Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Art Sanchez on November 06, 2014, 06:12:03 am
-
Hi guys, i'm new here.
I am architectural photographer and i love the color coming from the images of this two guys, that are identical:
http://scottfrances.com/
http://www.joefletcherphoto.com/projects
Does anyone know with wich system or camera/digital back are they shot?
I have used Sony a7r and Canon 5dIII and these images aren't definitely coming from this cameras.
Thanks in advance!
-
Art -
Don't be shy, shoot them an email and ask them!
Some photographers are quite friendly :)
Edmund
Hi guys, i'm new here.
I am architectural photographer and i love the color coming from the images of this two guys, that are identical:
http://scottfrances.com/
http://www.joefletcherphoto.com/projects
Does anyone know with wich system or camera/digital back are they shot?
I have used Sony a7r and Canon 5dIII and these images aren't definitely coming from this cameras.
Thanks in advance!
-
Hi guys, i'm new here.
I am architectural photographer and i love the color coming from the images of this two guys, that are identical:
http://scottfrances.com/
http://www.joefletcherphoto.com/projects
Does anyone know with wich system or camera/digital back are they shot?
I have used Sony a7r and Canon 5dIII and these images aren't definitely coming from this cameras.
Thanks in advance!
I don't know about those two photographers, but this camera system (http://www.mamiyaleaf.com) is particularly known for its color reproduction. Here's one example (http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/gallery/index.php#/Photographers%20A-G/Eric_Bergoend/) similar to what you have shown.
Look for a demo, perhaps?
-
Hi guys, i'm new here.
I am architectural photographer and i love the color coming from the images of this two guys, that are identical:
http://scottfrances.com/
http://www.joefletcherphoto.com/projects
Does anyone know with wich system or camera/digital back are they shot?
I have used Sony a7r and Canon 5dIII and these images aren't definitely coming from this cameras.
Thanks in advance!
Hi Art,
Color comes mostly from post-processing / profiles. Your camera's output can be turned into many different color renderings.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Art,
Color comes mostly from post-processing / profiles. Your camera's output can be turned into many different color renderings.
Color comes from light source, subject, lens filter, lens coating, lens design, IR filter, CFA filters, sensor, color engine of the software, color profile in the software for the camera, post processing adjustments.
Moreover color (except in technical reproduction applications) is aesthetic not absolute.
For what its worth, though I'm extremely biased to say it (see my signature, I cannot be considered objective), I think Team Phase One systems (Phase/Leaf) processed in Capture One (where one team has control of the entire process from start to finish, and has some very experienced color engineers who get high priority in the overall engineering prioritization) gives the best color of any system I've used.
-
Hi Art,
Welcome. I agree these chaps have lovely work, and excellent colour repro. That said, I don't see anything in their online images that shouldn't be attainable from top-end DSLRs, including the Sony (though I haven't personally used the Sony - my experience is with Nikon in that realm).
While I agree that MF backs (all of them) produce a somewhat better file in terms of colour (the differences are present, but small, though very important to some), the real issue is in post-processing. What software are you using?
I might suggest trying the 'other' platform, whichever one you do use, but also perhaps find a good professional retoucher and send them a couple of raw files, together with a sample of something you really like, and ask them to show you the best they can get out of it. I've done that with a few landscape shots and have occasionally been amazed by what real talent with Photoshop/LR/C1 can draw out of a file that I could not.
I personally dislike Canon cameras for a variety of reasons. However, don't let anyone here tell you that you need a CCD sensor or medium format to produce what you seek. My friend Art Wolfe has shot with Canon forever, and most of these images linked below are from a 5D3 or worse. Hardly a colour deficit in play....but he has full-time image processing professionals who work for him and prep his images for final output.
http://artwolfe.photoshelter.com/gallery/The-Art-Wolfe-Open-Edition-Print-Collection/G0000_zV5tU4jxjc/
Cheers,
- N.
ps. I'd be interested to hear if you succeed in your quest for better colour, and how.
-
.. but also perhaps find a good professional retoucher and send them a couple of raw files, together with a sample of something you really like, and ask them to show you the best they can get out of it. I've done that with a few landscape shots and have occasionally been amazed by what real talent with Photoshop/LR/C1 can draw out of a file that I could not.
+1
Professional retouching is nearly always what makes a professional end product.
Best,
Esben
-
+1
Professional retouching is nearly always what makes a professional end product.
Best,
Esben
+2
I make a tiff after selections, and hand the file over to a retoucher.
Sure I give direction on what I want but a professionally retouched final is something that I cant do!
-
Hi guys, i'm new here.
I am architectural photographer and i love the color coming from the images of this two guys, that are identical:
http://scottfrances.com/
http://www.joefletcherphoto.com/projects
I don't find the colours to be identical between these two photographers. I don't even find the colours to be consistent between the different projects of Joe Fletcher.
As to how the colours have been produced, some images look as if they have been processed to give colours imitating film. The effect is subtle, but I notice crushed blacks and sometimes a bit of grain in dark transitions. I also notice that plants sometimes turn blue-green and skies turn cyan.
-
Hi guys, i'm new here.
I am architectural photographer and i love the color coming from the images of this two guys, that are identical:
http://scottfrances.com/
http://www.joefletcherphoto.com/projects
Does anyone know with wich system or camera/digital back are they shot?
I have used Sony a7r and Canon 5dIII and these images aren't definitely coming from this cameras.
Thanks in advance!
The Cameras with the Deepest Color Depth in their RAW Files (which will allow you a LOT of color correction) are:
#1: The Sony EXMOR Based (35mm sensor) cameras: Sony A7R, Nikon D800E/D810
#2: The Sony Medium Format (33x44mm) CMOS Sensor based cameras: PhaseOne IQ150, IQ250, Leaf Credo 50, Hasselblad H5D-50c, Hasselblad CFV-50c and the Pentax 645z
#3: The more recent CCD based Medium Format Digital Backs: PhaseOne IQ180/280, IQ160/260/P65+, IQ140/P40+, Leaf Credo 40/60, Hasselblad H4D/H5D-60
The older CCD based backs are good but obviously not better than the ones in the list above and just a bit above a Canon 5D3. They do offer a somewhat different color due to the endlessly debatable "CCD look" and processing workflow.
Then there are the lenses... Generally the best optics by far, specially wide angles, are technical camera lenses made by Schneider and Rodenstock.
Then there are the cameras/platforms...
And of course the processing software/workflow.
If you are interested in Medium Format Digital its best to contact a dealer. I use Digital Transitions in NY and they have been great.
I would at the very least call them and talk to them regarding your wants, needs, expectations etc. They won't bite.
-
I would agree with those who have stated that retouching makes a huge difference. So does proper lighting.
Coming from a graphic design background, I've always retouched my own images. I feel that this gives my images that extra bit of finesse that I look for.
If you have a good grip on lighting, composition and retouching, a medium format setup, especially with tech cameras would give and edge over 35mm setups in several aspects. Whether that extra edge is worth it for you or not is a question you have to answer by yourself.
-
Color comes from light source, subject, lens filter, lens coating, lens design, IR filter, CFA filters, sensor, color engine of the software, color profile in the software for the camera, post processing adjustments.
Moreover color (except in technical reproduction applications) is aesthetic not absolute.
For what its worth, though I'm extremely biased to say it (see my signature, I cannot be considered objective), I think Team Phase One systems (Phase/Leaf) processed in Capture One (where one team has control of the entire process from start to finish, and has some very experienced color engineers who get high priority in the overall engineering prioritization) gives the best color of any system I've used.
It could be argued that since Sony now has the control of the chip,Sony has now made the most important color decisions for Pentax, Hasselblad and ... Phase One. The software makers are left to debayer and render, which I would agree Phase One historically has done extremely well, in fact in my eyes even best, but it's hard to squeeze the toothpaste back into the tube: Capture One color with a Phase back is now going to look exactly like Capture One color of a Nikon or Sony camera unless Phase One deliberately decrease the quality of the Nikon and Sony renderings. So any Nikon D800 or Sony customer who buys the C1 software should now have access to "Phase One color".
However when it comes to the OP's question, maybe the photographers who are cited as having good color are using some interesting workflow and plugins ...or have a special appreciation of color that guides them. I don't think that the best food is poured out of a tin into a plate :)
Edmund
-
Coming from a graphic design background, I've always retouched my own images. I feel that this gives my images that extra bit of finesse that I look for.
...yes. And you're obviously very good at it. :)
I'm always amazed at the quality differences between what pro photographers post online. So much of it just looks so plain awful, for no good reason whatsoever other than a lack of post-processing skill.
- N.
-
It could be argued that since Sony now has the control of the chip,Sony has now made the most important color decisions for Pentax, Hasselblad and ... Phase One.
Edmund, is it true that the Sony 33x44 chip customers can't specify CFA dye sets? I wouldn't that that would be difficult for Sony is they thought it would increase their margins. More a logistical problem than anything else, I'd think.
But I'm just guessing.
Jim
-
You will see color rendition differences between sony, Pentax and nikon cameras, all using the same sensors. Even when processed in the same software. Sony most definitely can and does customize the sensor (including the CFA ) according to the customer's needs.
-
Edmund, is it true that the Sony 33x44 chip customers can't specify CFA dye sets? I wouldn't that that would be difficult for Sony is they thought it would increase their margins. More a logistical problem than anything else, I'd think.
But I'm just guessing.
Jim
Jim,
I'm sure that if you pay you'll get your CFA. But I don't know how much testing and setup is needed to do a decent CFA. When I designed a $3 BOM colorimeter around a certain chip, I had a meeting with the chip guys who told me that if I bought a decent number of chips they could do me a custom CFA - so I could have turned their color chip into an 8 (7+1 white) channel instrument. On the other hand, I guess if I had bought enough of them I guess I could have got a 16 (14+2x white) channel filter spectro by getting them to print two chips next to each other :) Anyway,I'm sure one could do a nice multispectral camera by doing a custom extended CFA for any Sony chip, trading some resolution for much better color ...
My feeling is that Sony have been reusing the same CFA for several chips now. I think I heard people say they get better dSLR colors out of C1 by using the IQ250 profiles. Can't remember whether this was applied to Sony or Nikon. In a way it's in everybody's interest, as this allows the customer to get decent color on a whole family of cameras, large or small sensor without testing and tuning the Jpeg converters and the hardwired movie stuff which is so important these days.
What is interesting is how much better C1 and even Irident are than LR at doing Raw conversion - tiny firms running rings round the elephant. Adobe should just buy C1 already and retire the hardware business :)
Edmund
PS. AFAIK the Sony chips can be run in a different mode for Nikon, different programming registers etc, and then of course there are cover glass differences, so different camera OEMs may get slight color variations from the same base chip without a CFA change. Not that I think the CFA change is impossible, just not frequent for small customers, IMHO.
-
I am the first person who reported in this forum that the IQ250 profiles help render the D800 files with better color. Better than standard c1p profiles for the D800, better than LR and better than CNX2. Doesn't mean it renders the same as the IQ250 (it doesn't).
-
I am the first person who reported in this forum that the IQ250 profiles help render the D800 files with better color. Better than standard c1p profiles for the D800, better than LR and better than CNX2. Doesn't mean it renders the same as the IQ250 (it doesn't).
I'll believe you! But the question is "why?". Has the CFA changed, is the cover glass different, is the chip or firmware driven differently eg. slight black level clipping, has the chip circuitry itself evolved, do Nikon have a different set color for their lenses?
There's another major issue with profiles and converters and that's flare.I don't know what is wired into the converter to deal with flare, but presumably something is done there with the help of the metadata.
Frankly I would prefer a decent well-tested enduring CFA and chip cell design to a custom CFA and too frequently evolving cells - there's a lot to be gained from commoditized engineering.
Edmund
-
I'll believe you! But the question is "why?". Has the CFA changed, is the cover glass different, is the chip or firmware driven differently eg. slight black level clipping, has the chip circuitry itself evolved, do Nikon have a different set color for their lenses?
There's another major issue with profiles and converters and that's flare.I don't know what is wired into the converter to deal with flare, but presumably something is done there with the help of the metadata.
Frankly I would prefer a decent well-tested enduring CFA and chip cell design to a custom CFA and too frequently evolving cells - there's a lot to be gained from commoditized engineering.
Edmund
I don't know and frankly, I couldn't care much.
