In the hubbub about the new FF CMOS 100mp backs, I'm wondering what happened to all those arguments that CCD sensors gave a better, cleaner result at base ISO, than CMOS? Was that marketing hyperbole, or still partly true? The discussion seems to have evaporated!
Reminds me of Apple a decade ago telling us all how much more powerful their PowerPC processors were than Intel's ones, and then... switching to Intel's PC processors, because they were, in fact, faster!
For many years it was DR, then when it became all too obvious that a handful of DSLR were ahead, it moved to micro detail related to the lack of AA filter, then DSLRs did that too. Then it became the unique look of the lenses... until Otus was born... then all that was left ended up being colors and some magic CCD properties. ;)
Interesting since, as Doug listed several times here, the backs have a long list of objectives advantages when compared to DSLR (not to mention personal preferences that is a valid ratinale). It would seem that for some owners those aren't as important as the confidence that their imaging device has some magically superior qualities.
Cheers,
Bernard
My reasons to choose CMOS over CCD:
a) CMOS has real Live View;
b) Fullframe CCD has more tiling issues;
c) CCD overheats fast;
d) CCD relies on long exposure noise reduction (darkframe noise reduction);
e) Fullframe CCD has corner issues for long exposure, and is essentially turned into crop;
f) CCD requires more calibrations for read noise;
g) CCD has less DR and worse high ISO performance.
+1
Point d) is critical enough for me to give up CCD.
I think it is like CD vs Vinyl.
Anyway, photography is a commercial art and Sony sensors are the new Ektachrome. ..................
Edmund
By extension, is CCD the new Kodachrome?
................... Kodachrome is totally RIP, flatlined, ded ;)
Edmund
Indeed it is, and despite the shortcomings, its rendering was magical.
I agree - which is why we are left with Ektachrome - adequate, convenient and cheap always wins over good, more expensive or harder to use. A generalised form of Gresham's law. Wait, is this relevant to CMOS chasing out CMOS? No way, I must be offtopic as usual.
Edmund
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/greshams-law.asp
In the hubbub about the new FF CMOS 100mp backs, I'm wondering what happened to all those arguments that CCD sensors gave a better, cleaner result at base ISO, than CMOS? Was that marketing hyperbole, or still partly true? The discussion seems to have evaporated!
Reminds me of Apple a decade ago telling us all how much more powerful their PowerPC processors were than Intel's ones, and then... switching to Intel's PC processors, because they were, in fact, faster!
I went with CCD for a major issue with CMOS at the time. There were no CMOS FF MFDB backs in 2010.
In the hubbub about the new FF CMOS 100mp backs, I'm wondering what happened to all those arguments that CCD sensors gave a better, cleaner result at base ISO, than CMOS? Was that marketing hyperbole, or still partly true? The discussion seems to have evaporated!
Reminds me of Apple a decade ago telling us all how much more powerful their PowerPC processors were than Intel's ones, and then... switching to Intel's PC processors, because they were, in fact, faster!
Sure from a technological point of view CMOS has surpassed CCD - but doesn't mean it's the best choice for everyone.
CCD
a. is cheaper
b. is more readily available
c. comes in a lot of varieties up to 80mpx
d. is tested and proven and reliable technology
e. still delivers great image quality and great resolution and DR
(for P1 only: f. has Sensor+which is a nice feature.)
A photographer who works mainly inside a studio has no real need for a great high ISO performance or an additional stop of DR but he may want to also buy a tech cam for product shots and another powerful flash head and use the highest resolution he can afford.
Right now CMOS is better from a technological point of view, but CCD sensors are also excellent and they are cheaper especially when it comes to 2nd hand market - and that's a big deal. Personally I couldn't afford a CMOS DB and I have no need for it.
So for me the CCD is "better".
Sure from a technological point of view CMOS has surpassed CCD - but doesn't mean it's the best choice for everyone.
CCD
a. is cheaper
b. is more readily available
c. comes in a lot of varieties up to 80mpx
d. is tested and proven and reliable technology
e. still delivers great image quality and great resolution and DR
(for P1 only: f. has Sensor+which is a nice feature.)
A photographer who works mainly inside a studio has no real need for a great high ISO performance or an additional stop of DR but he may want to also buy a tech cam for product shots and another powerful flash head and use the highest resolution he can afford.
Right now CMOS is better from a technological point of view, but CCD sensors are also excellent and they are cheaper especially when it comes to 2nd hand market - and that's a big deal. Personally I couldn't afford a CMOS DB and I have no need for it.
So for me the CCD is "better".
Sure from a technological point of view CMOS has surpassed CCD - but doesn't mean it's the best choice for everyone.
CCD
a. is cheaper
b. is more readily available
c. comes in a lot of varieties up to 80mpx
d. is tested and proven and reliable technology
e. still delivers great image quality and great resolution and DR
(for P1 only: f. has Sensor+which is a nice feature.)
A photographer who works mainly inside a studio has no real need for a great high ISO performance or an additional stop of DR but he may want to also buy a tech cam for product shots and another powerful flash head and use the highest resolution he can afford.
Right now CMOS is better from a technological point of view, but CCD sensors are also excellent and they are cheaper especially when it comes to 2nd hand market - and that's a big deal. Personally I couldn't afford a CMOS DB and I have no need for it.
So for me the CCD is "better".
Agreed. While the latest CMOS back costs in the $40K range, I got a brand-new H5D-50 system for a fraction of that. It's extremely well-made and blows away anything else I've used. True Focus is a godsend. Lenses are great and easily gotten in the second-hand market. No dark frame required on a tech camera. Yes, it gets noisier at higher ISOs. So what? Be a pro and light your shot, including the location. Frankly, using more lighting rather than relying on available light has helped bring my work to the next level and look different from the competition. And CCD noise at high ISOs, if you go that route, isn't bad looking, and doesn't even show up unless you're printing quite large.
The former top cameras in the world don't suddenly become irrelevant because something newer comes out. That's the technology trap that the manufacturers want you to fall into. CMOS sensors are great tools, but so are CCDs.
Agreed. While the latest CMOS back costs in the $40K range, I got a brand-new H5D-50 system for a fraction of that. It's extremely well-made and blows away anything else I've used. True Focus is a godsend. Lenses are great and easily gotten in the second-hand market. No dark frame required on a tech camera. Yes, it gets noisier at higher ISOs. So what? Be a pro and light your shot, including the location. Frankly, using more lighting rather than relying on available light has helped bring my work to the next level and look different from the competition. And CCD noise at high ISOs, if you go that route, isn't bad looking, and doesn't even show up unless you're printing quite large.
The former top cameras in the world don't suddenly become irrelevant because something newer comes out. That's the technology trap that the manufacturers want you to fall into. CMOS sensors are great tools, but so are CCDs.
Even DPReview has criticized the DR of the Canon 5DSR because sometimes it's not possible to have DR within control even if you own the most expensive Broncolor.
Absolutely. Not surprising. And that's a CMOS sensor. In a case like this, if you really want to shoot with the sunset behind the talent and you want nice detail everywhere, the solution is to stay on the tripod, shoot plates at varying exposures, and composite in post.
That's a CMOS sensor from Canon, which is known to have limited DR as the CCD sensors. If you shoot with a CMOS sensor from Sony (e.g. IQ3 100MP, IQ3 50MP, Nikon D810 etc) then you would have a huge room for shadow recovery in post-processing.
That's a CMOS sensor from Canon, which is known to have limited DR as the CCD sensors. If you shoot with a CMOS sensor from Sony (e.g. IQ3 100MP, IQ3 50MP, Nikon D810 etc) then you would have a huge room for shadow recovery in post-processing.
Or. And there always is one.
Simply create an image that shadows are a creative element and part of the composition. Yes its prudent that a craftsman understands a camera's inherent limitations (such as Dynamic range) but probably not to the extent that the artist inside spends all the time pixel baiting rather than picture making.
This is not directed at Yunli Song or anyone in particular. Just a random off-topic thought. Its a fruitless idea of arguing for limitations and not nurturing the imagination.
Burnouts are also a creative element, but they work better on film than digital.Burnouts depend on exposure not on media... Intentional burn outs look the same on film or CDD MF sensor... That's why MF CDDs are exposed for the highlights as film was... (by the knowledgeable).
Edmund
Burnouts depend on exposure not on media... Intentional burn outs look the same on film or CDD MF sensor... That's why MF CDDs are exposed for the highlights as film was... (by the knowledgeable).
In film days we exposed transparencies for highlight and negative films for shadows. But, deciding what highlight needed to be included in the picture was always a compromise.
| Camera | Photographic DR (BClaff) | Pixel peeping DR (DxO screen mode) |
| Phase One IQ 180 | 10.8 (derived from DxO) | 11.89 |
| Phase One IQ260 | 9.99 | |
| Nikon D810 | 11.51 | 13.67 |
| Sony a7rII | 11.38 | 12.69 |
Speaking of film and CCD vs CMOS and the dynamic range..is the difference really significant?: (DxO may be a bit biased but that's a good estimate of the capabilities of those cameras/backs)
PhaseOne IQ180
about 13.5 DR
Sony A7R II
about 13.9 DR
Nikon D810
about 14.8 DR
I think we're talking about numbers that simply don't mean a lot any more. Really high quality negative film has (or rather had) a DR of 12-13 max, slide film only about 7 - and we're talking about a difference of 0.4 or 1.3 (still well beyond a DR of 12) and call it 'bad'?
When is good enough good enough?
If it has real life consequences that's one thing, but I seriously doubt anyone of us ever thought "if only I had that liiittle bit of additional dynamic range that would look so much better". In all honesty - who can truthfully claim to have missed or ruined a shot because of a lack of 0.4 or 1.3 DR?
I see so many examples of people going DR-mad and making everything into surreal HDRs that look horrible while really breathtaking landscapes show a much narrower overall dynamic range in the finished photo.
So why are there so many people who find it necessary to belittle technology for an 'advantage' they can't and don't even really use?
When is good enough good enough?
Hi,
I would agree as I feel that we have ample DR, mostly. I have seldom felt me limited by DR.
I know a guy who organises workshops and he shoots both Nikon 810 and Canon 5D/5DsR. His take on the issue that he needs to bracket a bit more with the Canon and sometimes needs HDR, while with the Nikon he can just expose to the right. But, most of the time he shoots Canon.
Bill Claff has calculated another DR which is based on a reasonable signal/noise ratio that he calls photographic DR:
Sure the 5Ds/r has a rather 'low' DR of about 12.4, that could be critical in some moments - but I highly doubt Bill Claffs "calculations" of photographic DR especially when he says the IQ180 has a better DR-performance than the 260. (edit: or was that figure of the 180 just directly taken from DxO? It's not really clear)
That's just nonsense, they should be at least equal and maybe with a slight advantage for the 260 because of its pixel size (not much but a little).
Besides , his definition and calculation of "photographic DR" is completely arbitrary and has no comparative basis with film photography so I don't think that would be a good argument against my last comment.
Here is the only test I have ever seen where you can see the effects of S/N in color discrimination without numerical pixel peeping. It's CFV50C against Sony A7R2, and somehow the Hassy wins very convincingly.
You need to zoom the images of cards with words printed on them and try to read the sentence ...
http://www.revoirfoto.com/pr/index.php?pg=128&c=4&lg=
Edmund
Besides , his definition and calculation of "photographic DR" is completely arbitrary and has no comparative basis with film photography so I don't think that would be a good argument against my last comment.
Sure the 5Ds/r has a rather 'low' DR of about 12.4, that could be critical in some moments - but I highly doubt Bill Claffs "calculations" of photographic DR especially when he says the IQ180 has a better DR-performance than the 260. (edit: or was that figure of the 180 just directly taken from DxO? It's not really clear)
That's just nonsense, they should be at least equal and maybe with a slight advantage for the 260 because of its pixel size (not much but a little).
