back and a center filter. I was wishing to die. My buy of a 5D II plus TS lens was so close. Then this photo append ( and many others actually) shot was a success i will say.
I feel that only my LF camera plus DB give me this. Did u can actually get it with a small sensor and 24 TS ?
Sorry keep hitting on it, but this thing really buz me.....
thanks guys
PS: not really edit, just stitched
-
Hi everybody again.
So the " pilgrimage " keep on.... :-\
I was so close to trow away my LF camera. Im in Bali at the moment working on a Villas case. I was shooting some marble bathrooms with a 25 ISO back and a center filter. I was wishing to die. My buy of a 5D II plus TS lens was so close. Then this photo append ( and many others actually) shot was a success i will say.
I feel that only my LF camera plus DB give me this. Did u can actually get it with a small sensor and 24 TS ?
Sorry keep hitting on it, but this thing really buz me.....
thanks guys
PS: not really edit, just stitched
You will not get nearly the same level of per pixel sharpness / micro contrast with the Canon. No way. With a Nikon D800E / Sony A7R you might get closer though. With the 35mm systems you will get more depth of field which is useful with some shots but you loose a lot of the focal plane control you have with a tech camera or LF camera. The Canon TS-E lenses are nice. The Nikon PC-E 24mm lens is pretty good. I work much faster with the 35mm system so when I do not have much time and or need a lot of different shots I use the Canon but I prefer to use my Arca with my PhaseOne back whenever I can. Sometimes I take both to a shot and I do some shots with one or the other depending on what I want / need to do.
-
Thanks so much for the great feedback.
I own a D800, but seems that no one use the 24 PC, all the arch guy have canon. It seems have a barrel distortion that might be a problem to correct when i move too much the lens ( yes i might read too much forums..... )
But if you as pro say that is doable, is a great thing to know.
-
I use a similar setup for architecture (H3DII-39 back on an Arca Swiss 6x9 FC), and although it's more cumbersome to use, I think it's worth it. The lenses are better, and the files are just a lot more robust than Canon files. As has been said many times elsewhere, you can beat them up and push them around more in post; they just hold together a lot better and have a lot more depth to begin with. It's hard to describe, but the Canon files just seem sort of anemic compared to the MF files. Even if you're not pushing them around in post, the MF files just feel more robust and fleshy.
Lorenzo, there's a lot of greenish tint around the edges of that image. You're aware of the LCC (lens-cast correction) process, aren't you? Where you use a translucent plastic white card to even out vignetting and color casts? If not, there's plenty online about it. It will get rid of that green tint (and various magenta tints and other undesirable effects that happen with this kind of setup).
-
Lorenzo, I also wanted to mention -- if this setup is making you miserable, maybe it's not worth it. If you can, try renting or borrowing one of the latest Canon TS lenses and shooting the same scene with 35mm and MF. Crop the Canon just like the MF. Then make a print and see how they compare. If it's that much of a headache, it might not be worth it. The MF setup can definitely be a hassle. This is why the (expensive) helical / pancake systems like the Alpa, Cambo and Arca Swiss R Line have arisen.
-
Lorenzo, I also wanted to mention -- if this setup is making you miserable, maybe it's not worth it. If you can, try renting or borrowing one of the latest Canon TS lenses and shooting the same scene with 35mm and MF. Crop the Canon just like the MF. Then make a print and see how they compare. If it's that much of a headache, it might not be worth it. The MF setup can definitely be a hassle. This is why the (expensive) helical / pancake systems like the Alpa, Cambo and Arca Swiss R Line have arisen.
Epines, Thanks so much for the generous feedback.
Im glad to know that the MF plus LF have that something more that is not only in my eyes ( well actual also clients eyes ).
Green cast. I know, as i stitch between 3 to 12 files shot with a diffuser filter for each shot is not a option, but i always use same relative position so i might do it in studio and add it later. Normally i dodge and burn and correct in PS on the stitched file.
Agree on rent a test, problem in Taiwan tilt shift lens are so rare that who use it, own it. No one rent :(
Thanks again !
-
Lorenzo, do you shoot LCC and apply? It seems to me that your large format shots have some un-even color cast in them, for example in the last indoor image above you have both green and magenta cast in the same image, which indicates that you don't use LCC, which is required for wide angles even with a 22 megapixel back.
-
Renting for use seems to be a valid business model mainly in the US.
You can write in your own reasons.
Edmund
-
Lorenzo, do you shoot LCC and apply? It seems to me that your large format shots have some un-even color cast in them, for example in the last indoor image above you have both green and magenta cast in the same image, which indicates that you don't use LCC, which is required for wide angles even with a 22 megapixel back.
The green might be from the tempered glass. More significant is the way the darks at the sofa (lower right) fall apart. This is an example were medium format, even with more bits seems to do worse than 135 format. You might need multi-shot methods more than with FF digital.
-
Agreed. Im developing a method as fallow: i have a ICC for each lens/sensor position ( we talk about 3 to 9 stitch ) and i apply to each single raw. Time consuming but this give me a digital large format file of 12000x10000 approx. Which i then resize to 6000x5000.