I am far more interested in what comes out of a camera than what goes inside it. YMMV.
-
I don't know and frankly, I couldn't care much.
I am far more interested in what comes out of a camera than what goes inside it. YMMV.
MMDV :)
Edmund
-
I am far more interested in what comes out of a camera than what goes inside it. YMMV.
One day, you may finally understand that what's inside the camera largely governs what comes out of it.
You may well not have a clue as to what's inside the camera, but trotting out moronic platitudes ad nauseam isn't going to further your understanding and contributes to these threads even less.
-
One day, you may finally understand that what's inside the camera largely governs what comes out of it.
Indeed, miracles do happen occasionally ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
One day, you may finally understand that what's inside the camera largely governs what comes out of it.
You may well not have a clue as to what's inside the camera, but trotting out moronic platitudes ad nauseam isn't going to further your understanding and contributes to these threads even less.
And one day, you will understand that there are many people who make purchase decisions based on what comes out of the camera.
You understand what goes into each of them? Good for you. Now run along and write to each manufacturer and tell them what they can do better. While you change the world one EXPEED at a time, I'll be happy shooting.
Speaking of contributions, I would REALLY like to know what you have contributed in this forum other than snark and pleas for attention though. Humor me.
-
Indeed, miracles do happen occasionally ...
Cheers,
Bart
Yes, it seems pigs can fly (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95217) :)
Edmund
-
And one day, you will understand that there are many people who make purchase decisions based on what comes out of the camera.
Hi Sandeep,
One cannot see what comes out of the camera, until the data is processed/Raw converted. That involves Bayer CFA demosaicing, White balancing, color mapping or assigning a profile, Tonecurve assignment, etc. etc.
It's all sorts of post-processing that has to be done before one can see the result (on an output medium that's hopefully properly profiled for the viewing conditions). It's the quality of that post-processing that makes a difference, even in cases where there is little difference in the input data. Of course, some input data is better than others, but that requires knowledge of the internal technicalities to discern, and cannot be simply derived from the processed output, too many variables for that.
As you have proven to yourself, a D800 file with an IQ250 profile gives quite pleasing results, perhaps better than the default D800 profile. It's the post-processing that makes the most significant differences in color rendition.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Color comes from light source, subject, lens filter, lens coating, lens design, IR filter, CFA filters, sensor, color engine of the software, color profile in the software for the camera, post processing adjustments.
In principle, skilled photoshop artists (or software developers) could make an image of a girl into a landscape. While this is impractical due to the excessive time and effort needed, it goes to show that processing is a kind of wildcard here. Even if we limit ourselves to reasonable amounts of time/money spent on editing (as well as limited skill), it is clear that images from different cameras can end up with a wide range of end-results, occasionally perceptually similar results.
A valid question would seem to be "how important can gear be if so much can be done in (e.g.) photoshop?" Does more expensive (or more carefully chosen) gear improve the "color accuracy" of the (unedited) images? Does it improve the "color pleasantness"? Does it mean that for a given photographers needs/taste, she can get what she wants with less time and effort?
For my own humble color needs, I have found that camera profiling and developing editing skills is more important than e.g. whatever the differences in lens coating, lens design, IR filter, CFA filters, sensor etc of my Sony and Canon cameras.
-h
-
Hi Sandeep,
One cannot see what comes out of the camera, until the data is processed/Raw converted. That involves Bayer CFA demosaicing, White balancing, color mapping or assigning a profile, Tonecurve assignment, etc. etc.
It's all sorts of post-processing that has to be done before one can see the result (on an output medium that's hopefully properly profiled for the viewing conditions). It's the quality of that post-processing that makes a difference, even in cases where there is little difference in the input data. Of course, some input data is better than others, but that requires knowledge of the internal technicalities to discern, and cannot be simply derived from the processed output, too many variables for that.
As you have proven to yourself, a D800 file with an IQ250 profile gives quite pleasing results, perhaps better than the default D800 profile. It's the post-processing that makes the most significant differences in color rendition.
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart,
I don't think I denied any of that and this discussion has strayed very far from what I was originally saying. Anyone with more than a passing interest in photography knows there are many factors involved before final image takes shape. What I was saying though is, I don't need to know who made what CFA for whom to know if one particular camera delivers me the results I am looking for better than another one.
Post processing is a completely different topic to the post I was originally responding to. As I have mentioned previously, that is one aspect of the workflow I pay a lot of attention to as I CAN control it. I CANNOT control the lens coatings Schneider uses or the CFA dyes DALSA applies for Leaf vs Phaseone or whatever. I have zero interest in understanding the technicalities of any of those because me knowing any of this doesn't mean I can change any of those to my advantage. I cannot write to DALSA tomorrow to request a different CFA or whatever. I only need to choose a device that gives me a good SOOC starting point for my post production. How they do it, I really have no interest in knowing.
But knowing post production techniques does make a difference as I can pick and choose them to my advantage. I CAN choose a different color profile to get a more pleasant output. With my limited time, I choose to focus on the parts that help me create better images.
As I said at the end of my post, your mileage may vary. This means that I am not holding my opinion as a universal truth. End of the day, I feel happy looking at the images I create. I suppose there might be some here who feel happiness looking at a test chart from Imaging-resource or something. Whatever floats their boat.
You're right though, sometimes miracles do happen. I have seen professional chart readers one day realizing that the benchmark-test-measurometer they have in their hand has another capability, which is making pictures. I like it when that happens. :)
-
Hi,
Some guys will say that MFDBs offer the ultimate colour. Or some will say hat CCD offers better colour than CMOS.
There are a lot of factors in this equation:
- IR filter affects the light falling on the sensor
- CFA (Color Filter Array) decides what colours the camera detects
- The Color Conversion Matrix translates the camera RGB intensities to XYZ coordinates, WB is also handled in this step
- An input profile converts the XYZ into local working space
- An output profile converts the image to a final RGB file
So there are two physical filters and a lot of simple math. Personally I would guess that the math plays a significant role in the process.
Personally I shoot both Sony cameras with CMOS sensors and a CCD based P45+. I have placed quite a few raw files from the P45+ on my web-site.
You can find them here:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/ (several clickable directories)
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples2
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples3
These image are comparable shots with P45+ and Sony Alpha 99:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/MFDB_VS_DSLR/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/MFDB_VS_DSLR2/
All these samples include raw originals, feel free to download and process with the raw processor of your choice. Please keep in mind that my copyright applies. But you can use all those image freely for any non commercial purpose.
Keep in mind that all MFDBs are not created equal. Many prefer the colours from the DALSA based sensors over the KODAK sensor the P45+ is based on. Leaf is said to have different rendition from Phase One.
This thread on GETDPI.com may also give some insight:
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/52173-if-ccd-rendering-can-achieved-cmos-where-examples.html
Be advised, a lot of critique had been directed at my samples, saying that I don't make good use of the P45+, but I guess that those points are not really relevant, as you are mostly interested in colour rendition and I would suggest you try your own raw conversions.
Note: Many of the raw files are in DNG-format, but all have the original file imbedded. The original file can be extracted by Adobe DNG Converter, downloadable here: http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/digital-negative.html#downloads
Best regards
Erik
-
Erik and Synn - two different worlds :D
-
Hi guys, i'm new here.
I am architectural photographer and i love the color coming from the images of this two guys, that are identical:
http://scottfrances.com/
http://www.joefletcherphoto.com/projects
Does anyone know with wich system or camera/digital back are they shot?
I have used Sony a7r and Canon 5dIII and these images aren't definitely coming from this cameras.
Thanks in advance!
Art, I would dare to say that Scott Frances is DSLR and Joe Fletcher is MF Leaf. Joe's work is evidently medium format for the detail, frame and colors. I would say Leaf for the colors.
Hope I'm not wrong.
ACH
-
In response to the OP, I think the cameras are nigh irrelevant. What you're really responding to is the impactfulness of the photographs. It's all about the abilities of these two shooters and the quality of their retouching.
I shoot the IQ260 and the A7r side by side. I prefer the Phase One file, but if I switched completely to the Sony, neither you nor my clients could ever tell the difference.
IMO,
CB
-
Hi Chris,
Well explained, sometimes a few words say more than a thousand pictures!
Best regards
Erik
In response to the OP, I think the cameras are nigh irrelevant. What you're really responding to is the impactfulness of the photographs. It's all about the abilities of these two shooters and the quality of their retouching.
I shoot the IQ260 and the A7r side by side. I prefer the Phase One file, but if I switched completely to the Sony, neither you nor my clients could ever tell the difference.
IMO,
CB
-
Bart,
I think that Synn is a photographer, and artist at heart. He has good color vision and judgement. When he was looking for a camera system he adopted "the best", ie a Phase/Leaf configuration, which is exceptional in out-of-the box color experience, by means of its completely seamless fusion of hardware/software color calibration, and software and training that mandates a good workflow.
As his color judgement is good, he perceives the deficiencies of non-Phase systems. However as an artist he believes that the difference between exceptionally good and mediocre is intrinsic, and in some way arises from the use of high grade materials and methods, and justifies the price. It doesn't seem feasible to him that it might boil down to custom calibration/linearisation issues in the camera, a couple of matrices written in a file, and some very good marketing. This is something we as engineers can visualize, calibration making all the difference, but which is not immediately apparent to an artist. And of course it has not been in the interest of the camera manufacturers to educate the public; in particular, Phase have lived well off the myth that the back CFAs and software are "special".
What a surprise: artists and engineers have different perceptions.
Edmund
Hi Sandeep,
One cannot see what comes out of the camera, until the data is processed/Raw converted. That involves Bayer CFA demosaicing, White balancing, color mapping or assigning a profile, Tonecurve assignment, etc. etc.
It's all sorts of post-processing that has to be done before one can see the result (on an output medium that's hopefully properly profiled for the viewing conditions). It's the quality of that post-processing that makes a difference, even in cases where there is little difference in the input data. Of course, some input data is better than others, but that requires knowledge of the internal technicalities to discern, and cannot be simply derived from the processed output, too many variables for that.
As you have proven to yourself, a D800 file with an IQ250 profile gives quite pleasing results, perhaps better than the default D800 profile. It's the post-processing that makes the most significant differences in color rendition.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart,
I think that Synn is a photographer, and artist at heart. He has good color vision and judgement. When he was looking for a camera system he adopted "the best", ie a Phase/Leaf configuration, which is exceptional in out-of-the box color experience, by means of its completely seamless fusion of hardware/software color calibration, and software and training that mandates a good workflow.
As his color judgement is good, he perceives the deficiencies of non-Phase systems. However as an artist he believes that the difference between exceptionally good and mediocre is intrinsic, and in some way arises from the use of high grade materials and methods, and justifies the price. It doesn't seem feasible to him that it might boil down to custom calibration/linearisation issues in the camera, a couple of matrices written in a file, and some very good marketing. This is something we as engineers can visualize, calibration making all the difference, but which is not immediately apparent to an artist. And of course it has not been in the interest of the camera manufacturers to educate the public; in particular, Phase have lived well off the myth that the back CFAs and software are "special".
What a surprise: artists and engineers have different perceptions.
Edmund
You should start a company that provides that service for any Digital camera owner. One sends in the camera, you do the custom calibration, solve the linearisation issues and write a few files and voilá, great MFDB like color in any DSLR (or mirrorless) camera. Im sure you can make good money.
-
Wow, that's big Chris!
If you'd print to 36" on the short side from both cameras, could you say the same?
Thanks in advanced.
Eduardo
I shoot the IQ260 and the A7r side by side. I prefer the Phase One file, but if I switched completely to the Sony, neither you nor my clients could ever tell the difference.
IMO,
CB
-
great MFDB like color in any DSLR (or mirrorless) camera. Im sure you can make good money.
"Any dSLR" is a tall order. But many, yes. Camera calibration often does work, if one knows how to do it. Of course it would be easier to do in factory.
As for money, I don't think so. I guess most people who want color badly enough to care just get a DB where *decent* calibration is part of the package you pay for.
And the few photographers who *really need* color to earn their living, eg. to do product photography or art repro are usually themselves already technical experts , and have a very precise workflow with on-site calibration in the location lighting.
BTW, I was a consultant for company that makes a well known consumer camera calibration device, and before they marketed this device we tried to push a more sophisticated in-factory camera calibration method to dSLR makers, and were met with a very tepid response. I contacted the brands myself at their request so I saw it firsthand. The existing color quality is perceived as good enough, especially within the context of workflows with uncalibrated monitors.