Besides , his definition and calculation of "photographic DR" is completely arbitrary and has no comparative basis with film photography so I don't think that would be a good argument against my last comment.
I'm talking about real world results.
Not number crunching on a spreadsheet.
Re-read my comments, I'm not denying that the modern CMOS in the 100MP back is technologically more advanced, all I'm saying is that it doesn't really matter all that much. I doubt you'll get more "ooh"s and "aaah"s in your next exhibition because of the new CMOS sensor if you've already been working with an 80 or 60mpx back before and I don't think you'll notice the difference when you're working with it either.
I'm talking about real world results.
Not number crunching on a spreadsheet.
Re-read my comments, I'm not denying that the modern CMOS in the 100MP back is technologically more advanced, all I'm saying is that it doesn't really matter all that much. I doubt you'll get more "ooh"s and "aaah"s in your next exhibition because of the new CMOS sensor if you've already been working with an 80 or 60mpx back before and I don't think you'll notice the difference when you're working with it either.
What you will notice is the improvement when it comes to higher ISO settings - but the additional Dynamic Range difference doesn't make that much of a difference in the real world any more, ±13.4 is plenty and I highly doubt you'll see a difference in your photos...
PS: CMOS ISO50 vs CCD ISO200 is not a good comparison...and in the last photo the IQ380 looks worse than my P65+ pushed by 4 stops with standard settings in CaptureOne.
Dynamic range is only one parameter of sensor quality. Color response is another and it is affected by the choice of the CFA filters used on the sensor as discussed in this (http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-500D-T1i-vs.-Nikon-D5000/Color-blindness-sensor-quality) in depth comparison of a Nikon and Canon cameras on DXO. Do you want better color rendering or better low light performance?
Hi Christoph, the reason I believe the 380 is at 200 ISO in the test is because it was a long exposure and the LE and the LE mode on the 380 starts at a base of ISO 200. I think that was a 60 second exposure in that test if I read it correctly.
In that case it's fair. Or rather it would be fair if the 100mp back was also set to 200 or if they had compared a 'normal' exposure with another 'normal' exposure at a similar low ISO.
Otherwise you're not showing how much performance the back really has and how much better it really is.
Or maybe then the difference would be 0 and it wouldn't entice people to buy it...who knows?
That's why I posed the question whether anyone here ever encountered problems with the 'limited' DR on the recent CCD backs.
As I said: Show me two files that were shot with the lowest ISO setting at a normal exposure time, then we'll see if there's any real difference :)
Interestingly there is one $100 solution to get an instant DR upgrade under bad light: use a filter to balance the channels.
Even in the situation that you have a flat horizon, an ND grad filter will block any cloud higher than the sun (see the underexposed cloud above the sun?), forcing you to rely on DR of the sensor.
Yunil,not an ND filter, but a warming or cooling filter. The sensor only has one "ideal" color temperature where the channels are balanced and all the RD is really available.
Edmund
I already did. You could download the files by Doug from DT: https://digitaltransitions.com/massive-still-life-shootout/
The lowest.
ISO 50 vs ISO 50
Not ISO 50 vs ISO 200.
I posted ISO 50 vs ISO 50. What make you think it's ISO 50 vs ISO 200? Are the ISO numbers not clear enough in the screenshot? You could always click on the image to enlarge it.
Really? So those aren't modified? No brightened shadows beyond reason and use? Would you ever do that to a photo? Really really?
The difference in the highlights is negligible.
And as I already stated - even the files on my P65+ look much better when pushed by 4 stops with the standard basic settings in CaptureOne. That's why I don't think your examples are realistic or useful.
I can't help it - this just looks wrong. Like a cut-out... I get where you're coming from but I wouldn't do that even if I could, it just doesn't work for me and that's less photography and more 'photo-art' to my eyes. If it works for you - well then good for you! :)
But I prefer setting up lights and doing as much as possible in-camera.
Modified files without a comprehensive guide as to what was changed are NOT an honest basis for a comparison, especially when you don't provide a before and after photo and the neutral images.
I understand that a warming/cooling filter could balance the R/G/B/G2 channels, but then again even for a straight skyline you still have to deal with any cloud higher than the sun. Also it requires an LCC shot to be made to really correct the color casts of the color filter.
As I said: Show me two files that were shot with the lowest ISO setting at a normal exposure time, then we'll see if there's any real difference :)
I know that a longer exposure and higher ISO doesn't work well on CCD chips - but have you ever considered that not everyone takes 60s exposures with ISO 200 or 400 on a daily basis?
If the image quality on ISO 50/100 is pretty much the same then I doubt most of 'us' would consider upgrading to a CMOS back if they never use such a long exposure time and/or a high ISO. Personally I shoot most landscape stuff at ISO50-100 and my longest exposures take between 5-10s and my usual print size is either 50x40cm or 80x60cm / 20x16 and 32x24inches.
Is there a real big discernible benefit for me? I doubt that.
Is there a real big discernible benefit for most users of the current CCD backs? I doubt that too.
Or course there are people who'll need it, people who take very long exposures at night or people who want to shoot portraits outside during the early dawn and the late dusk - whatever the reason there are people who might actually need it. But not everyone because it's not better in every situation. Your last comment highlights exactly that.
If you weren't keen on those super-long exposures a CCD would do perfectly well.
The issue you're describing is less due to the max possible Dynamic Range with the sensor but more due to its bad performance with long exposures.
Also I think I do see some strange issues with colours that are between yellow and green - it seems that CMOS doesn't capture greens as well but had the tendency to favour reds and yellows (see below). I think that's very interesting because here you can find a similar issue with the sensor in the Canon CMOS:
https://www.photigy.com/canon-5d-mark-ii-and-phaseone-p25-does-a-physical-sensor-size-make-a-difference/
Also weak on greens but stronger on yellows and reds, it doesn't look balanced and you get a similar result form the 50mpx and 100mpx CMOS sensor... when you look at the tripod in the left corner it's very strong, almost over-saturated - while the green sheet in the window looks very pale and almost mint-green. The IQ380 delivers a more neutral tripod-colour and a saturated green sheet - also the reflection in the 100% crop is much more on the green side while both CMOS-chips 'see' it as yellow.
Again you might think that the problem in on the side of the IQ380 but it's strange that the same effect appears when you compare an old CCD back to a newer CMOS sensor (like in the link above) and the flower was indeed more green than yellow.
Would it be at all possible to correct that with a colour profile or would that mess with the yellow tones overall?
to my recollection the thread title seems to focus on only a single point out of what was the original discussion which wasn't about CCD vs CMOS but was about the supposed "medium format look". CCD vs Cmos was only one element of that discussion which was theorized by some as one of the reason for the supposed "difference".
No need to resurrect it, just thought I'd mention it. To me it's always been about resolution and the ability to oversample the data as much as possible to reduce artifacts. My only fear of moving to the 100mp back is the issues discussed when shifting the lenses. I decided even if I lose a little shift I want the improved live view for my tech system .. I'll see if I made a mistake in a few weeks.
Christoph,
I'm dumb - what color is the tearoff sheet in the view camera really? Green or yellow? Is it fluorescent?
Reflections can be hard because they can be polarised ...
Edmund
I have the iPad Pro as well - one of the first things I'll test is that as well as the iPhone 6+ and Live View.
BTW, I don't know if this is relevant here, but I have an iPad Pro, and I've noticed that although the camera is poor the framing and compositional control one gets while holding this large screen is nothing short of incredible.
The sheet is definitely green and it's less saturated and more mint-green in the CMOS files, whereas it looks normally saturated in the CCD file. However the tripod in the left corner is very over-saturated.
Are you telling me that CMOS sensors react differently to polarised light than CCD sensors? Both the 50mpx and the 100mpx back seem to suffer from the same affliction of not being able to tell apart green polarised light from yellow polarised light...
I don't think you're dumb and I don't think you're blind - but I still don't understand why you don't see the difference. Maybe you don't have a calibrated screen? I don't know - in any case the difference is clearly visible. Just look at the frame of the window - it has a definite green color cast with the IQ380 but not with the IQ3100 or the IQ350. Same goes for that book in the lower right corner and I do think that the green colours are correct in the IQ380 photo.
And I don't think it's a WB issue, the reds and blues in the background look quite alright, if your changed anything it might end up getting worse.
Actually the longer I look at it the more IQ3100 ceases to impress me, the IQ350 photo looks much better and cleaner...and that one has the older CMOS sensor.. very strange! The 100mpx back has a lot of colour noise which almost looks like red banding - the 50mpx back is totally clean - although it was exposed with a higher ISO setting!
Something's off!
I'm telling you that
- if you have mixed light in an image ANY TWO cameras that do not have identical sensors and profiles will diverge in rendering.
- if you have random polarised light in an image, again every sensor can react differently. This cannot be avoided.
- if there is a peaky color eg that tear-off green again cameras will diverge. Fluorescence means that the material is absorbing UV or visible light energy and re-emitting it as a different frequency/color. The re-emission can be very spiky and its color in an image can change very easily.
Also, you are gray balancing on something that is almost black, a bad idea. Choose a nice large uniform gray area.
My feeling is that this scene with mixed light, reflectiions and fluorescence is a nightmare. It can be a nice test if you are evaluating a camera *for your own use* but it is not informative for us pixel peepers. Also I am catching a hint that the new cam may be slightly more IR sensitive than the others. A filter might be a good idea. And if you say you prefer one camera to the other, why should I disagree, if you know what scenes you shoot and what results you expect. BTW, if you want to take a quick stab at correcting the new cams image, just drop a gray level cursor on the cam frame *on the Tiff in Photoshop* The results look cleaner. Profile, profile ...
Oh, and btw the light mix changed between exposure, one can see a well formed tree shadow on the brick wall in the middle image.
Edmund
I'm telling you that
- if you have mixed light in an image ANY TWO cameras that do not have identical sensors and profiles will diverge in rendering.
- if you have random polarised light in an image, again every sensor can react differently. This cannot be avoided.
- if there is a peaky color eg that tear-off green again cameras will diverge. Fluorescence means that the material is absorbing UV or visible light energy and re-emitting it as a different frequency/color. The re-emission can be very spiky and its color in an image can change very easily.
Also, you are gray balancing on something that is almost black, a bad idea. Choose a nice large uniform gray area.
My feeling is that this scene with mixed light, reflectiions and fluorescence is a nightmare. It can be a nice test if you are evaluating a camera *for your own use* but it is not informative for us pixel peepers. Also I am catching a hint that the new cam may be slightly more IR sensitive than the others. A filter might be a good idea. And if you say you prefer one camera to the other, why should I disagree, if you know what scenes you shoot and what results you expect. BTW, if you want to take a quick stab at correcting the new cams image, just drop a gray level cursor on the cam frame *on the Tiff in Photoshop* The results look cleaner. Profile, profile ...
Oh, and btw the light mix changed between exposure, one can see a well formed tree shadow on the brick wall in the middle image.
Edmund
How a sensor handles having shadows raised 100 and boosted 4 stops is of no interest to me personally because I have never shot that way and i wouldn't buy equipment based on how it handles that, I can only judge based on how I shoot and so my ideal camera will likely be different to many others.
I have a CCD back, it delivers results better to my tastes than the CMOS cameras I own and I have no plans to buy a CMOS back in the immediate future.
So for me, the bird in hand is better than the one in the bush.
Does that answer your question?
I think you missed my point;
What I said was that that it seems as if CMOS in general aren't very good at rendering greens - as an example I posted a link to a comparison between a Canon CMOS and a PhaseOne CCD back under the same conditions in a studio environment.
Random polarised light appear just about everywhere in nature. Does that mean I'd have to expect that the 3100 won't be able to deliver decent greens for landscape photography?
And which is it - polarised light or mixed light without polarisation? Not trying to pick a fight here but I truly think that if the CMOS sensors aren't that capable of capturing greens in a similar fashion as the CCDs - well then that means they are worse in that area.
