Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: eronald on October 27, 2007, 08:11:37 pm
-
Hi Folks,
I just got my P45+/Mamiya delivered. This is as good a place as any to write up my notes.
(Trick) I got the ZD screen for the Mamiya; this way I didn't have to fiddle with any viewinder masks.
My first surprise is that the Mamiya is really usable. It's heavy, but it focuses with the same speed as an amateur dSLR, maybe even faster, and the results are sharp though not agressively so. The focus is spot-on when a definite focus area is available. I have no problem using it after my Canons. The viewfinder is "transparent" in the sense that I don't even notice it's there - the Hassy viewfinder drives me nuts every time I try it, somehow, I don't know why.
My second surprise is how nice the ISO 400 setting is, even in rotten light. Perfectly usable for snapshots etc. The back's screen shows banding, the C1 preview does too at first, but then the bands miraculously vanish from the preview and an amazing smooth film-like texture emerges. This is perfectly equivalent to what I remember of Fujichrome 400 on my Hassleblad V series in grain and sharpness.
I find the back ergonomics and preview screen a bit limiting though - even the Leica M8 does better, in my opinion, with its dedicated buttons for a few functions and snappier screen.
It would be nice to be able to use one switch to turn camera AND back on and off.
C1 is having some H/V orientation problems with the files. I think I'm going to disable the back H/V sensor if I can figure out how to do that.
So far, so good. I am going to try a still-life or two, then use the combination as my travel camera for a week, and see how it fares. Don't expect any cat pictures though.
Edmund
-
...So far, so good. I am going to try a still-life or two, then use the combination as my travel camera for a week, and see how it fares. Don't expect any cat pictures though.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149092\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What lenses are you using?
Thanks,
Fred
-
(Trick) I got the ZD screen for the Mamiya; this way I didn't have to fiddle with any viewinder masks.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149092\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Congratulations on your P45.
I was just talking with Don Libby---Iron Creek Photography---about using the new AFD focusing screens for the ZD (available at B&H)---in attempts to have an OEM replacement screen and avoiding the "cheap" vinyl overlay/mask from Phase---or having someone mark/etch the Mamiya focusing screen.
How accurate are the ZD etch marks on the new Mamiya focusing screen----versus the Phase overlay? If you place the Phase overlay on the ZD/AFD focusing screen---is it an exact match?
Thanks!
ken
-
Fred,
I'm using the stock 80 so far, and will test an old shift 50 mm tomorrow. The Mamiya with the 80 is a compact block (like the H) and ok for quick use. The 80 looks decently sharp - I do mostly street images, and indoor fashion images at medium distances, and want a decent travel camera for urban scenes where I often use a shift lens, but I don't need super-crisp at infinity like the landscape guys.
Edmund
What lenses are you using?
Thanks,
Fred
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149095\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Ken,
I was more concerned simply about inexact manual focus due to some displacement effects with the mask. An alternate screen seemed the best way to ensure this would not occur.
The question of accuracy of the etched frame lines is interesting - I'll try to arrive at an answer tomorrow with respect to the images, but I don't plan to use the Phase masks at all. Once I have a camera set up I try not to tamper with it.
Edmund
Congratulations on your P45.
I was just talking with Don Libby---Iron Creek Photography---about using the new AFD focusing screens for the ZD (available at B&H)---in attempts to have an OEM replacement screen and avoiding the "cheap" vinyl overlay/mask from Phase---or having someone mark/etch the Mamiya focusing screen.
How accurate are the ZD etch marks on the new Mamiya focusing screen----versus the Phase overlay? If you place the Phase overlay on the ZD/AFD focusing screen---is it an exact match?
Thanks!
ken
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149096\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Hi
I know of a very well known landscape photographer here in Sydney using the same set & loves the 28mm lens.
-
Some more entertainment. I took Mampy (Mamiya/P45+) out for a stroll in the local market. This was instructive, as expected:
Every single knob on the Mamiya seemed to get moved, in spite of the interlocks. Captures got wrecked all over the place:
- The meter dial got moved to spot.
- The exposure compensation dial got moved to minus something bad.
- The focus mode (S-C-M) dial got moved to in-between positions.
Obviously, I have some learning and some sticky-taping to do; I'm starting to appreciate the two-handed push-button approach of the Canon pro bodies.
Another minor annoyance, the image on the preview keeps bouncing from vertical to horizontal as I hold the camera flat to view the screen. I don't know whether this is normal or indicative of an orientation sensor failure. When in magnification mode the orientation reverts to horizontal.
Also, the Mamiya's battery insert seems a bit loose. But it works.
- exposure is unreliable (not as good as Canon!)
- focus is good.
On balance, the system is functional but the ergonomics of both camera and back really are about three generations in the past. The screen quality matches the degree of usability of the Phase menu system: One can live with it, but it doesn't convey any sense of satisfaction about the image just captured.