Edmund
-
I personally own a D800, and also several medium format film cameras as I don't have the money to buy any digital back (until recently, because now the p45 seems to get cheaper every minute).
So my opinion regarding medium format digital backs is completely based on the material I have gathered on the internet.
My personal opinion, and I believe Synn has pointed out something similar on his leaf puchase thread, is that the d800 (for example) has this sort of color bleeding (I've made this name up to describe it somehow). I see the effects of this very clearly in some situations.
For example,the dynamic range seems huge, but there is no way of using it without Photoshopping/masking many layers, and even then it depends a lot on your skills. If you try to raise the shadows or lower the highlights you will immediately get this Tonemapping sort of look (bad HDR look).
Try to compare this to one of Eriks samples,http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/Distagon_50/ When you raise or lower the shadows it seems to only affect the shadows, if you do the same on the D800 you will get halos around every detail, and the color quality goes down the drain dramaticly. There seems to be some sort of inertia spanning over larger areas (dozens of pixels) which gives this sort of tonemapping look. I'm sorry I don't have any technical term for this, but I think you all know what I'm talking about. Synn's samples of nightscapes are another example where color seems to bleed, or just being ugly. Of course if you go all crazy with this with the samples provided by erik you will get that problem too, but there is a big difference to the d800.
Another scenario is in skin colors. I guess you are familiar with the way c41 films render skins (portra 160 for example). I'm talking about this slightly over exposed skin look. Well, try to do the same on a d800, there will be no detail, the skin seems like one big blub that only get's sort of details when it goes into the left side of the histogram. I'm not talking about recovering highlights (which is also pretty terrible, but that's where film wins over both digital backs and cmos), but about this strange behaviour where the subtilities of lighter skin can't be represented by the D800, but both C41 film and some samples I've seen of digital backs have no problem to represent it.
I would love to know if there is some way of fixing this because I can't think of a reason to explain this "inertia" (I do have very good lenses, it's not an aberration or contrast problem)
-
I would love to know if there is some way of fixing this because I can't think of a reason to explain this "inertia" (I do have very good lenses, it's not an aberration or contrast problem)
A consequence of the local-delta encoding of the files?
I don't think it's the sensor per se, more the way in which it is being employed in the camera (firmware).
Edmund
-
Hi,
I am using LR as raw converter, even for the P45+. Now LR5 has some issues on P45+, in my view mostly in the demosaicing department: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=94812.0
I have only Sonys to compare with, but what I see is that I can pull incredible shadow detail out of the Sony images using Lightroom's shadows control, without obvious artefacts. Using the "highlights" slider to bring down sky can often yield bad artefacts on thing like treetops. That depends on tone mapping used in Lightroom. The tone mapping doesn't work for small areas surrounded by dark detail.
Using DNG compatible raw converters it is very easy to make a decent camera specific calibration using Adobe DNG Profile Editor with a ColorChecker card. The colour checker Passport software is a similar product. A third solution is QPCard which uses a different set of colours. All these software solutions are free, but you need to buy a ColorChecker or QPCard.
Most raw converters I have tested can use DNG Colour Profiles even on non DNG raw files. Raw converters I have tested with DNG Profiles are Lightroom, ACR, Raw Therapee, AccuRaw and Iridient Raw Developer. Capture One is a notable exception.
This article covers some of that ground: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/79-p45-colour-rendition
Sandy McGuffog, the author of AccuRaw and some other nifty softwares, pointed to this interesting article in his blog:
https://www.hansvaneijsden.com/colorchecker-perfect-skin-colors/ worth reading.
Personally, I have made Adobe DNG Profiles for all my cameras. On the Sony SLT 99 I mostly use Adobe Standard profile as it works fine for me. With the P45+ I use my own DNG Profiles.
As a side note, a ColorChecker card is not good enough for a full calibration, for that more stuff is needed (*).
The reason Adobe DNG Profile Editor works is that they use ColorChecker to tweak a hpefully well designed base profile.
Best regards
Erik
(*) Something like this may give a proper starting point:
http://image-engineering-shop.de/shop/article_IE-camSPECS%2520express/camSPECS-express.html?sessid=jD6bM1hTL2TlDlB1AhLiLIit6AJVf3f7stolSdsx0jh1jstKDPOweX6p6nyy8OcJ&shop_param=cid%3D565%26aid%3DIE-camSPECS%2520express%26
(http://image-engineering-shop.de/.media/089265877990.png)
I personally own a D800, and also several medium format film cameras as I don't have the money to buy any digital back (until recently, because now the p45 seems to get cheaper every minute).
So my opinion regarding medium format digital backs is completely based on the material I have gathered on the internet.
My personal opinion, and I believe Synn has pointed out something similar on his leaf puchase thread, is that the d800 (for example) has this sort of color bleeding (I've made this name up to describe it somehow). I see the effects of this very clearly in some situations.
For example,the dynamic range seems huge, but there is no way of using it without Photoshopping/masking many layers, and even then it depends a lot on your skills. If you try to raise the shadows or lower the highlights you will immediately get this Tonemapping sort of look (bad HDR look).
Try to compare this to one of Eriks samples,http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/Distagon_50/ When you raise or lower the shadows it seems to only affect the shadows, if you do the same on the D800 you will get halos around every detail, and the color quality goes down the drain dramaticly. There seems to be some sort of inertia spanning over larger areas (dozens of pixels) which gives this sort of tonemapping look. I'm sorry I don't have any technical term for this, but I think you all know what I'm talking about. Synn's samples of nightscapes are another example where color seems to bleed, or just being ugly. Of course if you go all crazy with this with the samples provided by erik you will get that problem too, but there is a big difference to the d800.
Another scenario is in skin colors. I guess you are familiar with the way c41 films render skins (portra 160 for example). I'm talking about this slightly over exposed skin look. Well, try to do the same on a d800, there will be no detail, the skin seems like one big blub that only get's sort of details when it goes into the left side of the histogram. I'm not talking about recovering highlights (which is also pretty terrible, but that's where film wins over both digital backs and cmos), but about this strange behaviour where the subtilities of lighter skin can't be represented by the D800, but both C41 film and some samples I've seen of digital backs have no problem to represent it.
I would love to know if there is some way of fixing this because I can't think of a reason to explain this "inertia" (I do have very good lenses, it's not an aberration or contrast problem)
-
Erik,
If it's relevant, I'm aware of Dietmar's device, and obviously I'm aware of the Passport as I was involved in its design as a portable target :)
It's late and I'm not thinking straight, but I believe that once you have the sensor's spectral sensitivity curve (eg. Dietmar's gadget), you still need to measure the illuminant in situ with a spectro. Even if you were to scan your scene with a teleradiometer or an XX channel camera, to turn the spectral measurements into *color* you still need information about the illuminant :)
This whole discussion reminds me why I've given up on color. I'm taking up video at the moment, and just noticed that what comes out of the cameras is close to what Michael calls "jpeg", with colors completely off if you haven't set wb. And I'm trying to figure out an acceptable workaround in the context of a Lumix GH4.
Edmund
Hi,
I am using LR as raw converter, even for the P45+. Now LR5 has some issues on P45+, in my view mostly in the demosaicing department: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=94812.0
I have only Sonys to compare with, but what I see is that I can pull incredible shadow detail out of the Sony images using Lightroom's shadows control, without obvious artefacts. Using the "highlights" slider to bring down sky can often yield bad artefacts on thing like treetops. That depends on tone mapping used in Lightroom. The tone mapping doesn't work for small areas surrounded by dark detail.
Using DNG compatible raw converters it is very easy to make a decent camera specific calibration using Adobe DNG Profile Editor with a ColorChecker card. The colour checker Passport software is a similar product. A third solution is QPCard which uses a different set of colours. All these software solutions are free, but you need to buy a ColorChecker or QPCard.
Most raw converters I have tested can use DNG Colour Profiles even on non DNG raw files. Raw converters I have tested with DNG Profiles are Lightroom, ACR, Raw Therapee, AccuRaw and Iridient Raw Developer. Capture One is a notable exception.
This article covers some of that ground: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/79-p45-colour-rendition
Sandy McGuffog, the author of AccuRaw and some other nifty softwares, pointed to this interesting article in his blog:
https://www.hansvaneijsden.com/colorchecker-perfect-skin-colors/ worth reading.
Personally, I have made Adobe DNG Profiles for all my cameras. On the Sony SLT 99 I mostly use Adobe Standard profile as it works fine for me. With the P45+ I use my own DNG Profiles.
As a side note, a ColorChecker card is not good enough for a full calibration, for that more stuff is needed (*).
The reason Adobe DNG Profile Editor works is that they use ColorChecker to tweak a hpefully well designed base profile.
Best regards
Erik
(*) Something like this may give a proper starting point:
http://image-engineering-shop.de/shop/article_IE-camSPECS%2520express/camSPECS-express.html?sessid=jD6bM1hTL2TlDlB1AhLiLIit6AJVf3f7stolSdsx0jh1jstKDPOweX6p6nyy8OcJ&shop_param=cid%3D565%26aid%3DIE-camSPECS%2520express%26
(http://image-engineering-shop.de/.media/089265877990.png)
-
Hi Edmund,
As far as I recall, you have pointed me to "Dietmar's" device. Regarding the Passport I feel it is quite useful.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
If it's relevant, I'm aware of Dietmar's device, and obviously I'm aware of the Passport as I was involved in its design :)
It's late and I'm not thinking straight, but I believe that once you have the sensor's spectral sensitivity curve (eg. Dietmar's gadget), you still need to measure the illuminant in situ with a spectro. Even if you scan your scene with a teleradiometer or an XX channel camera, to turn the result into color you still need information about the illuminant :)
Edmund
-
Another scenario is in skin colors. I guess you are familiar with the way c41 films render skins (portra 160 for example). I'm talking about this slightly over exposed skin look. Well, try to do the same on a d800, there will be no detail, the skin seems like one big blub that only get's sort of details when it goes into the left side of the histogram. I'm not talking about recovering highlights (which is also pretty terrible, but that's where film wins over both digital backs and cmos), but about this strange behaviour where the subtilities of lighter skin can't be represented by the D800, but both C41 film and some samples I've seen of digital backs have no problem to represent it.
Is this any close to the kind of look you are talking about?
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5600/15524823992_686ef727a5_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You should start a company that provides that service for any Digital camera owner. One sends in the camera, you do the custom calibration, solve the linearisation issues and write a few files and voilá, great MFDB like color in any DSLR (or mirrorless) camera. Im sure you can make good money.
For this to be mathematically possible, cameras would need to fulfil a set of conditions called the Luther-Ives conditions. As a general rule, they don't.
-
Hi,
Well, the Luther-Ives conditions are impossible to fulfil, that would require negative sensibility.
The articles below gives some good insight:
http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/Metameric_Error.pdf
http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/Sensor_Colorimetry.pdf
Best regards
Erik
For this to be mathematically possible, cameras would need to fulfil a set of conditions called the Luther-Ives conditions. As a general rule, they don't.
-
Hi,
What surprises me a bit that a great majority of competition winners are shot with inferior cameras like Canon and Nikon used by superior photographers.
Here is a good example, enjoy: http://yanzhangphotography.com
On the other hand, owning an MFDB doesn't make you a mediocre photographer either! Some examples:
- Ed Hurst's images impress me and he is using MFD creatively: http://www.spiffingpics.com
- Wayne Fox is a frequent poster on these threads, always offering good advice, you find him here: http://www.landscapesbywaynefox.com
This is a thread with a lot of good and a lot of not so good MF images:
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/4730-fun-mf-images.html
Best regards
Erik
Is any close to the kind of look you are talking about?
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5600/15524823992_686ef727a5_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
When you raise or lower the shadows it seems to only affect the shadows, if you do the same on the D800 you will get halos around every detail, and the color quality goes down the drain dramaticly. There seems to be some sort of inertia spanning over larger areas (dozens of pixels) which gives this sort of tonemapping look. I'm sorry I don't have any technical term for this, but I think you all know what I'm talking about.
Hi,
What you are describing is the effect of poor Raw conversion/tonemapping. It has nothing to do with the camera itself.