Sure it can be only attributed to a profile error but that's a mighty coincidence if the old Canon CMOS and the new PhaseOne CMOS both have the same rendering problem and it's 'just' a profile issue. You'd think that with a 48.000$ gear that shouldn't happen as profiles can easily be changed and calibrated to deliver neutral colours.
I'm not grey balancing on anything, I didn't take those photos and I also doubt that both CMOS sensors just coincidentally produce weak greens or both coincidentally have a bad profile.
In the end time will tell - but if you remember the thread title is "What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!" - and if there are serious colour issues with the CMOS sensors or if their colour rendering is noticeably different from the excellent CCD colour output - well then I'd say neither is better at the moment.
That's exactly what I'm thinking. As long as there are not neutral, unedited, well exposed shots under normal shooting conditions using the exact same white balance it's useless to compare those images.
I want to know how the colours look, how neutral it can be, whether there are any unexpected color shifts, which colours are rendered weak and strong - that's much more important to me than over-edited photos that have no real world relevance for shooting on a daily basis. Especially if those images are held up as an example of the superiority of CMOS technology.
Hi,
It seems that you gentlemen forgot about the simple fact that both CCD and CMOS are essentially devices collection electrons in capacitors and measuring the related voltage. The main difference is that CMOS measures that voltage in place, while CCD uses a bucket shift 'mechanism' to pop those electron charges into an external preamplifier.
Both devices are absolutely monochrome. Any colour is added by the CFA (Colour Filter Array) in front of the sensor and interpreted by the raw converter. Some guys state the Sony applies tricks to the electrons, but if that is the case, I am pretty sure that any such processing is selectable, so if say Phase One doesn't have spatial filtering at high ISOs they can disable that feature.
Just because both don't distinguish color per se doesn't mean that both are equally capable of recording the same amount and/or quality of information.
I've spent the day doing a bit of research - if someone spots an error please tell me, otherwise it sounds pretty reasonable;
CMOS sensors are (without a filter) indeed very sensitive to red and near-infrared wavelengths (>650nm) and CCD sensors are very sensitive to the visible spectrum (550nm). The conversion efficiency of CMOS sensors at 550 nm is generally rather low, it peaks at 30%-40% while on CCD sensors it's more like 70% or above - that may be the reason why CMOS sensors seem to struggle with greens (495–570 nm) and often translate them as yellows (570–590 nm)as they are more sensitive to that side of the spectrum.
That also explains why many people see a reddish or brownish tone in CMOS photos even with the correct WB and profile.
Perhaps a stronger IR-filter would be the solution but right now I'm sure they're not getting the greens right on the 100mp sensor and the 50mp seems to suffer from the same issue as well.
Just because both don't distinguish color per se doesn't mean that both are equally capable of recording the same amount and/or quality of information.
I've spent the day doing a bit of research - if someone spots an error please tell me, otherwise it sounds pretty reasonable;
CMOS sensors are (without a filter) indeed very sensitive to red and near-infrared wavelengths (>650nm) and CCD sensors are very sensitive to the visible spectrum (550nm). The conversion efficiency of CMOS sensors at 550 nm is generally rather low, it peaks at 30%-40% while on CCD sensors it's more like 70% or above - that may be the reason why CMOS sensors seem to struggle with greens (495–570 nm) and often translate them as yellows (570–590 nm)as they are more sensitive to that side of the spectrum.
That also explains why many people see a reddish or brownish tone in CMOS photos even with the correct WB and profile.
Perhaps a stronger IR-filter would be the solution but right now I'm sure they're not getting the greens right on the 100mp sensor and the 50mp seems to suffer from the same issue as well.
It seems that you gentlemen forgot about the simple fact that both CCD and CMOS are essentially devices collection electrons in capacitors and measuring the related voltage. The main difference is that CMOS measures that voltage in place, while CCD uses a bucket shift 'mechanism' to pop those electron charges into an external preamplifier.
Both devices are absolutely monochrome. Any colour is added by the CFA (Colour Filter Array) in front of the sensor and interpreted by the raw converter. Some guys state the Sony applies tricks to the electrons, but if that is the case, I am pretty sure that any such processing is selectable, so if say Phase One doesn't have spatial filtering at high ISOs they can disable that feature.
It is very clear that at least some A7-series cameras apply median filtering at high ISO-s, that can be clearly detected by FFT analysis of dark exposures. But, Sony employs this at very high ISO only and I am pretty sure that Phase One can choose to use it or not in their implementation.
So, any observed differences in colour rendition are due to either CFA design or post processing.
Now, I am fully aware that spectral sensivity of sensors varies with design and also that there are differences in IR response. But I am pretty sure that those differences can be handled by proper CFA design and IR filtering combined with properly designed colour profiles.
Eric,
Here are some comments (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54028441) on this topic by an expert, Eric Fossum, who invented CMOS. The whole thread is worth reading. Your opinions are supported here.
Bill
Bill,
The question here isn't whether the abilities of CCD are different from CMOS, it is whether the actually produced MF cameras are different.
At the moment there is one manufacturer - SONY - of such sensors. One instance isn't guaranteed perfect just because Eric Fossum says so. And the inventor of CMOS sensors would be expected to thing well of CMOS optical sensors, every inventor loves his child most.
Edmund
Edmund,
Your points are well taken, but Dr. Fossum does not state that his invention is better, but merely that silicon is silicon and CFA filters are CFA filters, which is just what Eric also stated. In judging the professor's credibility one must take into account that he likely knows more about solid state imagers than anyone posting on this forum.
Bill
Perhaps you could supply us with some of your references to back up your assertions. One caveat in comparing CCD vs CMOS designs is the date of the comparison. CMOS designs have been dramatically improved recently, and the older literature comparing the two types of sensors may not be current.
For example, here is an article (http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/2011/03/charge-coupled-devices-ccds-lose-ground-to-new-cmos-sensors.html) from 2011 showing how CMOS has gained with respect to CCD. Here (http://www.scmos.com/files/low/scmos_white_paper_2mb.pdf) is another from 2009. This is now 2016. Note that these articles are from the scientific imaging community where CCDs have long predominated over CMOS.
Bill
The CMOS sensors used in consumer cameras aren't sCMOS - and in the first link you provided it even shows a QE graph of sCMOS saying that it approaches the capability of CCD sensors - but it doesn't surpass it. ("FIGURE 1. The quantum efficiency curve of sCMOS cameras is now much closer to that of CCDs than that of the CMOS cameras of just a few years ago.")
Here it states that most CMOS sensors have their max. sensitivity in the NIR-spectrum while most CCD sensors have their max. sensitivity in the visible spectrum (550 nm): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Pixel_Sensor#Unterschiede_zu_CCD-Sensoren (sorry it's in german)
There are tons of infos on astrophotography and infrared photography forums and pages about CCD sensors and their sensitivities as well as CMOS sensors that support that statement.
Keep in mind that I was only trying to find an explanation for the problems with the weak greens and the over-saturated reds in the images of the CMOS backs and the discrepancy in the comparison of the Canon CMOS and the 'old' PhaseOne back - nothing more, nothing less. The general tendency of CMOS sensors to have a low overall QE and their max. sensitivity in the NIR spectrum may be part of the explanation.
If anyone has a better explanation I'm all ears!
The question here isn't whether the abilities of CCD are different from CMOS, it is whether the actually produced MF cameras are different.
At the moment there is one manufacturer - SONY - of such sensors. One instance isn't guaranteed perfect just because Eric Fossum says so. And the inventor of CMOS sensors would be expected to thing well of CMOS optical sensors, every inventor loves his child most.
Christoph:
Welcome to Lula where the numbers are everything and artistry doesn't matter.
You'll get used to it, eventually...
I think in the end it is simply easier to grab a camera one likes than to try and even understand the tech. The same is true of lens depth of field, "snap" and bokeh: They are in the end subjective, and a "bad" old lens can easily surpass a nice new one in our affections.
But Edmund, this is exactly what people are still confusing (and I'm amazed they do). Silicon is Silicon, with some relatively minor doping differences. The color sensitivity is more or less carved in, uhm silicon. The real differences come from the added hardware (filter stack and CFA) and software (profiling and demosaicing). So any comparison is flawed if those different components are not normalized.
With all due respect, isn't this exactly the point? We cannot buy sensors, whether they be cmos or ccd in order to build our own cameras with normalized equipment to see which is better/worse/different/the same, we buy cameras that have a look to them, regardless of how that is achieved by the manufacturer. A photographer can pick up a piece of equipment and shoot with it and look at the end result he can get from all of the components, factors, hardware and software and decide for himself if that combination works for him. I don't care so much about the technical aspects of individual items in the chain, just the shots produced and how they differ.
I have 2 cameras from the same manufacturer that are ccd and cmos and the resulting images are different and react in different ways to processing producing a different final image, whether the technical theory backs that up or not is largely irrelevant when looking at the image, surely?
Hi Mat,
As long as you do not attribute the differences to CMOS versus CCD, no problem. These are different technologies that allow different possibilities, but color reproduction has little to do with it.
Color reproduction is mostly a function of other components in the image chain, like CFA and profiling.
So basing one's choice of tools on the color reproduction differences by CCD or CMOS is totally misguided (just like the so-called 16-stops dynamic range of CCDs in MFDBs, in general CMOS has higher DR capability than CMOS, not the other way around). Start with good profiling, since the hardware is more or less a given. Most likely there will be almost no observable difference, so you can base the choice of equipment on other requirements that allow to get the shot or not.
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart
Thanks for the response, so now I understand you guys a little more, I presume I can say that I prefer the images I get from my camera that happens to use a ccd sensor, due to the variances in the pipeline after the silicon and like the images from my camera with a cmos sensor less for the same reasons, but I cannot say I prefer ccd over cmos?
I honestly believe that for a large proportion of photographers, holding 2 cameras with the different sensors, they would say I prefer the ccd or I prefer the cmos because that is how they differentiate them.
I can understand that in reality we are preferring what happens around and after the silicon does its bit but for me, I cannot say that the output is the same and regardless of how, I prefer the camera I own that uses a ccd, I'm pretty basic like that!
"In judging the professor's credibility one must take into account that he likely knows more about solid state imagers than anyone posting on this forum."
I'll bet there are three or four regular posters here who would disagree.
Hi,
I don't know. I guess we can all look up up Dr. Fossum's publications and other merits. I obviously don't know who you think would disagree so I cannot have any views on their merits.
Of the frequent posters here, I know that Bart van der Wolff was working for a company called Kodak Eastman in a customer advisory role regarding image acquisition. I am impressed with his knowledge and deeply thankful for him sharing his experience.
I am also in debt to Jim Kasson, Anders Torvalds, Jack Hogan, Emil J. Martinez [sic] and many others for sharing their knowledge and experience.
Erik,
Yes we do have many highly knowledgeable contributors (yourself included) to this forum and those you mention are near the top of the list, and I hope that I have not offended them. However, none of them are in disagreement with Dr. Fossum. Perhaps I should not have said that Fossum knows more about digital sensors than anyone posting here, but that was a polite way of avoiding naming the names of the less knowledgeable contributors. By the way Emil's last name is Martinec; unfortunately, he has not posted that much recently and probably has returned to his day job of string theory and particle physics.
Regards,
Bill
For the LORD is a great God And a great King above all gods...
Erik,
Yes we do have many highly knowledgeable contributors (yourself included) to this forum and those you mention are near the top of the list, and I hope that I have not offended them. However, none of them are in disagreement with Dr. Fossum. Perhaps I should not have said that Fossum knows more about digital sensors than anyone posting here, but that was a polite way of avoiding naming the names of the less knowledgeable contributors. By the way Emil's last name is Martinec; unfortunately, he has not posted that much recently and probably has returned to his day job of string theory and particle physics.