In spite of the above minor hassles, I'd like to say something very positive: The combo focuses reasonably quickly, handles like a dSLR, shoots sharply, and from what I've seen so far outresolves any 35mm dSLR I've used, even handheld.
Hi
I know of a very well known landscape photographer here in Sydney using the same set & loves the 28mm lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149126\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Ofcourse it outresolves anything 35mm DSLR! You will also find it will be sharper (I mean sharper without having to sharpening the bejesus out of it), has better tonal spread and transitions,etc..
Amazing to see. Everybody that has no MFDB reads about the quality being better than 35mm but everytime someone makes the step they are really impressed (sound surprised) by what they are being served.
Now, if only the cameras got a bit more like DSLR's from an ergonomical point of view
Good to hear you enjoy your Mampy sofar
-
Well, at the moment, while doing the street, I feel a bit like I'm shooting my 200mm F:1.8 Canon lens with a Holga finder. Because this is exactly what is happening in fact: the P45+ has 4x the rez of my Canon 1Ds, so with the stock 80 I have the reach of a 200mm lens in the 35mm format , at least (no anti-alias filter), zilch depth of field, but it's impossible to tell through the finder exactly what will be sharp and what won't. In fact I cannot even see the details through the finder that will be visible on screen. I need a telescopic finder !
Edmund
Ofcourse it outresolves anything 35mm DSLR! You will also find it will be sharper (I mean sharper without having to sharpening the bejesus out of it), has better tonal spread and transitions,etc..
Amazing to see. Everybody that has no MFDB reads about the quality being better than 35mm but everytime someone makes the step they are really impressed (sound surprised) by what they are being served.
Now, if only the cameras got a bit more like DSLR's from an ergonomical point of view
Good to hear you enjoy your Mampy sofar
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149161\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Congratulations, Edmund--I'm glad you took the plunge.
Regarding the quality of the files being served, yeah, it is a bit of a shock for those of us new to MF how good they are--Dustbak, it's true. You can "study" the situation, and you "know" they're better--why else spend crazy amounts of money--but there's no substitute for the actual experience of shooting and seeing those amazing results.
Enjoy "Mampy", Edmund!
-Brad
P.S. I think you mean Mampy has 4x the pixels (or twice the rez) of your 1Ds, no?
-
I need a telescopic finder !
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149164\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Or decent multipoint AF
I seem to remeber arguing that with you about a year ago
That AFing fashion you will miss the eyes every time on the catwalk
anyway - enjoy
S
-
Or decent multipoint AF
I seem to remeber arguing that with you about a year ago
That AFing fashion you will miss the eyes every time on the catwalk
anyway - enjoy
S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149167\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Morgan,
I don't think I'd argue that one - you're now preaching to the choir
Maybe Mamiya can make a new modular body with super-AF and various decently placed focus points ?
I have a feeling in the end Hassy will win all, because they can actually get this done.
Edmund
PS. Bradley, yes 4x the pixels of the 1Ds, twice the rez. And no AA filter.
-
Fred,
I'm using the stock 80 so far, and will test an old shift 50 mm tomorrow. The Mamiya with the 80 is a compact block (like the H) and ok for quick use. The 80 looks decently sharp - I do mostly street images, and indoor fashion images at medium distances, and want a decent travel camera for urban scenes where I often use a shift lens, but I don't need super-crisp at infinity like the landscape guys.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149097\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Might be of interest: I was testing (probably a bit less formally than others might) the AF80, AF55-110, and a Biometar 80 yesterday (on AFD2 and P45).
At f11 (about 15 sec exposure at ISO50)
AF80 Sharp, clean, good contrast and saturation
Biometar Softer, clean, less contrast and saturation
AF55-110@80: As AF80, except a little chroma noise in shadows - quite surprised at how good this lens was and intend to investigate further!
Unscientific and uncomplete etc, but useful to me. I welcome any comments on lenses!
(I also tested the Sekor C 50 Shift, Sekor C 45mm, and the Hartblei 45SR, AF35, Sekor C 24 Fisheye, and 30mm Arsat Fisheye, but haven't had the time to review the results yet! )
EDIT: I haven't yet had a problem yet changing dial settings accidentally. Admittedly, I don't do 'street' style photography. Is your camera new? ie the buttons couldn't be loose? ...or are you just really clumsy ?
-
Time for the proof of the pudding. Here is a B&W conversion of a fragment of an image from my breakfast exercise. Reduction from an unsharpened image with one of my own B&W recipes.
Edmund
-
Now here is a 100% unsharpened crop of the gentleman at the centre of the picture, showing the quality of the Mampy focus, and the sharpness of the whole system, and the lovely film-like grain. Typically, a DSLR image would balckout the underside of the hat brim.