Trying to fit the full dynamic range of a D800 in the limited output DR leads to a dull image, therefore the conversion software has to apply tonecurve adjustments which, when not done well, lead to the type of effects you describe. I think it is more prominent in LR/ACR types of Raw conversion where a lot goes on under the hood, especially in highlight compression.
Another scenario is in skin colors.
[...]
I'm not talking about recovering highlights (which is also pretty terrible, but that's where film wins over both digital backs and cmos), but about this strange behaviour where the subtilities of lighter skin can't be represented by the D800, but both C41 film and some samples I've seen of digital backs have no problem to represent it.
Again, postprocessing. Try using a more linear tonemapping curve (which would require at least a lot of Highlight slider reduction in Adobe's Process Version 2012 conversions, which doesn't recover but compress highlights), followed by tools like Topaz Clarity (for local halo free contrast adjustments at several levels of original captured contrast) and Detail (for skin/hair/clothing detail). This type of behavior is much more benign in a converter like Capture One, which also has very useful skin tone correction capabilities, allows to create one's own tweaked version of Profiles, and offers a better starting point for further postprocessing ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
What surprises me a bit that a great majority of competition winners are shot with inferior cameras like Canon and Nikon used by superior photographers.
Hi Erik,
What do you think the criteria of the judges are, who is the organizer, ...
That's one of the reasons why over the top HDR tonemapping is popular.
And, given two identical situation shots (same file), one properly processed and one not, which do you think would win ...
And, define properly processed if we go beyond the mere butchering with halo ridden tonemapping ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
What surprises me a bit that a great majority of competition winners are shot with inferior cameras like Canon and Nikon used by superior photographers.
Here is a good example, enjoy: http://yanzhangphotography.com
Best regards
Erik
Are you sure that's not cgi?
-
Hi,
I just went to Photo.net and picked one of the highly ranked photographers, he is using Nikon.
On the other hand I may agree that we have a trend to over processing images, but it sometimes take some processing to match the perception of a scene.
In B&W times we used orange/red filters, in the slide era it was Velvia and Polarizers. Another point is that the cameras have a very wide dynamic range, with essentially no tonal compression (like toe and shoulder in the film times), so we need to supply that tonal compression to display on devices with limited luminance range.
These image of mine is probably a bit overprocessed, but I like it anyway:
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Themes/Berg-dal-och-vatten/i-TD9qWrw/0/X3/20140605-_DSC4390-X3.jpg)
Best regards
Erik
Are you sure that's not cgi?
-
Well, the Luther-Ives conditions are impossible to fulfil, that would require negative sensibility.
Of course not, since human eyes fulfil them, by definition.
-
Now, I don't think so, it is the human eye in combination with signal processing in the brain.
Best regards
Erik
Of course not, since human eyes fulfil them, by definition.
-
On the other hand I may agree that we have a trend to over processing images, but it sometimes take some processing to match the perception of a scene.
Hi Erik,
Post-processing is inevitable, because it is impossible to render the captured dynamic range (11-14 stops of engineering DR with an overlay of veiling glare, noise reduction can tame lots of the shadow noise) on a 7-stop output medium without it looking extremely dull and flat.
Tonemapping is unavoidable, and also offers a great opportunity to shape the tonecurve to match out creative vision as good as possible. It requires a lot of experience and hard work, or great tools (like Topaz Clarity) to assist us. It's still the photographer who makes the difference, also in postprocessing.
In B&W times we used orange/red filters, in the slide era it was Velvia and Polarizers. Another point is that the cameras have a very wide dynamic range, with essentially no tonal compression (like toe and shoulder in the film times), so we need to supply that tonal compression to display on devices with limited luminance range.
Exactly. We did part of the tonemapping in camera, at capture time, because that was the relatively easy way. Those with darkroom capabilities could enhance that by tuned film processing, and tuned printing techniques (dodging/burning/local developer temperature/filters). Nowadays we have much better tools at our disposal, and in color.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Jerome,
Not really, the response function of human vision is a combination stimuli and processing in the brain.
Best regards
Erik
Of course not, since human eyes fulfil them, by definition.
-
Hi,
I just went to Photo.net and picked one of the highly ranked photographers, he is using Nikon.
On the other hand I may agree that we have a trend to over processing images, but it sometimes take some processing to match the perception of a scene.
These image of mine is probably a bit overprocessed, but I like it anyway:
Best regards
Erik
Erik, your shot looks like a photograph, that is a compliment BTW, some work looks like cgi, that doesn't mean it is without merit and may indeed win a competition (depending on the criteria and the judges, whatever they are worth).
-
Hi Jerome,
Not really, the response function of human vision is a combination stimuli and processing in the brain.
Erik, I side with Jerome on this one. As an example of a set of everywhere-positive response curves that is a 3x3 matrix multiplication away from CIE XYZ, I cite the CIE 1931 Standard Observer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space#CIE_standard_observer
In fact, though I can't prove it (darn, I wish I'd taken linear algebra -- Math 124 -- at Stanford), I strongly suspect that, just as there are an infinite number of linear transforms of XYZ, there are an infinite number of linear transforms of XYZ that are everywhere positive.
Jim
-
This straw man argument about contest winners that came out of nowhere is hilarious. What is the install base of canikon users vs MFDB? Of course you will see a disproportionately high number of canikon shooters participating in contests and subsequently winning them. Does that make them "better"?
Beyoncé has more Grammys than yo-yo ma. Does that make her music better?
Look at the proportion of canikon vs MFDB in color critical applications like repro. What do you see there?
To some, everything is a science. Even art. Fair enough. Then please, someone create a color profile for say, a D800 that under any shooting circumstance, deliver an image that looks exactly like it came from a phaleafblad back. I am willing to contribute as many RAW files as needed for this. Even if you get every test chart to look exactly the same, I can guarantee that the real world images would not.
Go ahead, surprise me.
-
Chris,
I can freely admit my example was not a good one. My take on the issue is that I would guess something like 60-85% percent of the leading photographers use Nikon or Canon.
If there is some collection of the worlds best images, probably something like 70% of them would be shot with a Canon and a lot of them would be with shot with the 16-35/2.8L.
I don't keep record of competitions. But lets look:
- Josh Holko, a frequent poster and also a frequent winner of competitions uses Canon: http://blog.jholko.com/equipment-2/
- Jack Dykinga uses Nikon and 4x5" film
- Frans Lantink uses Nikon: http://www.lanting.com/camera-gear.php
- Hans Strand uses Hasselblad and Nikon: http://www.hansstrand.com/Hans_Strand/Equipment.html
- Andy Biggs, also well known on these forums uses Phase One, nowdays: http://andybiggs.squarespace.com/the-global-photographer/category/photo-gear-and-reviews
- Mattias Klum is using Nikon
- Joe Cornish is using Panasonic G3, Nikon D700/D800 but his main camera is Phase One IQ 180.
So, quite clearly some of the greatest photographers are happy with Canon and Nikon, but folks on these forums often say those cameras have crappy rendition.
Personally, I use a not so old P45+ on an old Hasselblad and 2-3 Sony DSLRs, and I am happy with both, but I am no great photographer :-)
Best regards
Erik
Erik, your shot looks like a photograph, that is a compliment BTW, some work looks like cgi, that doesn't mean it is without merit and may indeed win a competition (depending on the criteria and the judges, whatever they are worth).
-
Hi Jim,
I was mostly thinking about this figure (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/CIE1931_RGBCMF.svg/325px-CIE1931_RGBCMF.svg.png), but also some articles mentioning that negative sensivity is required to reproduce human vision.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, I side with Jerome on this one. As an example of a set of everywhere-positive response curves that is a 3x3 matrix multiplication away from CIE XYZ, I cite the CIE 1931 Standard Observer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space#CIE_standard_observer
In fact, though I can't prove it (darn, I wish I'd taken linear algebra -- Math 124 -- at Stanford), I strongly suspect that, just as there are an infinite number of linear transforms of XYZ, there are an infinite number of linear transforms of XYZ that are everywhere positive.
Jim
-
I was mostly thinking about this figure (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/CIE1931_RGBCMF.svg/325px-CIE1931_RGBCMF.svg.png), but also some articles mentioning that negative sensivity is required to reproduce human vision.
Erik, those aren't spectral responses per se. Those are the CIE 1931 RGB Color matching functions. The color matching functions are the amounts of primaries needed to match the monochromatic test primary at the wavelength shown on the horizontal scale in the classic color matching experiment.
Consider the normalized cone responses as another example:
(http://www.kasson.com/ll/normConeResp.PNG)
Does that make sense?
Jim
-
Hi Jim,
I was thinking about this passage from Doug Kerr's article:
A Luther-Ives sRGB sensor
Imagine that we had a sensor that:
• Met the Luther-Ives conditions, so that any two instances of light
having the same color, even with different spectrums, would be
reported with the same output values.
• Had outputs would be the (linear) coordinates of the sRGB color
space.
To meet the Luther-Ives conditions, the response curves of all three
channels of this sensor would have to be (different) linear
combinations of the eye cone response curves, l, m, and s. We can in
fact determine the “coefficients” of that combination (the constants
by which one, two, of three of the cone response curves were to be
multiplied before they were added to give each of our response
curves) with a straightforward mathematical process.
So, why don’t we just build such a sensor? It would be so handy.
There would be no need to transform its outputs into linear sRGB
coordinates—they already are.
Aye, but here’s the rub. Such a sensor’s response curves would have
to have negative values in parts of the wavelength range, which is of
course impossible to implement in a real sensor (it is not even
physically meaningful). Figure 4 shows these response curves (again,
labeled with the names of the primaries, not the names of the curves).
Figure 4. sRGB response curves
So we must consider another sensor design for our real camera.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, I side with Jerome on this one. As an example of a set of everywhere-positive response curves that is a 3x3 matrix multiplication away from CIE XYZ, I cite the CIE 1931 Standard Observer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space#CIE_standard_observer
In fact, though I can't prove it (darn, I wish I'd taken linear algebra -- Math 124 -- at Stanford), I strongly suspect that, just as there are an infinite number of linear transforms of XYZ, there are an infinite number of linear transforms of XYZ that are everywhere positive.
Jim
-
I was thinking about this passage from Doug Kerr's article:
Gee, I hate to disagree with Mr Kerr, but I do.
[added later: Turns out I don't actually; Kerr constrained the solution space to cameras that use the sRGB primaries.]
What's wrong with this set of curves? (same picture as above)
(http://www.kasson.com/ll/normConeResp.PNG)
As an aside, I have a little experience in trying to build a sorta-Luther-Ives camera.
When I was working at the IBM Almaden Research Laboratory in the early 90s as a color scientist, I consulted with Fred Mintzer and his group in Yorktown Heights who developed a scanning camera with the objective that the wavelength-by-wavelength product of the camera's RGB filters, the IR-blocking filter, and the CCD's spectral response would be close to a 3x3 matrix multiply away from human tristimulus response. The camera was used to digitize Andrew Wyeth's work, to capture artwork in the Vatican Library, and for some other projects where color fidelity was important.
Here (http://www.cis.rit.edu/mcsl/research/PDFs/Camera01.pdf) is a a paper that has some system-level RGB responses. You'll note a high degree of spectral overlap of the red and green channels, just as there is overlap in the medium and long cone channels. You'll also note an absence of the short-wavelength bump in the red channel; this camera didn't do violet. Because the illumination was part of the camera system, the camera did not have to deal with illuminant metamerism the same way as a human.
Jim
-
Hi Jim,
Thanks for making that clear. Another learning experience… I guess I owe Jerome an apology!
Best regards
Erik
Gee, I hate to disagree with Mr Kerr, but I do. What's wrong with this set of curves? (same picture as above)
(http://www.kasson.com/ll/normConeResp.PNG)
As an aside, I have a little experience in trying to build a sorta-Luther-Ives camera.
When I was working at the IBM Almaden Research Laboratory in the early 90s as a color scientist, I consulted with Fred Mintzer and his group in Yorktown Heights who developed a scanning camera with the objective that the wavelength-by-wavelength product of the camera's RGB filters, the IR-blocking filter, and the CCD's spectral response would be close to a 3x3 matrix multiply away from human tristimulus response. The camera was used to digitize Andrew Wyeth's work, to capture artwork in the Vatican Library, and for some other projects where color fidelity was important.