Regards,
Bill
Now, I hate authority arguments. If you have actual data about various chips that would allow us to compare them, just post it. If you have images to show, show them. Put up the whole-system (chip+CFA+cover) spectral graphs of the CCD chips people like and of the Sony sensors, and let us compare them. Let's see some comparison of texture preservation. Color is psychophysics and so is the appreciation of any other aspects of imagery, but one can still expect to use metrics.
Back to topic with an innocent question, continuing on mjrichardson stream of thoughts:
Is the pipeline behind CCD and CMOS completely interchangeable? If not then we can surely talk about color reproduction of CCD-sensor-stack and CMOS-sensor-stack?
Motorbikes are better than trucks. It depends who you ask and what they are using them for.
IMHO my 8 year old Hasselblad with CCD has far better IQ than any 35mm DSLR with CMOS for studio and landscape. It also has ISO 50, which I prefer. However if I am going to sports or low light then it will be the Canon.
BTW the IBM Power PC chip was the chip used in the IBM Mini computer that a lot of medium size enterprises used. It became a case of cost versus benefit and connectivity, and IBM moved at the speed of, well IBM.
Hi,Thank you for a nice overview.
That may depend on definition of "Pipeline". A basic difference between CCD and CMOS is that with CMOS it is possible to make multiple readouts. A CMOS sensor can be read out after reset. So the camera can record electron charges on all pixels before exposure and this reading is subtracted from the electron charges after exposure. This is called "correlated double sampling" and is always done on CMOS, AFAIK. CCD cannot do this, as CCD readout is destructive. All electron charges are removed from a CCD during readout.
All CMOS is not alike. Modern CMOS sensors, like those made by Sony, use massively parallel ADCs. The readout is a part of the sensor, there is an amplifier for each column. Those converters are very simple, but accurate, ramp type converters.
Canon uses a different approach, they have off sensor ADCs and few readout channels. So they have a longer signal path and need much faster converters that are more complex. That is the reason that Sony sensors have better DR at base ISO than Canon sensors. Sony is not the inventor of massively parallell readout, there are other companies using the technology.
With CCD there is always a dark frame subtraction, CMOS doesn't really need it at short exposures.
Comparing CCD with CMOS the analogue processing is done by Sony, and the signal coming from the sensor is digital.
But, all things we have discussed here are part of the electronic processing pipeline. The end of this pipeline is the raw image. The raw image would ideally be just a dump of the recorded voltages and complemented recorded information. But raw files are probably not really raw. Just as an example the raw data is often loss-lessly compressed.
The image part of the raw file is just numbers. No difference between CMOS and CCD. The raw file also contains metadata and that is vendor specific. Here are some examples of EXIF data: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/EXIFSample/
From here on the pipeline would ideally be the same, but it is my understanding that CCD processing includes additional steps. CCDs have often a "tiling issue", that needs to be corrected in the processing pipeline.
Thank you for a nice overview.
I would not worry about lossless compression (as it does not change the information once it is properly decoded). But what about sensor non-uniformity, individual "outlier" sensels, etc? It would be very interesting to get to know what kind of processing manufacturers does between the ADC and storing a raw file. Some kinds of processing might be hard to detect (e.g. median-type filtering), while others should be quite detactable (multiplying 14-bit numbers by a per-pixel static gain array in the range of [0.5...2.0] and storing the result as non-dithered 14 bits). The complexity of doing things in the CFA domain along with the required pixel rate and battery life is probably limiting what the manufacturers can do.
The fact that camera manufacture is competitive and people are (to some degree) basing purchases on comparing raw files (or raw file developers) makes it tempting to make the raw files "shine" even if that does not contribute to the final developed image quality (even if it detracts slightly).
-h
Intel is very good at chip making. They are doing a lot of continuous improvement and they have the money and scale of economy so they can stay on the forefront of making processors.
What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS?
This exact same buncha posts happened, have been happening for over a decade now.
The i86 was one of the most inefficient designs ever for a microprocessor. [They never heard of a register file apparently, and this mistake would cost them billions.] It would have passed into history ironically if IBM itself had not made it the center of their first PC. The MC68k was a much cleaner design. The PowerPC chip, given the same amount of refinement, could have been more competitive. I don't think today's ARMs are that much different.
Hi,If it was practically (i.e. with some ease) possible to make something 2x or 10x more efficient (cost, power, area,...) without sacrificing compiler complexity, programmer effort etc, then surely we would have seen it by now?
Yes I agree on that. I used to be a MC68K advocate before Sun introduced SPARC. I can also agree that the Intel X86 architecture is ugly.
But intel has been very successful in pushing the envelope of that ugly architecture.
If it was practically (i.e. with some ease) possible to make something 2x or 10x more efficient (cost, power, area,...) without sacrificing compiler complexity, programmer effort etc, then surely we would have seen it by now?
After all, process tech in the free market is only slightly behind Intel now. So a cpu startup could go from nothing to designing and verifying a design, producing them at some silicon cooking plant, then drive Intel out of business. Provided that Intels design/instruction set is such a limitation. Previously, the Wintel monopoly has been presented as the reason why this won't happen, but now we see smartphones and tablets and servers and embedded boxes using non-Intel and non-x86 processors.
It is possible that through some strike of luck, genious or massive effort, someone designs something that is vastly better than Intel in all of those criteria, but I won't hold my breath.
The industry is full of claims about 10x this and 10x that, but upon closer inspection, it seems that they either 1)Never get a product out, or 2)optimize e.g. performance vs power by sacrificing generality and programmer effort (i.e. GPU).
-h
But intel has been very successful in pushing the envelope of that ugly architecture.
Well, it won't matter in a few years anyway, because CCD is with all likelihood going away.
We could argue about CCD vs CMOS when CCD=MFD and CMOS=135, but this is no longer true. MFD is CMOS too now and CCDs are being phased out.
I too believe that there will be no new CCD sensors coming, but IMO this isn't because of IQ as I believe many are happy with the "looks" of CCD images and don't care much about higher ISO as they would use a DSLR for that anyway... IMO the main reason on why there will be victory for Cmos sensors is their LV performance... Never the less, the few lucky ones that use multishot backs for most part of their work, won't even bother to check if the next (again multishot) back is CCD or Cmos (since the phrases "presence of artifacts", "enough resolution" & "color presantation" are unknown to them)... but again, LV will also matter to them too...
I too believe that there will be no new CCD sensors coming, but IMO this isn't because of IQ as I believe many are happy with the "looks" of CCD images and don't care much about higher ISO as they would use a DSLR for that anyway... IMO the main reason on why there will be victory for Cmos sensors is their LV performance... Never the less, the few lucky ones that use multishot backs for most part of their work, won't even bother to check if the next (again multishot) back is CCD or Cmos (since the phrases "presence of artifacts", "enough resolution" & "color presantation" are unknown to them)... but again, LV will also matter to them too...
Hi,
I guess that for those who need LV, me among them, a well working LV system is very important.
Regarding ISO speed, it can be clearly beneficial to have good high ISO when shooting outdoors, say in windy conditions.
I agree that Live View is of high importance in some situations, and a well implemented electronic first curtain shutter (not available with CCD) is important when photographing at high magnification with a long telephoto or microscope. I say well implemented because the implementation on the Nikon D810 is suboptimal.
Regards,
Bill
Bill
I agree that Live View is of high importance in some situations, and a well implemented electronic first curtain shutter (not available with CCD) is important when photographing at high magnification with a long telephoto or microscope. I say well implemented because the implementation on the Nikon D810 is suboptimal.
Bill,
Are you referring to the fact that MLU is needed to use EFC on the D810?
Cheers,
Bernard
I love the way that EFCS makes for sharp images with long lenses on the D810. I hate the controls. To take a picture, you have to press the release twice, once to raise the mirror, and once to trigger the shutter. In live view mode, you still have to press the release twice, once to do, near as I can tell, precisely nothing, and once to trip the shutter. As an example of how mirror up should work, we need look no further than Hasselblad. You press the mirror button once. The mirror goes up. You take as many pictures as you want. You press the mirror button again and the mirror goes down.
Bill,
Are you referring to the fact that MLU is needed to use EFC on the D810?
Cheers,
Bernard
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/rr_plate.jpg)
On this image cameras represented in no particular order are, Canon 1ds3, Leica M8, Kodak dcs 760, P30+/Contax, p21+/Contax, Leica S2, RED One, Leica S2, Canon 1dx, Canon 1d3, Nikon d3, Nikon 700, Canon 5d2.
All of them worked. All reached the desired result, all have some form of lighting, whether 100% available light at the right time, flash, tungsten, HMI, LED's, some with large crews, some with very small crews.
ASA goes from 200, to 4000.
Some cameras I like better, some not so much, but once captured within the range I needed for post, and they all went to post work, some heavy, some medium, some light.
All of the images shot were with the thought of the concept, with the long game attention of what type of "film look", we would build later in post.
I personally like CCD just because I do, but probably because ccd being slower asa, it makes me think more of the light ratios and the craft of the image.
Though in reality, I don't think it's the ccd, vs. cmos thing, I assume it's just how your grade
This from a ccd p30+ processed and graded in CS5
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/julia_bubbles_p30_web.jpg)
The same scene from a RED 1, processed and graded in Resolve.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/julia_bubbles_red_one_grab_web.jpg)
These aren't exact, due to cameras, shutter speed, processing engines, even the actress moving in a different position, but they're so close who would know?
All I can say is numbers, charts, pixel comparing I don't get. I've never tested a camera away from set that really told me much. Under pressure, on set is when I really notice what works, what doesn't.
But post is the key and every image of importance, still or motion (not including photojournalism) goes through some form of expert post production.
The last 5 or 6 movies i've seen were shot with arri 35mm film, arri alexas, RED Epics, 65mm Panavision with 70mm projection, Sony F65, with a smattering of little olympus cameras thrown in ("fury road")
I respect whatever camera or film or digital the dp and director chose but I am almost positive that they could all have been shot on film, or professional digital, 65mm or super 35.
With their talent's, the expert post work, except for the 65mm panavision used the for "the hateful 8", no viewer would have noticed the difference.
In fact the Hateful 8 footage would probably never pass on this technical forum with all the examination through charts and graphs, comparing dr (I never knew that term until this forum).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnRbXn4-Yis
It flickers on solid skies, though has great colour depth, sometimes sharp, sometimes lots of grain, not that physically moveable, but since I viewed it on 70mm film on the roadshow, where you get an interlude, a program, an intermission, it was my movie experience of the year.
So I can appreciate everyones knowledge about filters, adc convertors, sharp lenses, a billion asa, but I think all of this is far down the list of an interesting image, or body of work.
IMO
BC
I know this is a tech ... this compared to that ... thread, but thanks Coot for once again reminding us that these are just tools to create with, and that its the images that really matter.
It saddens me though that the camera type I love, the tech cam with symmetric large-format-style lenses, may not survive this transition (due to the seemingly chronically poor angular response of these sensors) but instead morph into a boring high resolution mirrorless with unreasonably big and heavy lenses, and that will force me back to 135 with tilt shift lenses as I actually hike with my gear.
Hi Craig,
Yes, James is correct in that the camera is a tool to achieve an end product. He's also correct that "Though in reality, I don't think it's the ccd, vs. cmos thing, I assume it's just how your grade", it's the whole pipeline that is needed for an end result, and in his case grading is a major part of the final look he adds to the images.
But we need to see the camera as an enabler, to make it possible to get the base material we need for creating the final product, the image, the atmosphere, the illusion. For some uses, e.g. fast action, that means fast autofocus (possibly combined with good high ISO performance). For other uses the Tilt/Shift movements are essential to get the shot, and for other uses the canned profiles may produce a pleasing result with minimal additional work. Multishot technology is great for resolution and lack of (color-)aliasing, but useless for moving subjects of with constantly changing light conditions.
When the camera is not an enabler, it becomes a hindrance, regardless of the topology used for the chips, or the choice of CFA filters or profiles. Fortunately, the profiling is something we can do something about, although it will never be perfect (due to the Luther Ives condition, also see this document (http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/Metameric_Error.pdf)).