I even had client that find that green cast my signature……… ;D All good to me as long the pay flight and fee. :)
-
if this is just in my brain or is real
if you can sweet talk others (& maybe also yourself) into agreeing with you then it is real; if not it is really just in your brain :D
-
Agreed. Im developing a method as fallow: i have a ICC for each lens/sensor position ( we talk about 3 to 9 stitch ) and i apply to each single raw. Time consuming but this give me a digital large format file of 12000x10000 approx. Which i then resize to 6000x5000.
I'm not 100% sure how C1 does it but I would guess that just like with other LCC-capable programs the LCC application will cause a slight white balance shift, which means that you may have a little bit of white balance variation on the different segments. If that's the case you would notice it in the stitching process though, that the overlapping parts don't match up exactly in white balance.
-
I'm not 100% sure how C1 does it but I would guess that just like with other LCC-capable programs the LCC application will cause a slight white balance shift, which means that you may have a little bit of white balance variation on the different segments. If that's the case you would notice it in the stitching process though, that the overlapping parts don't match up exactly in white balance.
I use photoshop CC for the stitch, and SEEMS it fix slight expose variations between shoots, maybe ( just maybe ) it do same with the WB ?
-
I use photoshop CC for the stitch, and SEEMS it fix slight expose variations between shoots, maybe ( just maybe ) it do same with the WB ?
Yes that's not unlikely, stitching software often correct white balance variations.
-
I'm not 100% sure how C1 does it but I would guess that just like with other LCC-capable programs the LCC application will cause a slight white balance shift, which means that you may have a little bit of white balance variation on the different segments. If that's the case you would notice it in the stitching process though, that the overlapping parts don't match up exactly in white balance.
Hi,
In principle, the brightest part of the LCC image (=approx. optical center) will remain unchanged, thus allowing perfect stitching. But it does indeed depend on the actual implementation if that general procedure is followed.
Cheers,
Bart
-
In principle, the brightest part of the LCC image (=approx. optical center) will remain unchanged, thus allowing perfect stitching. But it does indeed depend on the actual implementation if that general procedure is followed.
When you stitch large format with a comparably small sensor it's not sure that you even have the optical center in the image. And if you use a center filter on the LF lens the optical center may actually be slightly darker than a bit out from it. Another problem is that the MF CCD have color casts in their own, so if you put the optical center in a different position of the sensor you may get a slightly different response. That error should be relatively small though.
I don't know how C1 calculates the reference white from the LCC, it's something one could test, and certainly interesting for those stitching within a large format image circle.
(In Lumariver HDR I've solved it in the way that you can select an "anchor LCC" so the reference white will be exactly the same for all frames.)
-
When you stitch large format with a comparably small sensor it's not sure that you even have the optical center in the image. And if you use a center filter on the LF lens the optical center may actually be slightly darker than a bit out from it. Another problem is that the MF CCD have color casts in their own, so if you put the optical center in a different position of the sensor you may get a slightly different response. That error should be relatively small though.
Hi,
An LCC is formally nothing more than a normalization of channel response across the image in linear gamma space. It should not influence White balance for that frame. It uses the brightest area of each channel of an image (wherever it is, center/edge/corner/elsewhere) and normalizes that to 1.0 (R=G=B=1.0 or 100%). It then calculates the percentage of relative darkening across the image area for each channel. It then divides each channel by the darkening percentage for that channel (e.g. 90% brightness gets divided by 0.9, therefore boosted by a factor of 1.11), thus creating a uniform response across the image. That normalized data is then used for demosaicing, given a certain user input for White balance.
Because it uses the brightest spot in each blurred channel, it should not change the white balance at that spot. That does mean that an actual White balance difference between shots (light has changed or sensor responds off-neutral at the brightest spot) is maintained. So with extreme shifts which leave the brightest spot off optical center, the white balance will remain shifted.
I don't know how C1 calculates the reference white from the LCC, it's something one could test, and certainly interesting for those stitching within a large format image circle.
(In Lumariver HDR I've solved it in the way that you can select an "anchor LCC" so the reference white will be exactly the same for all frames.)
Nice, especially if applied before demosaicing, although it may increase noise a bit. It will still help if applied after demosaicing (as a kind of color correction), but at slightly reduced color accuracy, although probably still better for uniform color than without it. Post-processing is often about trade-offs.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It should not influence White balance for that frame.
Yes if the LCC algorithm can find the optical center in all images for the stitch and the sensor does not have varying RGB response over the surface this is true. However I'm not so sure that's the case. Looking for the brightest spot can be a too simplistic method, and looking at only one set of pixels too, so you need to average over some surface (to battle noise, hot pixels, etc). This means that the RGB reference if derived from different LCCs won't be exactly the same for all, there will be some slight variation. If the variation is large enough to be a problem or not I'm not sure, it will probably depend on the situation.
I have not yet had time to study large format stitching in detail but it's something I have on my todo list, then I would be able to provide better answer exactly on how big this problem is (or not).
Anyway, I agree with you that in theory LCC does not influence white balance, simple theory. I'm talking about effects due to limitations in precision in the actual implementation.
-
(In Lumariver HDR I've solved it in the way that you can select an "anchor LCC" so the reference white will be exactly the same for all frames.)
Interesting, can u explain more?
-
If white balance is set on the shots to a specific fixed temperature, would that help?