Here (http://www.cis.rit.edu/mcsl/research/PDFs/Camera01.pdf) is a a paper that has some system-level RGB responses. You'll note a high degree of spectral overlap of the red and green channels, just as there is overlap in the medium and long cone channels. You'll also note an absence of the short-wavelength bump in the red channel; this camera didn't do violet. Because the illumination was part of the camera system, the camera did not have to deal with illuminant metamerism the same way as a human.
Jim
-
Nope, it doesn't make them better, it shows they are adequate.
Best regards
Erik
This straw man argument about contest winners that came out of nowhere is hilarious. What is the install base of canikon users vs MFDB? Of course you will see a disproportionately high number of canikon shooters participating in contests and subsequently winning them. Does that make them "better"?
-
Nobody said they are inadequate. The choice of system for any particular assignment depends on a lot more factors than color.
Just pointing out that the awards argument is absolutely off point to the thread subject.
-
I was thinking about this passage from Doug Kerr's article:
Hold the phone, Erik. I just reread the Kerr passage you quoted. He added the additional constraint that the camera use the sRGB primaries.
- Had outputs would be the (linear) coordinates of the sRGB color space.
With that constraint, I do agree with him. You can't do it will all-positive spectral responses. But you never added that constraint, did you?
Jim
-
So, quite clearly some of the greatest photographers are happy with Canon and Nikon,
And some of them are paid to shoot with them ;)
-
Just pointing out that the awards argument is absolutely off point to the thread subject.
Yes. And I think the color accuracy (Luther-Ives) argument is a bit off-point, too, although as a reformed color scientist, it pains me to say so.
I don't think photographers desire accurate color in their images. I think they desire pleasing color. One of the reasons I think that is that many photographers cite the characteristics of certain films as examples of what they wish they could do with digital.
I once took a tutorial at an SPIE conference from Ed Giorgianni, the Kodak scientist, on color management in chemical (and a little digital) photography. Ed walked us through all the constraints that film and paper designers had to live with, and I came out amazed that the whole thing worked at all, much less that the results looked good.
I once measured the color accuracy of 20 different films using the Munsell chart as a target. They we all pretty awful by the standards of today's digital cameras. But there was clearly a method in the "errors". I put the word in quotes, because I think most all of the films were performing as designed. You could see that vivid color was important to the Velvia designers, to cite the most obvious example. Skin tones often were biased in the yellow/red direction (never in the green direction, obviously), and were slightly more chromatic than the dictates of accuracy would require.
Jim
-
Hi Jim,
I was considering that constraint but I was not aware of the significance. As I said, it is a learning experience, thanks for widening my understanding of colour.
Best regards
Erik
Hold the phone, Erik. I just reread the Kerr passage you quoted. He added the additional constraint that the camera use the sRGB primaries.
- Had outputs would be the (linear) coordinates of the sRGB color space.
With that constraint, I do agree with him. You can't do it will all-positive spectral responses. But you never added that constraint, did you?
Jim
-
In some ways this discussion of three color cameras is disingenuous because (I don't understand it) :) and because there is no reason not to try and do multispectral acquisition, especially when it comes to artwork ...
But I do agree with the fact that photographers desire pleasing color; this is why camera manufacturers are proud of their Jpeg renderings ...
Edmund
Yes. And I think the color accuracy (Luther-Ives) argument is a bit off-point, too, although as a reformed color scientist, it pains me to say so.
I don't think photographers desire accurate color in their images. I think they desire pleasing color. One of the reasons I think that is that many photographers cite the characteristics of certain films as examples of what they wish they could do with digital.
I once took a tutorial at an SPIE conference from Ed Giorgianni, the Kodak scientist, on color management in chemical (and a little digital) photography. Ed walked us through all the constraints that film and paper designers had to live with, and I came out amazed that the whole thing worked at all, much less that the results looked good.
I once measured the color accuracy of 20 different films using the Munsell chart as a target. They we all pretty awful by the standards of today's digital cameras. But there was clearly a method in the "errors". I put the word in quotes, because I think most all of the films were performing as designed. You could see that vivid color was important to the Velvia designers, to cite the most obvious example. Skin tones often were biased in the yellow/red direction (never in the green direction, obviously), and were slightly more chromatic than the dictates of accuracy would require.
Jim
-
Hi,
I have just posted this on GETDPI, they have a discussion on CCD vs. CMOS. I don't know how relevant this is to the discussion, but it may illustrate some differences between cameras and profiles.
The samples here were taken from ImagingResource. This is one of their test charts containing a popular reference image, I guess from Kodak, would be nice to have a reference image, but I have not found any. The images are shot with Penatx 645D and Pentax 645Z, and they are a couple of years apart.
As a side note, I think the ColorChecker card in the ImagingResource sample may be quite old.
There are three pairs of images included.
- Adobe Standard
- A DCP profile I generated for each using Adobe DNG Profile editor using a ColorChecker in a different crop of the same sample
- The embedded profile in the DNG file.
The images are here, I would suggest checking them rather than the screen dump below! (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P645D_vs_P645Z/Musicians)
A screen dump is shown below:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P645D_vs_P645Z/Musicians.jpg)
-
Yes. And I think the color accuracy (Luther-Ives) argument is a bit off-point, too, although as a reformed color scientist, it pains me to say so.
I don't think photographers desire accurate color in their images. I think they desire pleasing color. One of the reasons I think that is that many photographers cite the characteristics of certain films as examples of what they wish they could do with digital.
This is actually the argument I wanted to bring to this discussion by citing Luther-Ives conditions. Participants in this thread are discussing the superiority (or not) of MF cameras by trying to determine which camera is the most "accurate". The idea of "accurate" is implicit in the discussion (see the part about using color checker charts, for example).
But this is not how camera works. All digital cameras have limited color "accuracy" and the amount and direction of deviation is carefully chosen by the manufacturer (mainly by selecting the filter array pigments). The deviation is chosen to give "pleasing" colours. The choices are different between general usage cameras (which, as a rule, must be able to work under lights of varied types) and for cameras mainly used in studios (which mainly use flash).
-
Hi,
I may add some observations from a test I made about a year ago. What I did was to photograph one of Wolfgang Faust's IT8 targets under studio light, and used Argyll CMS and Patchtool to compare the converted raw files with measured reference values of the IT8 target. The IT8 target has 288 patches and covers a decent part of Adobe RBG volume (see attachement).
The article is here (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/79-p45-colour-rendition?start=3)
What I have seen was the reproduction was remarkably good, just looking at Delta E values (CIEDE 2000, AFAIK).
The images below compare the renditions of the IT8 patches (P45, with C1 and linear profile to the left Sony Alpha 99 SLT to the right)
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/ColourAccuracy/BestConversion_small.png)
Some interesting observations:
- The P45+/C1 "linear" was more accurate than the "film curve"
- The delta E values used take also L into account. The gradation curves used affect the L-coordinate.
- LR 5 conversion on the SLT99 was more accurate than C1 conversion
- Greatest devition on the P45+ was on the deep blue fields, around DE=17. Note that the difference is not visible in the patchtool generate images. The reason is that the colours are pushed outside Adobe RGB. This may be an indication that tuning of those profiles is more visually made than measured.
- The outdoor daylight and studio flash profiles seem to be identical, Delta E =0
- The Portrait profile deviates very little from the other two profiles
So my take is really that both tested cameras were quite accurate. I would also add that it may make more sense to strive for an accurate rendition to an internal colour space and apply pleasantness in the output profile.
The result of this test was for me:
- For the Sony, I decided to stay with LR5 using Adobe Standard Profile, as it was almost as accurate as my own.
- On Phase One I found that LR5 with my own profile was quite satisfactory. So I decided on using that (C1 doesn't fit my workflow).
- But, I found both conversions remarkably accurate
There may be some areas that this test doesn't cover. Both skin and chlorophyl are said to have tricky spectral reflections, and I would suggest infrared filtering plays a role for skin.
Best regards
Erik
Yes. And I think the color accuracy (Luther-Ives) argument is a bit off-point, too, although as a reformed color scientist, it pains me to say so.
I don't think photographers desire accurate color in their images. I think they desire pleasing color. One of the reasons I think that is that many photographers cite the characteristics of certain films as examples of what they wish they could do with digital.
I once took a tutorial at an SPIE conference from Ed Giorgianni, the Kodak scientist, on color management in chemical (and a little digital) photography. Ed walked us through all the constraints that film and paper designers had to live with, and I came out amazed that the whole thing worked at all, much less that the results looked good.
I once measured the color accuracy of 20 different films using the Munsell chart as a target. They we all pretty awful by the standards of today's digital cameras. But there was clearly a method in the "errors". I put the word in quotes, because I think most all of the films were performing as designed. You could see that vivid color was important to the Velvia designers, to cite the most obvious example. Skin tones often were biased in the yellow/red direction (never in the green direction, obviously), and were slightly more chromatic than the dictates of accuracy would require.
Jim
-
Erik, I remember you vicariously reminding everyone that "your threads are tech oriented and photography related discussions can happen in many other threads" every time someone asks about the relevance of such threads.
Let this thread be a reminder that unfortunately, you don't let photography oriented threads to be and will derail the discussion into more test charts and equations and other things working photographers have only a passing interest in.
The awards strawman is a new one though. I'll give you that! :)
-
It's hard for me to quantify, but I finally had a chance to play with some 645Z files yesterday, shot by a good friend. I say it's hard to quantify because there are so many variables vs. how I shoot. He shot pentax/LR5 and I shoot Hasselblad/Credo 40/C1, but the Pentax files looked just like higher res Nikon files, the Hasselblad files look a TON better to me, crisper, sharper, better color. Again, totally subjective, but just my $.02.
-Doug
-
….My take on the issue is that I would guess something like 60-85% percent of the leading photographers use Nikon or Canon.
If there is some collection of the worlds best images, probably something like 70% of them would be shot with a Canon and a lot of them would be with shot with the 16-35/2.8L.
….
Erik -
I'm sorry - but this is worthy of some comment….
First, there are so many "guesses, probably's and would be's" to make this statement almost indecipherable.
Then there is the intended logic behind this statement, suggesting (as best as can be determined) that a collection of "best images" may be determined by some statistical model, so there would be representation equal to market share by Nikon and Canon. This isn't right either. Weren't there some good shots taken in the 19th century?
Then Canon somehow gets 70% of those shots (not sure how that works). And some single zoom lens (I guess its the kit lens?) will have the lions' share of best images? Why? Aargh.
And finally "if there is some collection…"? Surely, there are many. Take a look at MOMA, Art Institute of Chicago, Magnum, or others that exist. Each have a view point and reflect at least one (if not many) curatorial approaches. I would recommend studying them first…
Perhaps you were trying to say something else. As written, it projects a particular viewpoint that I hope you did not intend.
-
Hi,
Something like this (clearly limited to news type photography):
(http://hastalosmegapixeles.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WPP14_CAM.jpg)
Taken from here: http://hastalosmegapixeles.com/las-camaras-de-los-world-press-photo/
This link also gives some info, but again it is photojurnalism:
http://petapixel.com/2012/12/02/the-most-popular-cameras-and-settings-for-reuters-best-photos-of-the-year-2012/
Cameras:
(http://www.petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2012/12/cameras2.jpg)
Zoom lenses (note popularity of the 16-35):
(http://www.petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2012/12/zoom2.jpg)
Comments see below:
Best regards
Erik
Erik -
I'm sorry - but this is worthy of some comment….
First, there are so many "guesses, probably's and would be's" to make this statement almost indecipherable.
Then there is the intended logic behind this statement, suggesting (as best as can be determined) that a collection of "best images" may be determined by some statistical model, so there would be representation equal to market share by Nikon and Canon. This isn't right either. Weren't there some good shots taken in the 19th century? I should have stated that I mean award taking pictures today.
Then Canon somehow gets 70% of those shots (not sure how that works). And some single zoom lens (I guess its the kit lens?) will have the lions' share of best images? Why? Aargh. This was based on a list of award winning images I have seen a few years ago. An amazing number of pictures were shot with the 16-35/2.8L (that is not a kit lens, a recent price I have seen for the present version is 1699$US)
And finally "if there is some collection…"? Surely, there are many. Take a look at MOMA, Art Institute of Chicago, Magnum, or others that exist. Each have a view point and reflect at least one (if not many) curatorial approaches. I would recommend studying them first…
I would say that in this thread we talk about modern equipment delivering a certain quality of colour
My point, is that harsh words are used on the colour rendition of Canon and Nikon, but these system still take a lot of the best images taken today. I can mention that I have no pony in that race. I never had a Canon, but I happened to have a Nikon FA some twenty years ago. Personally I am shooting Sony Alpha and Hasselblad V with a P45+.