Cheers,
Bart
Your current gear is not dead.
In fact, it might very well help you make images for the next 10-15 years until it kicks the bucket. Do you like using it? Then keep using it.
Just because something new got launched doesn't mean what you have in the bag automatically crumbles to dust.
I'm not being critical but you know the camera won't make you good, or even too good, there is no such thing.
This forum goes nuts every time phase announces double the pixel cameras and you know it's coming when a Canon goes do a higher count. Canon 11 - Phase 22, Canon 22 - Phase 40, Canon 50 - Phase 100.
Those poor souls are always selling pixels.
Anyway good for them cause they finally came out with a new camera, just wish they'd had opened it up to their past owners.
For me it doesn't matter, but for people that waited for something better than the old Mamiya it must have been a let down.
Anyway I got off the subject.
Cameras are ok, pixels are ok, people that dig pixels and well depth and cross talk and all that stuff is ok, though I don't really read it, I just glance over it cause it's not that interesting to me.
Not that it's not important, but that's for the guys that make stuff, and I use the stuff they make to make photographs.
You know, I find digital strange. Never wanted it but once. I had a inner wear, (panties) gig we shot in LA at the Stahl House. That glass thing that hangs off a cliff in the Hollywood Hills.
Everybody use to love that house, but for shooting people it was hell, cause all you really had was the pool and inside a model on a sofa looked like they were hanging in the air with window reflections everywhere.
Also for some reason that section of the Hollywood hills gets marine layer. We wanted something special and we lit then we'd shoot a polaroid get the ratios down quick and boom it would get dark, so we'd shoot another polaroid and snap on the film back and boom it would get bright. You could spend your life just trying to get into the 9 stop range of the Agfa transparency film I used.
After the gig, I went to photo west (when there was a photo west). I'm not wild about trade shows but I went to the polaroid folks and said do me a favor, make me a digital polaroid back that is instant that second so I can see the image, snap on the film back and shoot it. I was on a mission and wouldn't stop until some higher up came over.
He said if he did that, we'd never sell anymore polaroid and I said I don't use it anyway, I use fuji but that's not the point. I'd write a check right now for 30 grand if I could just see the bloody thing and shoot it before the clouds or the clients changed their minds.
He replied you'll probably get your wish cause someday everyone is going to be shooting digital. That's not what I wanted then, or now. I just wanted to see a quick polaroid without a computer and a bunch of wires.
I know now the polaroid guy was right, but after the first 1ds, I would swear to a senate subcommittee that there is not that much difference between that old slow 1ds and the hundred grand (actually more) of stuff I've bought just trying to get back to that film look.
This photo is just me, cameras, lenses and chargers, with two powerbooks.
(http://www.russellrutherfordgroup.com/me_at_RR_ranch.jpg)
The van on the right is for lighting and grip, the SUV on the left is just some props.
Away from frame is an RV, two other trucks and a bunch of client and crew vehicles that client's request. I don't mind if talent changes in a tent held by two grips.
One of the tech heads on this forum made some comment that not everyone carries a thousand pounds of stuff.
We'll let me clue you in.
No photographer living wants to buy, rent or carry around this much stuff.
In fact we shot most of the project with one flash, one HMI, one still camera, one lens and one RED 1 with yea, one lens.
But since we get paid and clients are known to change their mind and since we're spending "their" money if something goes down we better have an equal backups.
So that's why we have all this stuff.
So getting back to the original idea of ccd vs cmos. Who cares. If you can't shoot something at 400 asa, you're never going to shoot it anyway.
I know somebody is going to show me one of those night looks like day scenes, but honestly I've never been asked to make day look like night (usually it's the other way round).
I'll also let the tech guys in to another secret.
When we shoot something like editorial, we usually don't carry that much stuff.
In fact most good photographers just need a camera and some way to balance the light . . . a piece of foam core, a shiny board, or one of those little plastic flashes with some spun, (diffusion).
But when we shoot for ourselves nobody is looking over our shoulder on a 27" monitor asking if the we can make her/him/it's face brighter.
We just shoot what's pretty, clean the place up and leave.
This was shot with an old S2, one small Fresnel that cost less than a Sony adapter and a piece of foam core.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/rockers2_web.jpg)
And it's ccd shot at 640 pushed 1/3 and the people we did it for loved it, so ccd vs. cmos?
That's for people that like to talk and or more importantly sell equipment, but for most photographers that aren't on this forum, they don't care.
But remember those guys that just came out with big cmos cameras were telling everyone a few years ago that their 16 bit ccd backs were superior so take all of this with a grain of salt.
In fact, if you made it this far in my rambling post link to this and listen to these guys. They shoot some pretty stuff
http://www.vogue.it/tag/alessia%20glaviano
IMO
BC
I'm not being critical but you know the camera won't make you good, or even too good, there is no such thing.
When you shoot with mechanical copal shutters, use sliding back and ground glass with a 20x loupe to focus, don't have access to high ISO or (that) long exposure and carry 13 kg of gear then it's more that can be improved than megapixels.
Simply put, it's indeed romantic to use (and I appreciate that), but it's quite messy. Not as much as a large format camera, but pretty close. If I could make the same image with a pocket camera, would I think it would be worthwhile to carry all this gear? Maybe if I started to shoot film instead so I'm doing something historical for real, but when shooting high end digital the end technical quality will always be a factor. Not all, but I would lie if it was not relevant.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/rockers2_web.jpg)
Erik,
I looked at your full sized images and I usually don't peep, but your sony image at 50 asa has the same raggedness I see on the A7sII I bought.
Everybody says the A7SII goes to a gazillion asa, but I don't see it, actually thought mine was defective. Anything above 2000 starts that ragged stuff on hard lines, like the roof of your shot or the chairs.
I think the A7 series is an interesting camera and I bought my mostly for motion, but I don't see the amazing stuff everyone else does at at 50 asa I would think it would be more detailed.
IMO
BC
So getting back to the original idea of ccd vs cmos. Who cares. If you can't shoot something at 400 asa, you're never going to shoot it anyway.
I know somebody is going to show me one of those night looks like day scenes, but honestly I've never been asked to make day look like night (usually it's the other way round).
I'll also let the tech guys in to another secret.
When we shoot something like editorial, we usually don't carry that much stuff.
In fact most good photographers just need a camera and some way to balance the light . . . a piece of foam core, a shiny board, or one of those little plastic flashes with some spun, (diffusion).
But when we shoot for ourselves nobody is looking over our shoulder on a 27" monitor asking if the we can make her/him/it's face brighter.
We just shoot what's pretty, clean the place up and leave.
This was shot with an old S2, one small Fresnel that cost less than a Sony adapter and a piece of foam core.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/rockers2_web.jpg)
And it's ccd shot at 640 pushed 1/3 and the people we did it for loved it, so ccd vs. cmos?
That's for people that like to talk tech, but for most photographers that aren't on this forum, they don't care.
Of course you are right: technology only matters so much. What matters is whether the pictures are interesting or not. That is what photographers should be discussing on forums.
Except that there is no such forum. You will find forums discussing cameras galore. You will find forums discussing camera accessories, photo software and post-processing, strobes and light gear. I am not aware of a photo forum really discussing picture-making.
Of course you are right: technology only matters so much. What matters is whether the pictures are interesting or not. That is what photographers should be discussing on forums.
Except that there is no such forum.
Hi,
Feel free to start a new topic, not in an "Equipment and Techniques" group of forums, but rather e.g. in "The Art of photography" (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=collapse;c=29;sa=collapse;bd9e95c22d=1e488a24eda1613a63a1f0a03143146f#c29) group of forums.
Yes there is! There is on LuLa a forum called "Discussing Photographic Styles (A Forum for the discussion of photographic styles)", and one called ""But is it Art? (A free form forum for opinions on photography as an art form)". There is also a possibility to post your own work and ask for critique (User Critiques forum).
It also depends on what you want to bring to the table yourself.
Not quite. This forum has 153362 threads, "Discussing Photographic Styles" only 6239, which is 24 times less. Moreover, "Discussing Photographic Styles" activity has decreased steadily and the content of the discussions has become -dare I say?- more controversial than interesting.
I am not objecting the technical discussions. It is good that we have them and this particular forum is indeed devoted to technique, so they are at the right places. I am just noticing that there is an apparent lack of interest for other matters.
Erik,
Before all this digital sensor, sony dr, low noise, chart and graph talk, I never thought about technique in the way you do.
Photographers I respected would say, "he/she has a beautiful technique, which usually meant style or art but never mention things like the pentax 6x7 and provia is the only way to go here let me show you a crop of a eyelash.
No offense meant buy I think you see this as an scientific technical forum because that's what you enjoy.
The technique I see is how and why I choose to position and light those two actors in that rock n' roll scene.
I used one small fresnel on the right, with the barn doors squeezed tight, to give the impression of a practical light. I chose tungsten because I wanted the window light to be blue, to give the look of stylized reality.
To me this is technique, but from the oxford dictionary.
___________________________________________________
Definition of technique in English:
noun
1A way of carrying out a particular task, especially the execution or performance of an artistic work or a scientific procedure.
I believe you enjoy the scientific procedure.
___________________________________________________
I see the execution of an artistic work, very rarely notice the scientific procedure.
But I defer. I respect your right to like what you like and but when I see those 100% crops of noise in an empty room, I realize this is not a place I need to be.
IMO
BC
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/el_mirage_sm.jpg)
Maybe because it is much harder to discuss subjective things than physics? Also, high quality critique is very hard to do and takes a lot of time. Maybe also not very popular in these 15 second attention time-span times? But that would be a subject for another forum/thread ...
The technique I see is how and why I choose to position and light those two actors in that rock n' roll scene.
I used one small fresnel on the right, with the barn doors squeezed tight, to give the impression of a practical light. I chose tungsten because I wanted the window light to be blue, to give the look of stylized reality.
I realize this is not a place I need to be.
IMO
BC
Please do contribute to the art forums, I do that myself from time to time
People aren't necessarily either "tech heads" or "artists", many are a bit of both not at least in photography which is a pretty high tech craft.
Not as much as you believe: your stats (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=profile;area=statistics;u=65062).
Certainly. Maybe I should say that again: I have nothing against the technical discussions. I believe they are necessary. I just note that there is little else on Internet photo forums.
Not as much as you believe: your stats (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=profile;area=statistics;u=65062).
Certainly. Maybe I should say that again: I have nothing against the technical discussions. I believe they are necessary. I just note that there is little else on Internet photo forums.
But it is a place we need you to be. (IMHO ;) )
They are guarded about what they see, what they feel, what they want to express. I don't know why this is so, but it really is so. Look at "BC", he tells you what light he used, but not a word about the content of the image.
In the hubbub about the new FF CMOS 100mp backs, I'm wondering what happened to all those arguments that CCD sensors gave a better, cleaner result at base ISO, than CMOS? Was that marketing hyperbole, or still partly true? The discussion seems to have evaporated!
Reminds me of Apple a decade ago telling us all how much more powerful their PowerPC processors were than Intel's ones, and then... switching to Intel's PC processors, because they were, in fact, faster!
If you check those stats you would find that most are regarding DCamProf, an open source camera profiling software that can generate both DCP profiles for Lightroom and ICC profiles for Capture One. Those discussions were involving a lot of people with deep insight in colour and it's management. It has been developed by Anders Torger, for all of us.
DCamProf is a tool that is absolutely free, and it may be worth spending an hour on learning to use it before spending 35k$US on a camera with better colour.
...and that's due to lack of contributions, as you point out despite my interest I haven't been productive there, but to that I'd like to add all the example pictures from my own work I've posted in this and other forums and many times pointed out non-technical reasons to use the type of gear I use, and art-related things in this forum. But sure the overwhelming mass of text is of technical nature.