I have not done a statistical analysis of award winning images, and equipment is not normally listed on first page, but I have the impression that Canon and Nikon dominates with professional photographers. But I must admit that I am much oriented in direction of landscape, wildlife and news photography.
-
It's hard for me to quantify, but I finally had a chance to play with some 645Z files yesterday, shot by a good friend. I say it's hard to quantify because there are so many variables vs. how I shoot. He shot pentax/LR5 and I shoot Hasselblad/Credo 40/C1, but the Pentax files looked just like higher res Nikon files, the Hasselblad files look a TON better to me, crisper, sharper, better color. Again, totally subjective, but just my $.02.
-Doug
I guess you have never compared a Canon processed with Lightroom to a Canon processed with Canon's own DPP ...
Edmund
-
Hi Synn,
I am aware of that. That is the main reason I stopped the discussion on Luther-Ives, that was actually raised by some else. Another reason I stopped the discussion is that folks more knowledgeable than me say that I am wrong.
A small point to make I also contributed links to something like 40-50 raw images of real life subjects (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=94932.msg775910#msg775910), that anyone can process with the raw processor of their choice. I wish more folks would do that, raw images are pretty rare.
I would also say, that I would not suggest that folks spend say 10-20 k$ on equipment based on web size images in sRGB colour space, again that is a reason to post raw images.
Again, looking at the spending aspect, it my be useful to buy a 60$ ColorChecker card and build a DCP profile and see if it suits you better. Using ColorChecker Passport may or may not be option. That is why write about DNG Profile Editor. DCP profiles don't work with Capture One, of course. But they work with Lightroom, AccuRaw, Iridient RawDeveloper and RawTherapee.
This can bee seen as a quite technical thread, BTW, colour rendition is all about technology.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, I remember you vicariously reminding everyone that "your threads are tech oriented and photography related discussions can happen in many other threads" every time someone asks about the relevance of such threads.
Let this thread be a reminder that unfortunately, you don't let photography oriented threads to be and will derail the discussion into more test charts and equations and other things working photographers have only a passing interest in.
The awards strawman is a new one though. I'll give you that! :)
-
Of course. Anything and everything can be made into a technical thread if you want it to be, right? ;)
It was established within the first couple of pages itself that post production plays a big part in the output that the two references the OP provided. This had nothing to do with Luther-Ives, CCD vs CMOS and certainly not world press award winners (Now really, how many PRESS photographers use anything other than DSLRs? Their choice of gear has more to do with lenses in specific focal ranges, high ISO shooting, portability, affordability and many other factors that have nothing to do with color rendition) and so on.
This thread was heading towards a rather productive direction and intentionally or unintentionally, you've derailed it into the usual rabbit hole. What do you think is the productive thing to do for the OP? Demo equipment he has not used yet and/ or improve his post production skills or read post upon post about theories that have zero effect in his daily work?
Please show some restraint with your technical overload. That is all we can ask for. This afterall is the Luminous LANDSCAPE, not the Luminous TEST CHART.
-
That is all we can ask for.
We can just skip the stuff we don't wish to read ;-)
-
We can just skip the stuff we don't wish to read ;-)
We do, which is why none of the working photographers touch the technobabble threads with a 10 foot pole.
-
I guess you have never compared a Canon processed with Lightroom to a Canon processed with Canon's own DPP ...
I agree with Edmund, the Raw conversion quality from Canon's DPP is pretty good, without the tonal compressions that are typical for Lightroom. LR does offer a more complete workflow solution, but conversion quality is something that needs a lot of work to come close to what's possible.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Edmund - that's right. I don't own or shoot Canon, and have always hated the conversions I've gotten from their files (way too red) from LR, but haven't used the Canon software, or C1 on them for that matter.
-D
-
Hi,
Something like this (clearly limited to news type photography):
(http://hastalosmegapixeles.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WPP14_CAM.jpg)
Taken from here: http://hastalosmegapixeles.com/las-camaras-de-los-world-press-photo/
This link also gives some info, but again it is photojurnalism:
http://petapixel.com/2012/12/02/the-most-popular-cameras-and-settings-for-reuters-best-photos-of-the-year-2012/
Cameras:
(http://www.petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2012/12/cameras2.jpg)
Zoom lenses (note popularity of the 16-35):
(http://www.petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2012/12/zoom2.jpg)
Comments see below:
Best regards
Erik
Thank you for the clarification. Its helps a lot.
-
This works equally well with the Nikon D4. I found that there is more highlight detail when I use the C1 version 8; ICC IQ 250 daylight profile.
-
Hi,
All these statistics I have found were for photojournalism type, but I recall seeing something similar with much more generic subjects like nature and macro a few years ago.
As a side note, I was taking part in a workshop with Hans Kruse in the Dolomites, an excellent workshop. Hans was shooting with both Canon 5DIII and Nikon D800 (with or without E). What he said essentially was what the DxO test shows. With the D800 he could pull a lot more shadow detail, while with the Canon 5DIII he was much more depending on bracketing/ETTR/HDR. With bracketing he has several options.
He was also instructor on some of the Phase Ones PODAS workshops, where he was shooting an IQ 260, I think, he was very positive about the Phase One on the resolution side, but also indicated that the camera has hanged up (three times) under the workshops. Colours, I don't know, he wasn't discussing that stuff at all. He also said that there was no way he could make a business case for the Phase One system.
One point may be, Hans uses Lightroom, Nikon and Canon. All system derided for colour rendition by posters on this thread(s), but he makes great images with those tools, and who cares about the rest.
I was just shooting Sony on that workshop, but was shooting P45+ in the same region the week after. Morning light beats P45+, any time.
Some of those images are here: http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Dolomites2014/ ,gear used Sony Alpha 99, Sony Alpha 77, Hasselblad 555/ELD with P45+.
Hans has some nice pictures here (http://www.hanskrusephotography.com)
Best regards
Erik
Thank you for the clarification. Its helps a lot.
-
Art, I would dare to say that Scott Frances is DSLR and Joe Fletcher is MF Leaf. Joe's work is evidently medium format for the detail, frame and colors. I would say Leaf for the colors.
Hope I'm not wrong.
ACH
There is an interview with Frances on the Web somewhere where he says he uses Canon equipment. I would also guess that Fletcher is using (at least mostly) some kind of medium format.
In any case, I think it is more a matter of your vision and technique, rather than the equipment. Many types of equipment are capable of producing "beautiful" color if you use them properly. Perhaps some may make it easier than others to achieve the look you are after.
-
I have been looking at video, with an eye on documentary, and noticed a trend of firmware updates on japanese cameras.
What seems to be happening is that if a camera is average it just sits there till EOL, but if it is a runner - like the Oly EM1 or Pana GH4 or Fuji T1, then the company invests some of the above average revenue into really substantial firmware updates and this way even the existing customers get rewarded with a next gen cam that costs them ... nothing, while the product life is enhanced; the manufacturer gets a longer run and economy of scale, and time to sell existing customers more lenses, enhancing lock in. In this way the Fuji Ti seems to be acquiring good video, the Pana FZ1000 got 4K, the GH4 is rumored to have a Raw video option coming etc.
I wish this were also a trend with the heavy stuff. Up to now C, N, P1 etc seem to go mainly for stability - although Magic Lantern has demonstrated exactly how much more could be "given" the faithful customer, and has certainly accounted for quite a few 5DII and III sales.
There is a lot of stuff that could be done with a DB ...
Edmund
-
Oh Synn,
Sorry to hear that you are out of work!
Best regards
Erik
We do, which is why none of the working photographers touch the technobabble threads with a 10 foot pole.
-
Hi,
I have checked out a bit. Scott Frances uses Canon, uses several different exposures and opens in layers in Photoshop mixing them manually. It is like exposure fusion, but done with careful manual work.
Joe Fletcher definitively shoots medium format on a technical camera.
The colour in his images is mainly coming from a good mix of good natural light and artificial light. Light is often best early morning and late afternoon. Than, careful handling of white balance is needed to preserve that. Using normal daylight WB often works amazingly well in warm light situations, but it can go over the edge.
A grey card exposure is not really helpful, as it would just neutralise the good light.
I would also add that strong composition and elimination of keystone effects also enhances the images.
There is nothing wrong moving up to medium format, but cost of entry is a bit high. Some posters (Ken R. and Paul2660) used to indicate that upper end MFD is really needed to surpass upper end full frame 135. But making a large investment in equipment also gives an incentive to make best use of it.
I would suggest the posting by some photographers who have been there and done that:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=94932.msg775709#msg775709
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=94932.msg775936#msg775936
The last one says:
In response to the OP, I think the cameras are nigh irrelevant. What you're really responding to is the impactfulness of the photographs. It's all about the abilities of these two shooters and the quality of their retouching.
I shoot the IQ260 and the A7r side by side. I prefer the Phase One file, but if I switched completely to the Sony, neither you nor my clients could ever tell the difference.
IMO,
CB
Which is in my view a few words that say more than a thousand pictures.
Please, also check out Joe Fletchers landscape images, that are shot in a different light, do you see the same magic?
Best regards
Erik
Hi guys, i'm new here.
I am architectural photographer and i love the color coming from the images of this two guys, that are identical:
http://scottfrances.com/
http://www.joefletcherphoto.com/projects
Does anyone know with wich system or camera/digital back are they shot?
I have used Sony a7r and Canon 5dIII and these images aren't definitely coming from this cameras.
Thanks in advance!
-
Erik,
I knew there was some iron in your soul!
Edmund
PS. Is there a "pun" emoji?
Oh Synn,
Sorry to hear that you are out of work!
Best regards
Erik
-
Erik,
I knew there was some iron in your soul!
Edmund
PS. Is there a "pun" emoji?
There is. Looks like an MTF graph.
-
Erik
Where did you find information on Scott and his techniques? Like other following this thread, I looked him up and found only one brief interview where he talked about technique. It didn't say much.
-
Thanks to all you guys for your responses! :) :)
-
Hi,
I have seen some references, but I am less sure now. Very clear that he is shooting Canon, but that does not exclude that he is also shooting something else.
Just take me, I am shooting Sony but I am also shooting a P45+ on Hasselblad. So you could call me Sony shooter, or a Phase One shooter. Even Hasselblad shooter would be quite OK.
Best regards
Erik
Erik
Where did you find information on Scott and his techniques? Like other following this thread, I looked him up and found only one brief interview where he talked about technique. It didn't say much.
-
Thanks to all you guys for your responses! :) :)
Thank you for coming back.
-
But this is not how camera works. All digital cameras have limited color "accuracy" and the amount and direction of deviation is carefully chosen by the manufacturer (mainly by selecting the filter array pigments). The deviation is chosen to give "pleasing" colours. The choices are different between general usage cameras (which, as a rule, must be able to work under lights of varied types) and for cameras mainly used in studios (which mainly use flash).
I think that the explanation is closer to a mundane, pragmatic one.
Color filters are nothing like designing a digital or electronic filter, where there is a continous range of component/values to choose from, meaning that you have the liberty of "move the peak by 1% to the right, then broaden it slightly". Rather, it seems that color filters are selected from a discrete set of substances that may have certain spectral properties, but also certain life-expectancy, light loss, cost, etc. Thus, it might not be only a matter of employing a color scientist to tweak filter numbers in Matlab.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_filter_array#Manufacture_of_the_CFA
In U.S.P.# 4,808,501, Carl Chiulli cites the use of 5 chemicals, three of which are C.I. #12715, AKA Solvent Red 8; Solvent Yellow 88; and C.I. # 61551, Solvent Blue 36. In U.S.P. # 5,096,801 Koya et al., of Fuji Photo Film company, list some 150-200 chemical structures, mainly azo dyes and pyrazolone-diazenyl, but fail to provide chemical names, CAS Registry numbers, or Colour Index numbers.
By choosing less selective filters, a larger number of photons will hit the sensor. Thus, less (luminance) noise is to be expected. This is a trade-off for the manufacturer, and I would not be surprised if those targeting studio users with plenty of light see it differently from those targeting live action photographers.