It's pretty difficult to discuss art, and you can't really analyze your own work in public as it would break some of the mystery of the art itself. Art is much about emotions and if I'm good at expressing through images it's not as certain I'm good at putting words on them. So it can be a pretty narrow subject, unless you're a gallerist I guess. However one could post work and discuss techniques used for a particular photo, or one could discuss various workflow issues rather than pixel sizes and DR, so sure there are more subjects to be discussed but it requires contributions. Should of course be said that most MF shooters make primarily commercial work rather than art photography, but it's a crossover between the two.
This is an Equipment & Techniques thread, it's inevitable there will be a preponderance of tech talk.
That said I can't help seeing the preponderance of tech talk on a Photography Forum as a distortion. Unfortunately it seems to be the norm, equipment & techniques have precedence over images. Many aren't shy to voice opinion but aren't comfortable when it comes to sharing images.
I've tried encouraging others by starting image threads and posting images but still there is a reluctance by many to share. I've no answer and rather sadly find myself beyond caring.
Now, something else… A great guy called Tim Ashley used to have a very nice blog, than he stopped. He described pretty well why he stopped: http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/7/happy-birthday-this-blog-is-changing
Here are some paragraphs:
"Equipment reviews are the web stat winners. An in-depth piece or series of pieces on a high-profile camera or lens can get tens of thousands of readers. Very gratifying and something I am sure I could monetize if I wanted to. But the pieces on guest photographers receive much lower footfall, and if I venture into a subject as recherché as, for example, photo-ethics, the visitor count goes off the proverbial cliff. So after more than eighty articles I have learned that this blog is not going to become a free-thinking, holistic salon where creative types move effortlessly from deep tech to high art in witty and erudite discourse. It just ain't gonna happen and there's no point crying over it."
One photographer stays with their style in several years, sometimes an entire career. One photographer may shoot hundreds of even thousands of images, but only choose a very small set to promote as their art. David Fokos (http://www.davidfokos.net) total production for example is 84 images (so far).
Am I the only one to find out that each of these images looks as if it could have been done by Michael Kenna (http://www.michaelkenna.net)?
When possible I'll follow links to contributor's websites. The problem is most here post anonymously.
Am I the only one to find out that each of these images looks as if it could have been done by Michael Kenna (http://www.michaelkenna.net)?
CCD is not good at Michael Kenna's long exposure work. For optimal results you'll need to use the CMOS backs.
Or film :)And a reciprocity chart :-)
And a reciprocity chart :-)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Or film :)
Or film :)
Or film :)
+1. To hell with both CCD and CMOS!!
I have a hard time believing that photographers don't want to see or talk about photography.
If you shoot with film you would need lots of experimental data to offset deviations of reciprocity.
I have a hard time believing that photographers don't want to see or talk about photography.
One thing I love about the cinema industry and director's of photography is they share, maybe not every secret but they really go deep and explain their motivation, issues, technique (artistic technique) and well about anything.
Maybe because it's more collaborative than still photography, but honestly I just think they love the medium and are proud of their results.
With all of it's ups and downs, even in the RG days, the medium format section normally drew most of the responses from photographers of all levels, though mostly at the sharp end of the stick.
Yea, they talked some "science tech", but mostly about the final image, what they needed, what worked for different clients or concepts.
Most those photographers are gone from here, all for different reasons, though I assume because most of the topics regardless of the title have the same posters saying the same thing
_________________
No you don't. Get a good tripod, light meter and pick up a copy of the zone system by Ansel Adams.
While it may be a surprise to many, but Luminous Landscape is first and foremost about landscape photography
But then, bye-bye, landscape photography, dear (http://idiotic-hat.blogspot.de/2016/01/bye-bye-landscape-photography-dear.html).
Could someone inform us "newcomers" what "RG forum" is/was?
If this forum was inhabited by and intended for professional studio and fashion photographers rather than landscape photographers at all levels I can understand the disappointment...
I did remember the nice T/S portraits by Fred Greissing by the way, made using a Fuji 680, but I think he was kicked from the forum because he liked the D800 too much when it came (and Phase One too little) :)
Could someone inform us "newcomers" what "RG forum" is/was?
If this forum was inhabited by and intended for professional studio and fashion photographers rather than landscape photographers at all levels I can understand the disappointment...
I assume it refers to Rob Galbraith's forum (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2121050608/rob-galbraith-digital-photography-insights-on-hiatus) .
The focus was on Sports photography, if I recall correctly.
Cheers,
Bart
Sorry if what I want to say will be abrasive. It won't be intentional, just a reflection of my English language skills.
The LuLa fora is a place first and foremost about landscape photography. When a lot of people who were interested in the HiEnd cameras and Digital Backs migrated here from the late RG forums, Michael was very kind to let them congregate here and supported them in exile. I still remember the times when the Medium Format forum was the place to discuss all genres and all Hi End equipment. It was a place to learn and see different views, to see some the work of the pros. For me, as an amateur and gallery owner, it was very enlightening.
What changed I do not know. I suspect that many people lost their enthusiasm and interest in the Medium Format Digital after the financial crisis hit a lot of businesses and the business of professional photography changed with the introduction of newer generation of cameras from the mainstream manufacturers. The MFD became unnecessary for a lot of pros. The market moved to the the next big thing, the flat tilt and shift cameras for landscape photography. But it is only a niche. There only a few people left who still use their view cameras, with digital backs. The pros migrated to their new Canons and Nikons, and now their Sony's. There is no real interest in the discussion of the nuances of the CCD or CMOS interpretation in the price driven market from the pros, as I see that. They are moving to the smaller and universal systems. If before the MFD users were pioneers, now they are mostly amateurs , and I am among them. Pioneers were willing to share. They used their T/S lenses on people shoots, they were interested in the exotic solutions to the deliver their vision to the customer. They were talking, and I was listening, about art and workflow, about visual interpretation and techniques.
Now we are discussing pixels and ISO.
Sorry for the rant.
Yevgeny
Moscow, Russia
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I have a hard time believing that photographers don't want to see or talk about photography.
One thing I love about the cinema industry and director's of photography is they share, maybe not every secret but they really go deep and explain their motivation, issues, technique (artistic technique) and well about anything.
Maybe because it's more collaborative than still photography, but honestly I just think they love the medium and are proud of their results.
With all of it's ups and downs, even in the RG days, the medium format section normally drew most of the responses from photographers of all levels, though mostly at the sharp end of the stick.
Yea, they talked some "science tech", but mostly about the final image, what they needed, what worked for different clients or concepts.
Most those photographers are gone from here, all for different reasons, though I assume because most of the topics regardless of the title have the same posters saying the same thing
_________________
Now explaining who you shoot for and why is kind of hard. Most paying clients don't have a problem with what you show, but are careful about what you say, because they have a brand to protect.
But in the spirit of sharing, the image I posted of the two actors was for a co-op ad that ran on the inside cover of CA magazine for At-Edge and our studio.
Usually when this type of opportunity comes up we pull from our archives, talk about it with the At-Edge group and collaboratively we make a decision.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/at_edge_ca_mag_concepts.jpg)
It works but the last one we were offered I wanted to involve them like I would a client. I really like the people at At-Edge and consider them friends. We've had great dialog through the years and it's always positive.
So this time we approached it like a commercial project, did concepts, built a url with a base storyboard, talent casting, wardrobe, locations, etc. and then planned and shot it.
We shot at a Hollywood hotel and paid the full location fee with insurance certificates, permits, full releases.
The concept was a stylized "what goes on in a rock and roll life". Obviously I can't show everything, who can and we can only go so far.
We could have taken it further, like smashing a window, or a TV but that costs more money and some of it would have been too much for family play.
We always talk team and I have a good team I draw from, but this time, the crew was small.
My partner and producer/stylist Ann Rutherford, Makeup/Hair, two very young assistants and me.
I have my vision, but I'm only as good as what's in front of the lens and that's where Ann becomes the creative drive.
I guess you could call her a stylist, but that's a broad term, or head of the Art Department, but that's a movie term and usually covers a lot of territory.
What Ann does is she gets it and I'm just amazed that the wardrobe keeps coming, same with props, same with ideas.
Ann and I both are so use to shooting many setups a day, even on this where we could have shot just one or two, I think we did about 10 set ups including footage.
The assistants were pulled at the last moment and though I've worked with them before as 3rd and 4th assistants and they work a lot, they never have been on a project where they has seen or touched the equipment we used.
It doesn't always matter as long as we get the result. I don't second guess anything.
When we go into any project, studio, commercial, personal, we have huge expectations with a cold dose of reality.
I think I probably shot about 10 yo 15 frames a set up because we know we have it. Had it been pure commercial project we would have shoot 500 to 1,000 frames.
The beauty of working with everyone at et-edge is they trust us, so they don't care about seeing 10,000 frames they care about 1 that's up to their expectations, which are also very high.
So this was the final selects prior to retouch.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/co_brand_selects2.jpg)
And here is the first cut of a small movie to go with a presentation. (This is an early cut).
http://www.russellrutherford.com/rockers_48sec_final_web.mov
IMO
BC
Sorry if what I want to say will be abrasive. It won't be intentional, just a reflection of my English language skills.
The LuLa fora is a place first and foremost about landscape photography. When a lot of people who were interested in the HiEnd cameras and Digital Backs migrated here from the late RG forums, Michael was very kind to let them congregate here and supported them in exile. I still remember the times when the Medium Format forum was the place to discuss all genres and all Hi End equipment. It was a place to learn and see different views, to see some the work of the pros. For me, as an amateur and gallery owner, it was very enlightening.
What changed I do not know. I suspect that many people lost their enthusiasm and interest in the Medium Format Digital after the financial crisis hit a lot of businesses and the business of professional photography changed with the introduction of newer generation of cameras from the mainstream manufacturers. The MFD became unnecessary for a lot of pros. The market moved to the the next big thing, the flat tilt and shift cameras for landscape photography. But it is only a niche. There only a few people left who still use their view cameras, with digital backs. The pros migrated to their new Canons and Nikons, and now their Sony's. There is no real interest in the discussion of the nuances of the CCD or CMOS interpretation in the price driven market from the pros, as I see that. They are moving to the smaller and universal systems. If before the MFD users were pioneers, now they are mostly amateurs , and I am among them. Pioneers were willing to share. They used their T/S lenses on people shoots, they were interested in the exotic solutions to the deliver their vision to the customer. They were talking, and I was listening, about art and workflow, about visual interpretation and techniques.
Now we are discussing pixels and ISO.
Sorry for the rant.
Yevgeny
Moscow, Russia
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
When I take pictures these days, I can mostly get the look I want - within reason. But how to choose it? Maybe you could walk us through ONE of these pictures, explain in detail the mood and emotion you were looking to establish, thus the steps to makeup, hair, light, pose directions on set? I simply cannot relate to these images, as presented - they are nice images, but do not project any really identifiable emotion to me, they are too far out of my world for me to sense what should probably be obvious. I guess I feel the same when I look at a medieval painting in a church and cannot read the "code" which should be telling me which saint I'm looking at and which crucial moment of his life is being presented, a fact which should be obvious to me from the shapes of the hats in the crowd or the cutlery on the table.
It's often the case that the walk is at odds with the talk.
As an artist - and that's a job description rather than any kind of judgement - I can see the sense in letting the walking do the talking. But I'd be the first to admit that this view is perhaps at odds with the gallerists of today.
I prefer my artists to be esoteric, rather than exoteric.
As I see it the danger of intellectualizing is that you can slide towards becoming exoteric. But I also see among those that never really think about their work may end up in shallowness, lack of vision. It's a balance, and the recipe differs between individuals. Personally, if I only went for intuition I would feel like an impostor -- being that guy with the fuzzy concept -- it would break my artistic integrity and I'm sure my focus would suffer. My main ingredient is and always will be intuition though. I make a certain composition because it feels right, it's magnetic. Thus I find it quite hard to speak about a specific image why I have made certain decisions, and if I try anyway I can't be sure if it's just retrospective fantasies; at the scene I don't think very much, I just try to listen to my intuition -- which can be a faint voice -- and act on that.
I think maybe I haven't communicated properly. I don't dislike the science I just dislike that the science dominates the conversation of photography.
As good as cameras are, as smart as the people that make them might be, there is no reason to make a camera unless there is content to produce.
IMO
BC
Wow, do you guys see what happened here? A thread about the difference between CCD and CMOS migrated to a discussion about artists and art!
:)
Ok Edmund and take this is a good way, but I don't shoot for photographers, or bloggists, or writers.
I shoot for me, the client, the AD, my partner, the talent . . . most of all the intended viewer, but never thinking I wonder if another photographer will like this.
Anyway
I don't know how other photographers work.
Some walk the streets, see and shoot. I'm usually not that way because I need purpose.
Some seem to have one locked in look and idea and never deviate, but to me that just puts the the idea into a box that nobody dare climb out of.
Every project is different. When it's editorial or personal work, we conceive and direct, but regardless of the storyboards (still or motion) the storyboards is just a backstay.
It gives you a base, but I try never to be locked into it, sometimes toss them. After all I shoot people, they are all different, they all move perform, act different. I have an idea going in but I don't shoot chairs or rooms or ketchup bottles.
I give my ideas, listen to the talent and then work, looking for that happy accident. I listen to my partner, the on set artists, the on set talent., but basically once the camera rolls it's between me and the talent.
You know things go well when there is not a lot of on set dialog and directing. I've always felt that when a photographer, dp or director talks to much, directs too heavily, then something was wrong in the talent selection, or idea.
Anyway,
going clockwise
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/at_edge_ca_mag_concepts.jpg)
The girl with the hair and yellow gloves was editorial, shot a day after a particular grueling and pretty much lifeless commercial shoot.
After you do one of those gigs that the client is rigid and your just kind of like a copy machine with lights you have this feeling you have to do something for your own soul, so we called a magazine, late at night I did mood boards and we brought in some talent, booked the studio for another day/night and shot.
This shot was just because the talent walked out that way no clothes, only gloves, great hair and I guess the happy accident.
The next two shots of the talent on the sony lot and in front of the car was a series titled the day of a hollywood star. Or something like that. She is a model actress, very good, but I don't think she ever understood what we were trying to do, which was a still shoot with a cinematic story.
She kept saying "why am I doing this and I'd explain then she'd go, but why this?, so I just said your working on a car, or being transported across the lot. Don't worry about it.
Strange cause she probably was just having a run at me, because she hit every pose, every setup worked (at least it did to me).
But then again I have a good core crew on this and they expect nothing less than good, we all hope for great.
When the talent is great, the crew is great I always feel I have to prove myself to them.
I designed, lit and imaged the shots not to get in the way of the scene. In other words, augmented reality, which is pretty easy in LA cause everything is augmented and over the top in LA.
The last frame was a still from a cut frame spec commercial for a brand I can't say. I went out to scout the location with a still camera, believing I'd come back with the cinema cameras, but shot at 12 fps with the flicker and the in and out of focus that still cameras do and it worked, so we went back out on week later and finished the spot. It's probably one of the few shots I never gave any direction on, or very little. I just let it happen, shot 90% with a 200 F2 lens and well happy accident.
http://www.russellrutherford.com/magic
The rock couple was easy. The whole thought behind is was what would Johnny Cash and June Carter be or act like if they were in their 20's today.
We picked a famous Hollywood hotel gave the talent a direction, a few drinks and let it rip.
IMO
BC
And he came back with the strangest fastest reply: "WHY WOULD ANYONE PAY FOR CONTENT IF IT IS NOT BY SOMEONE FAMOUS" ?
Now I know self promotion is difficult, but unless they know about you what you can do, they're not going to to hire you.
Unless you hand them something that is undeniable and presented with more effort than the other guys, well your work just ends up on a big pile in the corner.
Getting work is hard, but not as difficult as people think. You just have to make use of all of your resources, invest in what you're offering and if it doesn't work, learn from it and come back stronger.
It's not easy, but hey this is a hard business.
List all your accomplishments, all your awards, anything you've done that can help the client promote you and them and keep at it.
Then you'll see a result.
BC
Then up your game.
I have a friend that is a very good screenwriter.
Also one of the best waiters in one of the most exclusive restaurants in LA.
Every night, he's within inches of the people that make the decisions in Hollywood. I'm talking about people that drop $15,000 on the wine bill.
He has a following, they all love him, they ask for his station and he never promotes himself. I'm positive they don't know he is a writer.
Now I know self promotion is difficult, but unless they know about you what you can do, they're not going to to hire you.
Unless you hand them something that is undeniable and presented with more effort than the other guys, well your work just ends up on a big pile in the corner.
Getting work is hard, but not as difficult as people think. You just have to make use of all of your resources, invest in what you're offering and if it doesn't work, learn from it and come back stronger.
It's not easy, but hey this is a hard business.
Edmund, write your story, get a bunch of kids, go shoot something with your gh4, get a voice over (that's not expensive anymore) buy some music (that's not expensive anymore) that fits the story build a website and present it.
Or do it in print, bind it and hand it over.
List all your accomplishments, all your awards, anything you've done that can help the client promote you and them and keep at it.
Then you'll see a result.
Remember, the web is full of self famous people. From photographers, to writers, to chef's.
Some have real accomplishments, most just kept pushing about how great they are until they get a following.
If you don't have the cash replace it with sweat equity.
But that's up to you.
IMO
BC
(http://russellrutherford.com/ladder.jpg)
It is not about persistence or making it (or not), being successful, etc...
The question is "WHY WOULD ANYONE PAY FOR CONTENT IF IT IS NOT BY SOMEONE FAMOUS ?"
And, imo, it is indeed a phenomenal observation. Just think about it. Why would you pay?
Who is John Galt?
Then up your game.
I have a friend that is a very good screenwriter.
Also one of the best waiters in one of the most exclusive restaurants in LA.
Every night, he's within inches of the people that make the decisions in Hollywood. I'm talking about people that drop $15,000 on the wine bill.
He has a following, they all love him, they ask for his station and he never promotes himself. I'm positive they don't know he is a writer.
Now I know self promotion is difficult, but unless they know about you what you can do, they're not going to to hire you.
Unless you hand them something that is undeniable and presented with more effort than the other guys, well your work just ends up on a big pile in the corner.
Getting work is hard, but not as difficult as people think. You just have to make use of all of your resources, invest in what you're offering and if it doesn't work, learn from it and come back stronger.
It's not easy, but hey this is a hard business.
Edmund, write your story, get a bunch of kids, go shoot something with your gh4, get a voice over (that's not expensive anymore) buy some music (that's not expensive anymore) that fits the story build a website and present it.
Or do it in print, bind it and hand it over.
List all your accomplishments, all your awards, anything you've done that can help the client promote you and them and keep at it.
Then you'll see a result.
Remember, the web is full of self famous people. From photographers, to writers, to chef's.
Some have real accomplishments, most just kept pushing about how great they are until they get a following.
If you don't have the cash replace it with sweat equity.
But that's up to you.
IMO
BC
(http://russellrutherford.com/ladder.jpg)
It is not about persistence or making it (or not), being successful, etc...
The question is "WHY WOULD ANYONE PAY FOR CONTENT IF IT IS NOT BY SOMEONE FAMOUS ?"
And, imo, it is indeed a phenomenal observation. Just think about it. Why would you pay?
That is kind of a depressing idea, and, if you truly believe in it, well, then, I feel sorry for you.
I on the other hand believe the glass is always half full.
That is kind of a depressing idea, and, if you truly believe in it, well, then, I feel sorry for you.
I on the other hand believe the glass is always half full.
I don't think you can compare software with photography
Typical comment from those who are a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution.
I would hope that most photographers are paid for their hard work, skill and talent.
Never heard of him.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galt
Edmund
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galt
Have you done any real world comparison at all? If so, then you should have seen enough difference. I have done many, and if I include the tests done by Doug from DT as well, the conclusion is obvious. There is clearly an advantage of DR for these Sony CMOS sensors when you compare them against Canon or CCD.
There's something that's has stuck with me about this thread. I don't understand the noisy examples that people are posting.
There's something that's has stuck with me about this thread. I don't understand the noisy examples that people are posting. There were a few in the above post (cropped in on a dark 4x5 camera in a shop window), and Erik Kaffehr's post with the dark piano cover showed the same thing. Is this really what people are getting from MFDBs at base ISO, with shadows pushed? These examples are far noisier than what I get on my H5D50, and what I got on my H3DII-39 (both CCDs).
Take a look at the attached:
1) The full frame, shot yesterday, straight from the H5D50, base ISO, tripod.
2) 100% crop on the rear tire. The top of the tire, just behind the orange reflectors, is black with faint detail.
3) Same crop, with the Shadow Fill slider dragged all the way to the right (to 100). Shadows still nice and clean.
There's something that's has stuck with me about this thread. I don't understand the noisy examples that people are posting. There were a few in the above post (cropped in on a dark 4x5 camera in a shop window), and Erik Kaffehr's post with the dark piano cover showed the same thing. Is this really what people are getting from MFDBs at base ISO, with shadows pushed? These examples are far noisier than what I get on my H5D50, and what I got on my H3DII-39 (both CCDs).
Take a look at the attached:
1) The full frame, shot yesterday, straight from the H5D50, base ISO, tripod.
2) 100% crop on the rear tire. The top of the tire, just behind the orange reflectors, is black with faint detail.
3) Same crop, with the Shadow Fill slider dragged all the way to the right (to 100). Shadows still nice and clean.
Hi, if you shoot your CCDs with a Nikon D810 or a CMOS digital back side by side then you would be able to see how noisy the CCDs are when you push the shadow. Without a fair comparison you would not realize how much advantage you can gain by using a Sony CMOS sensor in terms of dynamic range.
Of course, with cmos sensors, the manufacturer has the capability to implement noise reduction directly on the sensor and some people suspect that the "raw" data coming out of these sensor is already cooked.
Hi, if you shoot your CCDs with a Nikon D810 or a CMOS digital back side by side then you would be able to see how noisy the CCDs are when you push the shadow. Without a fair comparison you would not realize how much advantage you can gain by using a Sony CMOS sensor in terms of dynamic range.
Because you are using your camera as the manufacturer intended and dematricing the images with Phocus, while the noisy examples are posted by people who insist that only raw images dematriced with home-brewed software without any noise reduction is the real deal.
Of course, with cmos sensors, the manufacturer has the capability to implement noise reduction directly on the sensor and some people suspect that the "raw" data coming out of these sensor is already cooked.
Yeah, MF CCDs are useless. In fact photography was made possible thanks to the SONY EXMOR CMOS technology, before that all images made were crap. Scribbles so to speak...
If anyone has MF CCD backs send them to me before throwing them out. I will dispose of them properly in an environmentally safe manner.
It is. There is a huge amount of fixed pattern noise removal.
Edmund
Hi,
OK, you mean correlated double sampling? That technique is CMOS specific as it needs multiple readouts.
As far as I know, there is a lot of correction needed on CCDs, too. My understanding is that CCD raw files need much more calibration data than CMOS files. I have this from Anders Torger who is doing raw conversion stuff on Hasselblad, Leaf and Phase One backs.
Best regards
Erik
The Nikon D810 is CMOS by Sony as are all the Nikon full frame dSLRs. One of the last Nikon dSLRs was the D200 (crop frame), and it did have a lot of shadow noise. For a fair comparison of CCD vs CMOS you should minimize the variables.
Bill
Yeah, MF CCDs are useless. In fact photography was made possible thanks to the SONY EXMOR CMOS technology, before that all images made were crap. Scribbles so to speak...
If anyone has MF CCD backs send them to me before throwing them out. I will dispose of them properly in an environmentally safe manner.