I believe that when manufacturers create a certain "color look" (and I believe that they do), this is mainly something that is done in the in-camera JPEG development (or in-house stand-alone raw converter). That is the place to do "pleasing" colors.
-h
-
Hi,
Stuart Richardson found this article: http://news.vh-artists.com/scott-frances-featured-in-september-2012-pdn/
I read some articles where he explained how he works.
Many posters are very equipment fixed, I don't think really good photographers care that much about equipment makes, but want stuff that does the job and does it well. I guess for real photographers it is more about having good and reliable tools than about bragging rights, and that may the reason they don't announce what equipment they use on each posting they make. That may be one reason it is hard to find info on what foretold two photographers use.
Some photographers share a lot of good information, Chris Barret comes to mind, or Rainer_v and many others.
I can also mention Steve Hendrix of Capture Information, all information coming from him seems to good and solid.
Best regards
Erik
Erik
Where did you find information on Scott and his techniques? Like other following this thread, I looked him up and found only one brief interview where he talked about technique. It didn't say much.
-
I didn't really have the stomach to read all that stuff, and I just skimmed the first page, and looked at the links....my take is that most of their particular look is coming in post production, especially since most of it seems to be taken with available light.
-
Color filters are nothing like designing a digital or electronic filter, where there is a continous range of component/values to choose from, meaning that you have the liberty of "move the peak by 1% to the right, then broaden it slightly". Rather, it seems that color filters are selected from a discrete set of substances that may have certain spectral properties, but also certain life-expectancy, light loss, cost, etc.
Yes, but manufacturers still have the choice between a large amount of combinations. Moreover, we know that the filters are different between manufacturers. It stands to reason that manufacturers use that choice to tweak the rendering of the camera.
By choosing less selective filters, a larger number of photons will hit the sensor. Thus, less (luminance) noise is to be expected.
More photons will hit the sensors, but the color matrix will need to use large negative coefficients to subtract thee common parts. The net effect is usually more noise for more permissive filters, actually.
This is a trade-off for the manufacturer, and I would not be surprised if those targeting studio users with plenty of light see it differently from those targeting live action photographers.
I was discussing the quality of the light, not its quantity. Press photographers, for example, routinely shoot under fluorescent light (think indoor stadium, etc...). With an "accurate" camera everything will turn yellow-green and it will very difficult to get a passable white balance. With a less accurate camera, its colour "blindness" may be tweaked to be adapted to these illuminant. It is quite easy to test, actually: take a portrait under fluorescent light with different cameras and try to correct the white balance. The differences will surprise you.
-
Yes, but manufacturers still have the choice between a large amount of combinations. Moreover, we know that the filters are different between manufacturers. It stands to reason that manufacturers use that choice to tweak the rendering of the camera.
There is little doubt that manufacturers (of sensors and/or cameras) can choose different filter characteristics, and that they do.
This does not prove that they do this in order to make colors appear "pleasing" in the sense of saturated colors, bottle-green foliage etc. I'd argue that they don't. Have a look at a non-corrected image file straight from camera, and it is obvious that raw camera response is very far from the consumer-friendly "bigger-than-real-life" colors. Rather, they look washed-out, under-saturated and dull.
More photons will hit the sensors, but the color matrix will need to use large negative coefficients to subtract thee common parts. The net effect is usually more noise for more permissive filters, actually.
If you have no CFA, then you will have a better achromatic camera (see the noise/sensitivity of the CFA-less Leica for instance) but no color information. If you widen the filters, you will have something in-between those extremes.
This has to be traded against the higher expected chrominance noise. Applications may vary, and some people may be mostly interested in b&w photography, or they may be perfectly happy with doing more heavy-handed noise reduction in the color difference channels.
I was discussing the quality of the light, not its quantity. Press photographers, for example, routinely shoot under fluorescent light (think indoor stadium, etc...). With an "accurate" camera everything will turn yellow-green and it will very difficult to get a passable white balance. With a less accurate camera, its colour "blindness" may be tweaked to be adapted to these illuminant. It is quite easy to test, actually: take a portrait under fluorescent light with different cameras and try to correct the white balance. The differences will surprise you.
I use a Colorchecker for my purposes, and I am surprised at _how little_ my camera matters for color in my applications. I can't see if an image was shot with my RX100M2 or my 7D from colors alone. I am very happy about that, as it allows me to select what camera to use based on other criteria (e.g. portability or AF performance).
I do acknowledge that other people may have other uses and expectations than myself.
-h
-
Rather, it seems that color filters are selected from a discrete set of substances that may have certain spectral properties, but also certain life-expectancy, light loss, cost, etc. Thus, it might not be only a matter of employing a color scientist to tweak filter numbers in Matlab.
Hey, I thought we agreed to keep this quiet. It's hard enough getting a color science gig as it is. ;)
Jim
-
Hey, I thought we agreed to keep this quiet. It's hard enough getting a color science gig as it is. ;)
Jim
Yeah, if people knew you didn't have to take Linear Algebra 1xx to get that job, there would probably be failed english majors lining up for each position :)
I really hate Matlab, and yet every time I need to read in a real-life file rather than just an array of numbers, I have to dig out that horrible thing.
Edmund
-
I really hate Matlab...
I like Matlab for letting me focus on _what_ instead of _how_. That is compared to other software packages, of course. Someone whose main focus is a white-board might think otherwise.
-h
-
I like Matlab for letting me focus on _what_ instead of _how_. That is compared to other software packages, of course. Someone whose main focus is a white-board might think otherwise.
-h
I usually do stuff entirely in my head and paper for weeks, the actual proof of concept on computer is then usually a day or two at most.
My advantage is that I can "work" anywhere in any scrap of time.
But I guess the young crowd use the computer instead of paper. I don't know if it's better, but it certainly is a different way of working.
At the moment I'm thinking of simplifying the MTF/SFR measurement stuff of MTF 50 down to rise time. I wrote some Matlab code a year ago (5 lines? ) that reads in a target image and computes the rise time, I need to check it against "real" (ISO) MTF and find out whether in practice there really is a useful relationship ... you got any opinions? I found a paper from some HP folks who defended this point of view.
Edmund
-
Out of curiosity, I opened some D800 raw files in C1Pro8 Demo version using both Nikon and IQ 250 Daylight profiles; however, I fail to see any major difference that I expected based on what has mentioned here. Am I missing something? By the way, I use Windows 8.1 with a 10-bit monitor that is calibrated regularly every two weeks.
Image on the left using Nikon D800 Generic V2, and on the right the IQ 250.
at fit screen
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8394/15163314713_d2654fdc9e_o.jpg)
at 50%
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7562/15597949590_5283ac1eaa_o.jpg)
at 100%
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5616/15162791164_dda773f20d_o.jpg)
-
Most of the differences I have seen are with skintones as well as with highlight rolloff.
Perhaps, try with a portrait instead?
-
the red tree top left got more orange and more saturated, and the greens became more yellow
-
Most of the differences I have seen are with skintones as well as with highlight rolloff.
Perhaps, try with a portrait instead?
Which would be consistent with the 250C profile being a more carefully made and manually edited version of the same profile, or a profile for a very similar chip with a different cover glass / IR filter.
I'm not saying that's bad - I guess if you buy a musical instrument you also pay considerably more for it to be handmade and carefully tuned. In fact I used to sell hand-edited portrait profiles for non-Phase cameras :)
On the other hand, if the only color difference between a D810 and a $30K back is going to be the profile you use in the converter, then Phase are certainly going to have a commercial issue making people pay for the hardware. But we knew that already :)
One interesting test would be to stack some ND filters and redo a test image on both cameras with and without filters; that might show up the differences in IR contamination and control of IR.
Edmund
-
the red tree top left got more orange and more saturated, and the greens became more yellow
Yes, but very very subtle and it can't be used to hold up the claim that IQ250 is substantially better for D800 raw files. At least that's my observation.
I prefer capture very flat capture so that it can give me tons of room in post. I set my D800 to use a customized picture control profile similar to the Flat profile of D810 that makes a really flat capture without much contrast for the imbedded jpeg in raw file. But, i notice C1Pro 8, unlike Lightroom, simply discards that flat jpeg, which makes my work flow entirely miserable.
-
On the other hand, if the only color difference between a D810 and a $30K back is going to be the profile you use in the converter, then Phase are certainly going to have a commercial issue making people pay for the hardware. But we knew that already :)
Why do you always twist someone's words to suit your personal agenda? I said the profile makes a difference for D800 files. Never said it compares in any way to a phase file.
Phase is having zero commercial issues getting people to pay for the hardware, as I see them expanding their portfolio, not cutting down. Why is your "Handmade profile business for non phase cameras" not thriving anymore,if you were delivering MF quality at much lesser prices?
-
Why do you always twist someone's words to suit your personal agenda? I said the profile makes a difference for D800 files. Never said it compares in any way to a phase file.
Phase is having zero commercial issues getting people to pay for the hardware, as I see them expanding their portfolio, not cutting down. Why is your "Handmade profile business for non phase cameras" not thriving anymore,if you were delivering MF quality at much lesser prices?
Synn,
Let me take your remarks in order. First of all *I* say that the two sets of images above, posted by Gulag, are reasonably close, indicating the CFAs are close. This is a *subjective assessment*, by which I concur with an observation made by Gulag and Eric. You have a different opinion? Fine with me - I respect your eyesight. From my assessment, I conclude the CFAs are similar.
Concerning my profile business, actually at the time I profiled both Leica M8 and Phase sensors, and some Nikons and Canons. The dSLRs were really hit and miss, while the Leicas had CCD sensors very similar to the Phase backs of the time, and I profiled them with some special IR filters, and Leica customers were really happy to get decent images, which they didn't initially get with the C1 bundled profiles, through no fault of Phase's. I had some neutral profiles, which I established experimentally from measurements, but then I also removed some magenta casts that were causing issues for portraits of caucasian individuals, and manipulated the tone curve a bit to give what I thought was a more filmlike look. At the time I assembled some software that allowed me to concatenate looks into profiles, and quickly create a camera profile that had a desired look; I have no doubt that Phase have some similar tools, as do most color consultants who program.
Now, actually, if Leica hadn't foobarred the M8 design, the neutral M8 profiles would have coincided with the KAF profiles of Phase backs at the time as the M8 was a Kodak based mini-back AFAIK; in fact the M8 had stellar image quality at low ISO, as it had a good sensor and superb lenses, it just had fewer pixels than a back. Today history repeats again with the D810 a miniature version of the IQ250C sensor. Why should the D810 be any worse that the IQ250C?
Edmund
-
Edmund you are right.
But you (and a few other regulars) keep pounding and pounding on Phase continuously like a meat tenderizer on a slab of meat hoping it will soften up and give in and finally reduce prices to what you and others deem appropriate. This has been going on for years. You guys keep Doug and others busy trying to minimize the damage all this (discussions) might cause on potential phase customers that stumble on forums like this one looking for information.
Might be cool to sometimes take the price out of the discussions and just discuss the photographic capabilities and characteristics of the gear.
I know I know that the price bothers you and others a LOT and you are very disgruntled with Phase (you certainly are entitled to be) but it's getting somewhat tiring to continuously see similar posts over and over.
That said, the D810 seems to have a very different sensor compared to the A7R and the D800/E. I am liking the color much better on that camera from what I have seen posted. But it is still a Nikon 35mm DSLR.
-
Edmund you are right.
But you (and a few other regulars) keep pounding and pounding on Phase continuously like a meat tenderizer on a slab of meat hoping it will soften up and give in and finally reduce prices to what you and others deem appropriate. This has been going on for years. You guys keep Doug and others busy trying to minimize the damage all this (discussions) might cause on potential phase customers that stumble on forums like this one looking for information.
Might be cool to sometimes take the price out of the discussions and just discuss the photographic capabilities and characteristics of the gear.
I know I know that the price bothers you and others a LOT and you are very disgruntled with Phase (you certainly are entitled to be) but it's getting somewhat tiring to continuously see similar posts over and over.
That said, the D810 seems to have a very different sensor compared to the A7R and the D800/E. I am liking the color much better on that camera from what I have seen posted. But it is still a Nikon 35mm DSLR.
Ken,
You know, there might be something to what you say, re price. Let's give poor Doug some rest. I've had such a bad day that I can sympathize with his woes :)
Edmund
-
Edmund,
If you quote one of my posts and add a cheap shot at the end, I will take it as a response to my PoV.