Nah. I saw the first raw raws out of that Austrian super 35 open source cine camera and they were straight from the sensor ughhh. The sensor was the CMOSIS family which Leica use.
Edmund
Concerning why pay for content if it is not by somebody famous ...
Leading photographers have expressed frustration at Burberry’s decision to invite Brooklyn Beckham to shoot its latest fragrance campaign, saying it devalues the skills and training of professionals.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/brooklyn-beckham
Maybe even the sharper "pros" around here will start to feel obsolescence breathing down their necks ... there sure are a lot of genius 16 year old kids with well connected parents ready to get into the business, especially if all it takes is an iPhone and an Instagram account :)
The kids have some advantages, among which that of having a captive audience, knowing about reputation management and really really understanding the branding business in ways a photographer usually does not.
Edmund
CCD has 100% fill factor, and CMOS used to have much less (less than 50%)
I am aware of at least two architecture photographers who switched from MFD to Sony A7r, Chris Barret and Rainer Viertlböck.
CCD has 100% fill factor, and CMOS used to have much less (less than 50%), therefore CCD captures far more photons than the CMOS sensor when compares the same size sensors - therefore CCD was much more sensitive - therefore more clean image.
BUT, recent CMOS technology with BSI technology, make the CMOS has 100% fill factor, plua the vast manufacturing cost advantage that CMOS has over CCD when the volume goes higher (which is why SONY keeps increasing the fab capability and refreshing the cemera bodies like crazy - higher volume cost drops significantly), CCD has no edge anymore in consumer electronics(including high end photography like medium format).
So, CCD was much better than CMOS when it came to IQ in lower ISO, but it is not now.
Sent from my DMC-CM1 using Tapatalk
On can view Brooklyn Beckham instagram account here: https://www.instagram.com/brooklynbeckham/ (https://www.instagram.com/brooklynbeckham/)
HiNever used D810, interesting. It is a 2014 model, right? Probably due to lower base ISO and lower pixels than A7RII, it has cleaner image?
I would think it came a lot sooner than BSI CMOS. The D810 has been out almost 2 years now and does not have BSI technology. At base ISO I find the D810 very clean. Overal much cleaner than any CCD. back I have used. Single exposure where you have exposed for highlights and are pulling up shadows. CCD files translate to very nice images but I don't feel they can be pushed as much.
Over the years I have found that CCD backs tend to handle highlights better and thus expose more to that direction whereas CMOS can blow highlights much eaiser and I tend to expose the opposite direction.
In fact I returned the A7RIi as I did not find as forgiving on shadow recovery as my D810. I also found it not as clean at base ISO as the D810.
Paul C
Hi,
I'm saying that the dynamic range of the modern Sony Exmor CMOS sensors are great. These include the D810, the IQ250, the IQ3100 etc. It's like Intel's CPU architecture, unmatched by others. Thus I don't care about D200 etc.
You said, "if you shoot your CCDs with a Nikon D810". Since the D810 is CMOS, it would not be possible to shoot CCD with the 810.
Hi
I would think it came a lot sooner than BSI CMOS. The D810 has been out almost 2 years now and does not have BSI technology. At base ISO I find the D810 very clean. Overal much cleaner than any CCD. back I have used. Single exposure where you have exposed for highlights and are pulling up shadows. CCD files translate to very nice images but I don't feel they can be pushed as much.
Over the years I have found that CCD backs tend to handle highlights better and thus expose more to that direction whereas CMOS can blow highlights much eaiser and I tend to expose the opposite direction.
In fact I returned the A7RIi as I did not find as forgiving on shadow recovery as my D810. I also found it not as clean at base ISO as the D810.
Paul C
For the people that might read this that are starting their career in the arts, don't listen to the negative, the wannabes, the end of the world wishers.
There is always going to be privilege button pushers and hordes of self proclaimed critics/experts usually with negative opinions.
If your good, or aspire to be good, then your always pushing, always learning and always willing to do what others won't.
Learn the business inside and out, learn not to give it away and learn that the best camera you have is the camera you have.
One of the prettiest commercials I've seen was shot with a 5d2. Some of the most beautiful still and motion photography I've ever seen was shot with cameras so old that you couldn't sell them for $400.
If you want to make it . . . you'll make it, but you'll never make it by working for free.
Our careers are good, always have been with ups and downs but in the end we find a way to prevail. It's not easy, but where is the accomplishment in easy?
We don't do easy work.
Don't get too hooked up by a 16 year old celeb shooting fashion. The rich and famous have been shooting fashion forever, usually backed by good crews, or better post to handle the tech.
Does anyone think Karl Lagerfeld loads up his grey hummer at 5am drives over to George V and sets up his own lights for a Chanel shoot?
This is stuff that working photographers shouldn't think about because eventually for serious work it takes serious effort.
In regards to knowing social media, social media is just a form of inexpensive publishing.
I know of one young photographer with a big social media presence that got a few decent gigs, because she had a following. (I'm sure there are more).
The problem with this is once you turn your social media pages into advertising forums, your following drops off.
Also social media has less attention span and not a great deal of substance, so though it grows exponentially, each personal site gets less attention.
Social media is good for social media and pretty much stops there.
I'm not saying things will go back to the way they were, but that doesn't mean that content that pays is shot with a cell phone by a 17 year old and giving your work away isn't a profession, it's a hobby. (Not my rules, just ask the taxman).
Anyway to me this is talk about stuff that doesn't really concern me, same with the chart and graph guys that have come back onto this thread once again talking about noise floors and sony sensors.
I suggest any image maker or artist is to immerse yourself into the art.
When working in post subscribe and listen (you don't really have to watch) the Hollywood Reporter series of DPs, Directors, Writers, Actors and producers.
Even though it's motion picture centric, it's a series that that will tell you more about the art, the struggle, the effort it takes to become exceptional and produce something that people are willing to pay serious money for.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/videos/roundtables-4462
There is a huge volume of this on you tube.
What you will learn from this series is 100% more useful than anything you'll read on this thread.
This thread (like all threads here) is about equipment and sensors and stuff that no working artist really stops them from working.
It's a shame there isn't a series like this for photographers, but photographers seem to be more one person bands and keep information to themselves.
IMO
BC
P.S.
For the people that might read this that are starting their career in the arts, don't listen to the negative, the wannabes, the end of the world wishers.
There is always going to be privilege button pushers and hordes of self proclaimed critics/experts usually with negative opinions.
If your good, or aspire to be good, then your always pushing, always learning and always willing to do what others won't.
Learn the business inside and out, learn not to give it away and learn that the best camera you have is the camera you have.
One of the prettiest commercials I've seen was shot with a 5d2. Some of the most beautiful still and motion photography I've ever seen was shot with cameras so old that you couldn't sell them for $400.
If you want to make it . . . you'll make it, but you'll never make it by working for free.
Our careers are good, always have been with ups and downs but in the end we find a way to prevail. It's not easy, but where is the accomplishment in easy?
We don't do easy work.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/work.jpg)
You said, "if you shoot your CCDs with a Nikon D810". Since the D810 is CMOS, it would not be possible to shoot CCD with the 810. Yes, we all know that the dynamic range modern Sony Exmor CMOS sensors is great. The D200 is obsolete, but it is an example of a Nikon CCD.
Bill
I am told that the going rate for an Instagram celebrity endorsement is now $250K. This does make sense, because essentially you need to pay no agency, no AD, no photo team, no model, no stylist, no lunches, no travel, no post and no media costs (print, TV).
I was told that the huge difference of dynamic range is due to architecture design. A similar dynamic range can be achieved by CCD if it were made using the architecture of the modern Sony Exmor (just at a significantly higher price).As fas as I can tell, the main features of "the architecture of the modern Sony Exmor" that increase its DR over what CCD's offer inherently involve the active pixel approach, which is what distinguishes modern CMOS sensors from CCDs – by definition, a CCD passively transfers the electrons from photosites to off-sensor amplifiers and analog-to-digital convertors, whereas an active pixel CMOS sensor can actively process the signal with early amplification and with early on-chip analog-to-digital conversion.
I found that difficult to believe but then I went back to Brooklyn Beckham Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/brooklynbeckham/). 5.9 millions followers. It is a lot of fans watching these images.
(As to me, I did not even know Brooklyn Beckham existed before that discussion. I knew about the father, but not the son.)
OK, Fred . . . chill out man.
I dig you. Your one of the few people on this messy forum that gives real world information.
Now in regards to Karl, that was just a quote to that moron Eronald. I didn't mean anything against Mr. Lagerfeld.
But get real, he knows fashion he doesn't know photography and I don't care cause I'm not up for his gigs.
I love Chanel, how he saved their brand, but he's not a photographer he's a poser. Ad yes Roger Deakins doesn't carry his own lights, but he sure knows where to put them.
There is a difference.
IMO
BC
My post wasn't aimed at you at all, because I understood in wich
Context you wrote it. (otherwise I would have quote). I know you from quite some time here
And I know you're not the kind of person to jalous other's success
Nor critize for the sport of it. You know how much I apreciate
You and your apportations.
No no...my post was aimed to avoid a possible further witch hunting
On Karl (ya know how fast those things start in thr forums...) if some could catch
Into that as we saw it happened sometimes. In the moment a person
Is a star it is suspicious to be crap...and who say often those things?
The very sames who'd actualy like to be a star...we know
The mantras in internet.
I can't count how many times I had imputs in the Red forum
Or the Avid's when a discussion on Lightworks araised
By dudes who were systematicaly bombing Telma and others
Hollywood editors saying that those aren't like them, "we
Are the workers, the labour party. Those have 20 assistants
Behind so this is why they use LW"...blabla...
When fame denigrations like those happen it makes me jump
On my chair cause they are the very same who complain
All the time, mock successful people and only
L'artiste maudit is the real worker...bs.
Of course K is a poser as a photographer. No doubt on that.
But it does not shock me he is playing like a child with new tools
Within his world. KL is a fashion designer, not a real photographer,
Totaly agree.
But hey, he's done his life, he brought great stuff onto fashion
And obviously uses his contacts and fame to "play the photographer".
With the top models or actresses he dressed.
Less shocking than, let's say...Hamilton (the F1 driver) who
Now wants to sing...and he is doing it apparently. Lol
I own one of Karl's early photo books, published in Germany. He seems to be a visual polymath, with photo one of his minor skills; and he seems to have been making pictures for about as long as most of us here have been alive. He runs one show or so a year. Of late he has also been curating exhibitions. There is no phoniness as far as I can see.
Regarding what my friend the publisher said, that there is no reason to pay for content if the author is not famous - after looking around a bit, I think he may have concisely articulated the current trend. A father of another kid at school told me he made a career with TV screenplays, and suddenly they expected them for free. He took his kid in to see the buyer - who he knew well- to make his point that food is not yet free.
Edmund
Agree. Personaly, I don't really like him as a photographer: too "robotic" (but he is very robotic). In fact I think that he is way better as a poser-model because the pics of him are inmediatly great whatever he does, he spent part of his life to build his own image. He would be one of those models every photographer like because whatever you put KL in a frame it looks good.0
Anyway, he Works a lot but his real strengh is to design clothes.
0
I think there is a similarity between Karl and Warhol...
"How social media is transforming the fashion industry"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35483480
"In some cases, not just the models but the entire backstage team - including the make-up artists, stylists and producers - are selected according to their influence on social media.
"We won't do a photoshoot that goes on a billboard somewhere unless everyone involved has some sort of [social media] following and some sort of leverage," says Mr Venneri."
"Behind-the-scenes pictures and videos shared on its Instagram and Snapchat feeds of the Brooklyn shoot had some 15 million impressions in the eight hours the shoot was live.
The fashion retailer has nearly 40 million followers across 20 different social media platforms and openly admits that it has become as much a media content producer as a design company."
Apparently whether its is shot on CCD or CMOS is not considered, step back in amazement!!