The two images posted above are STILL from the same camera. It in NO WAY Infers that the Nikon (with the IQ 250 profile) delivers the same image quality as the IQ 250. The only thing it proves is that for certain subjects, the improvement offered by that profile over the standard nikon profiles is not apparent. You just keep pulling strawman argument after strawman argument because phase doesn't sell their stuff to you for 10 bucks and because some incompetent dealer screwed you over in 900 BC.
The ONLY way you can make the argument you currently are making is if you have the nikon and the phase and have shot extensively with both. Or at the very least, have raw files from both cameras of the same subjects that you have processed t your heart's content.
I would much rather learn swimming via post than listen to your opinions about equipment you haven't even touched or seen.
-
Synn,
As I wrote Ken, I am willing to give Phase and Doug a rest on the business issues, no problem. If I'm being boring, I'm boring..
As to the image stuff, let's agree to disagree; I think I prefer to discuss these issues with the other geeks.
Edmund
Edmund,
If you quote one of my posts and add a cheap shot at the end, I will take it as a response to my PoV.
The two images posted above are STILL from the same camera. It in NO WAY Infers that the Nikon (with the IQ 250 profile) delivers the same image quality as the IQ 250. The only thing it proves is that for certain subjects, the improvement offered by that profile over the standard nikon profiles is not apparent. You just keep pulling strawman argument after strawman argument because phase doesn't sell their stuff to you for 10 bucks and because some incompetent dealer screwed you over in 900 BC.
The ONLY way you can make the argument you currently are making is if you have the nikon and the phase and have shot extensively with both. Or at the very least, have raw files from both cameras of the same subjects that you have processed t your heart's content.
I would much rather learn swimming via post than listen to your opinions about equipment you haven't even touched or seen.
-
Most of the differences I have seen are with skintones as well as with highlight rolloff.
Perhaps, try with a portrait instead?
The image on the left with the D800 Generic v2 profile, the one on the right with the IQ250. I don't know but to my eyes the D800 Generic V2 looks better since it has less reddish skin tone.
1. at screen-fit
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8538/15172487593_4fe5d0b371_o.jpg)
2. at 33%
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5613/15606099639_d714380498_o.jpg)
3.at 50%
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8271/15791912925_861d7f21e5_o.jpg)
4.at 100%
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7555/15793481452_2bb7cb4898_o.jpg)
-
Hi,
I would agree, in this case.
I am not so surprised the IQ-250 profile is usable the D800, as it is applied late in the conversion process.
My understanding is that a colour conversion matrix (sometimes called compromise matrix) is applied to the sensor output to move it into XYZ coordinates and the XYZ coordinates may be mapped into an internal working space using another conversion matrix. Finally an output profile combining matrix operations and LUT (look up table) based tweaks are applied before the image is presented on screen.
So the camera profile is actually applied at late in the process, long after base conversion is done.
Best regards
Erik
The image on the left with the D800 Generic v2 profile, the one on the right with the IQ250. I don't know but to my eyes the D800 Generic V2 looks better since it has less reddish skin tone.
1. at screen-fit
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8538/15172487593_4fe5d0b371_o.jpg)
2. at 33%
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5613/15606099639_d714380498_o.jpg)
3.at 50%
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8271/15791912925_861d7f21e5_o.jpg)
4.at 100%
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7555/15793481452_2bb7cb4898_o.jpg)
-
The image on the left with the D800 Generic v2 profile, the one on the right with the IQ250. I don't know but to my eyes the D800 Generic V2 looks better since it has less reddish skin tone.
Hi,
Just wondering, did you use the same white balance for both renderings, or did you re-adjust WB based on the specific profile choice?
Cheers,
Bart
-
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr4-detailed-spec-sheet-of-the-new-sony-apcs-active-pixel-color-sampling-sensor/
New sony sensor, high frecuency shifting color filter for "true RGB" and 21stops DR @ iso 5120 with global shutter. Seems too good to be truth.
-
Hi,
Just wondering, did you use the same white balance for both renderings, or did you re-adjust WB based on the specific profile choice?
Cheers,
Bart
No, i didn't do anything except I used different camera profile. My raw conversion is very simple because I just take whatever raw convert gives, in my case ACR, using all the default values. All other stuff are done in Photoshop. That's why I prefer very flat raw capture so that color, contrast and tones can be completely manipulated in Photoshop. I feel C1Pro8 adds too much contrast and saturation and it completely ignores embedded jpeg of raw file.
-
it completely ignores embedded jpeg of raw file.
I am curious as to why you want the RAW converter to "copy" "mimic" "mirror" the jpeg. The jpeg is set in camera with, in Nikons, considerable adjustments already cooked in. If you want your RAW when processed to look like the jpeg produced by the in camera settings, and I can see why in some circumstances you may want that, why not just use the jpeg?
-
No, i didn't do anything except I used different camera profile. My raw conversion is very simple because I just take whatever raw convert gives, in my case ACR, using all the default values. All other stuff are done in Photoshop. That's why I prefer very flat raw capture so that color, contrast and tones can be completely manipulated in Photoshop. I feel C1Pro8 adds too much contrast and saturation and it completely ignores embedded jpeg of raw file.
So change the default base characteristics in c1 to linear. No contrast will be added by default and you can roll your own curves.
-
So change the default base characteristics in c1 to linear. No contrast will be added by default and you can roll your own curves.
Thanks. That's the way to do it. Now I learn.
-
I am curious as to why you want the RAW converter to "copy" "mimic" "mirror" the jpeg. The jpeg is set in camera with, in Nikons, considerable adjustments already cooked in. If you want your RAW when processed to look like the jpeg produced by the in camera settings, and I can see why in some circumstances you may want that, why not just use the jpeg?
I have mentioned earlier that I like to do very very flat raw capture because I use my own modified Picture Control profile similar to Nikon D810 Flat profile but even flatter. The embedded jpg is what I see on the LCD and I also need to see that same start RAW image right after I bring it into Photoshop before I decide what to do with it.
-
I have mentioned earlier that I like to do very very flat raw capture because I use my own modified Picture Control profile similar to Nikon D810 Flat profile but even flatter. The embedded jpg is what I see on the LCD and I also need to see that same start RAW image right after I bring it into Photoshop before I decide what to do with it.
I understand now, thanks for your patience.
-
I can understand wanting a flat file to be taken to PS, but not setting white balance in the raw converter is a bad practice.
Also, in the two samples shown, to my eyes the iq250 profile has better transitions between areas in the skin (cheek to edges of the face) with more aubtones while the D800 profile has that "global" color look that I am not a fan of. Again, this is subjective as unlike gulag, I cook my RAWs a bit before I take them to PS.
-
I can understand wanting a flat file to be taken to PS, but not setting white balance in the raw converter is a bad practice.
Also, in the two samples shown, to my eyes the iq250 profile has better transitions between areas in the skin (cheek to edges of the face) with more aubtones while the D800 profile has that "global" color look that I am not a fan of. Again, this is subjective as unlike gulag, I cook my RAWs a bit before I take them to PS.
Over the years I have found Photoshop is far superior to any raw converters. In Photoshop, for example, I can turn a layer into a smart object and open it in ACR on the fly if I need to modify WB to a particular setting or for a particular area of an image. In addition, I can manipulate hue, color, saturation, contrast based on tons of selection methods that are not available in any raw converters. In other words, normally I am not after any global adjustments. Of course, I wouldn't use Photoshop if I had to shoot events and ended up with tons of images since that's what raw converters really intended for. As to skin tones, there are more than fifty ways to manipulate them in Photoshop, quickly and easily. That is not an issue at all. Back to the original question, I believe Photoshop can give you all the controls for color work. For example, one of the latest tools is the 3D Color Lookup Table.
-
Yes, I do use all those tools in PS as and when needed and I still prefer to do some basic adjustments in the raw converter. I pointed out white balance specifically because the moment you take it to PS, even as a 16 bit, prophoto RGB tiff, you're assigning a color space and you have to work within that gamut. I am sure people who are more tech inclined than me can explain the intricacies of this better.
But as I said, this is a subjective issue and there's a 1001 ways to post process, each having its own pluses and minuses. Mine works for me but with your workflow, I don't see a different color profile adding any value. Like Doug said, using the linear curve will give you the sort of file you want.
-
Most people do care about 16-bit vs 32-bit, that kind of stuff. As far as I know, many top-notch professional retouchers, I mean the ones who work with big budget big name project, normally only work with 8-bit workflow in Photoshop. Of course, 16-bit color raw file is nice but 14-bit or even 12-bit doesn't matter much for the final output, at least for them. Back to the OP, if you are after color, learn Photoshop or GIMP well in addition to lighting. Alternatively, you can hire the best retouchers that you can afford.
-
Most people do care about 16-bit vs 32-bit, that kind of stuff. As far as I know, many top-notch professional retouchers, I mean the ones who work with big budget big name project, normally only work with 8-bit workflow in Photoshop. Of course, 16-bit color raw file is nice but 14-bit or even 12-bit doesn't matter much for the final output, at least for them. Back to the OP, if you are after color, learn Photoshop or GIMP well in addition to lighting. Alternatively, you can hire the best retouchers that you can afford.
We clearly know different retouchers, then. ;)
Still image editors work with bigger color depth and then output in 8 bit for the same reason as video editors working in Prores 422/ 444 and exporting as h.264 420. You should have as much headroom as possible while pushing color values to avoid clipping.
If you do not care about bit depths etc. Just shoot a flat profile JPEG in camera. The RAW file will add no real advantage to the workflow and you can go straight to PS.
-
Gulag,
You want to preserve the workflow which starts with your own tailored Nikon in-camera profile and Jpeg, which helps you with shooting.
There is no reason why Phase One's software or Adobe's in fact, should be *best* to help you with a Nikon workflow. In fact, Nikon's software is the one tailored for Nikon cameras and the one to be employed when one wishes to reproduce on the computer side all the quirks of the Nikon in-camera processing.
Your most appropriate workflow would be via the Nikon raw conversion software, which should be able to recognize your personal edited in-camera picture profile. I think even the free Nikon View can do what you want, and export Tiffs. C1 just renders the way its authors decided to do things, which happens to suit many of their customers, while Adobe go to some pains to imitate the stock Nikon or Canon profiles, but I don't think they will recognize and apply your own embedded picture profile - the one you use to create the in-camera Jpeg that is to your personal liking.
It may take some work to configure the Nikon software to apply your picture profile, either it picks it up from the file or you'll have to bring it across to the computer with the picture profile utility or recreate it on the computer with Nikon's picture profile editor.
A question on a Nikon forum should elicit an answer from a real Nikon software expert. Some of the people above who have schooled you on postprocessing are associated with Phase, and it is only natural that they should view the world through the prism of the software which they use daily. They are genuinely helpful, their advice is good, but it is more intended for people who look at a C1 screen with a tethered camera running C1, with a view to using the same C1 color for retouch, than it is for someone looking at the screen on the back of a Nikon to make shooting decisions. If you really want to shoot what you see on a preview based on in-camera picture profiles, the obvious way to get what you want is to stay with the Nikon software.
If I may use an analogy, the advice you're being given is like being told how to filter Kodachrome to try and make it look a bit more like Fujichrome. While it might have been possible to do this, it sounds more logical to just try and stay with the brand that has the look you want.
Edmund
PS. The problem with all these look emulations is that the "signature" of a look is often not in the core zones of the images. The emulsion or look shows off its personality most strongly in the falloff behavior, the shadow and highlight tints, eg. the face shadows or where the spaces between leaves go dark or show the sun, and these limit behaviors are really hard to replicate, be it in picking up the signature of an emulsion or just that of a digital camera.
-
We clearly know different retouchers, then. ;)
Still image editors work with bigger color depth and then output in 8 bit for the same reason as video editors working in Prores 422/ 444 and exporting as h.264 420. You should have as much headroom as possible while pushing color values to avoid clipping.
If you do not care about bit depths etc. Just shoot a flat profile JPEG in camera. The RAW file will add no real advantage to the workflow and you can go straight to PS.
Yes, that is the orthodoxy. BUT, reality can bite mercilessly. It's not uncommon to have hundreds if not thousands layers in a single psd file. There's nothing gained without a loss. Like everything else in life, it's all about trade-offs, unfortunately.
-
Thanks for the detailed explanations.