Edmund
-
And for a finale, here is the whole image, a bit reduced
Edmund
-
And for a finale, here is the whole image, a bit reduced
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149205\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nice job Edmond,
The color image does have a similar look of 400 speed Portra NC film except it appears a whole lot sharper. my only complaint with MFD is the uneven skin tones around certain parts of the body, Nose, ears, neck, etc. It is actualily that way or does digital just makes a bad thing worst. Film seemed to be much kinder to people bodies in eveness of skin color rendition. I understand why for superb MFD digital skin tones you need the services of a really good digital retoucher.
db
-
I haven't had a chance to look at the color issues yet, I'll make some custom profiles for my back, but I only have time to do that in two weeks time. My experience is that colors in C1 improve a lot with my own profiles - but then that's what I'd be sure to say
I think a lot of the issues with digital skin color actually come from IR/UV sensitivity where the camera is actually looking through the skin. Ears seem to be prime targets for this effect.
It would seem that the new Phase backs have different filter glasses from the old batch.
Edmund
Nice job Edmond,
The color image does have a similar look of 400 speed Portra NC film except it appears a whole lot sharper. my only complaint with MFD is the uneven skin tones around certain parts of the body, Nose, ears, neck, etc. It is actualily that way or does digital just makes a bad thing worst. Film seemed to be much kinder to people bodies in eveness of skin color rendition. I understand why for superb MFD digital skin tones you need the services of a really good digital retoucher.
db
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149213\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I haven't had a chance to look at the color issues yet, I'll make some custom profiles for my back, but I only have time to do that in two weeks time. My experience is that colors in C1 improve a lot with my own profiles - but then that's what I'd be sure to say
I think a lot of the issues with digital skin color actually come from IR/UV sensitivity where the camera is actually looking through the skin. Ears seem to be prime targets for this effect.
It would seem that the new Phase backs have different filter glasses from the old batch.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149214\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Edmund,
The IR/UV sensitivity would explain a lot of what I am seeing in the skin tones, 20 years ago I use to be a Bio-Medical photographer for a large teaching research hospital and we used UV lights as well as IR films to show medical conditions with photographic materials. I guess that PhD degree you earned comes in handy every now and then.
Cheers,
db
-
Another minor annoyance, the image on the preview keeps bouncing from vertical to horizontal as I hold the camera flat to view the screen. I don't know whether this is normal or indicative of an orientation sensor failure. When in magnification mode the orientation reverts to horizontal.
Hi Edmund. Love that black and white conversion. The issue you're having with the preview jumping back and forth between vertical and horizontal is not normal (at least, I've never seen it on mine). Not sure how your switches and settings are getting misset - all of the switches seem to be a reasonable compromise between stiffness and ease of operation.
You're comments about IR and UV sensitivity are interesting - are you suggesting it might be useful to use a UV or IR cut filter on the lenses?
I'm still interested in trying one of your profiles. I never heard back from you after I sent you the sample images you requested.
-
Hi
Are you using the AFDII body? If you are you can separate the focus from the shutter release button. You can either have the focus on the front or rear of the body. For your street work this set up would be a big advantage.
-
Now here is a 100% unsharpened crop of the gentleman at the centre of the picture, showing the quality of the Mampy focus, and the sharpness of the whole system, and the lovely film-like grain. Typically, a DSLR image would balckout the underside of the hat brim.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149204\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Besides some moire in the upper part of the hat, this is very nice.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Hi Edmund. Love that black and white conversion. The issue you're having with the preview jumping back and forth between vertical and horizontal is not normal (at least, I've never seen it on mine). Not sure how your switches and settings are getting misset - all of the switches seem to be a reasonable compromise between stiffness and ease of operation.
You're comments about IR and UV sensitivity are interesting - are you suggesting it might be useful to use a UV or IR cut filter on the lenses?
I'm still interested in trying one of your profiles. I never heard back from you after I sent you the sample images you requested.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149251\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mort, I'll send you the test profile I will make of my own back as soon as I manage to get enough natural light to create it.
I'll investigate the IR/UV issue carefully; it will take me some time though.
Edmund
-
Hi
Are you using the AFDII body? If you are you can separate the focus from the shutter release button. You can either have the focus on the front or rear of the body. For your street work this set up would be a big advantage.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149255\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Denis, I tried separating focus-lock and shutter on my Canons but could never get the hang of it and so gave up, although this seems to be the setup of most action shooters. I use half press even catwalk shoots where I track with a tele. for What's the major advantage over a half-pressed shutter ?
Edmund
-
Denis, I tried separating focus-lock and shutter on my Canons but could never get the hang of it and so gave up, although this seems to be the setup of most action shooters. I use half press even catwalk shoots where I track with a tele. for What's the major advantage over a half-pressed shutter ?
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149304\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi
My Canon is always set up this way. It allows you to re frame & not having to refocus again. I find it gives me more freedom plus the Mamiya is always set in AF mode. I prefer the Mamiya lenses that have the push pull click on the lens body(55-110, 150, 200 mm) or a switch (35mm). I find it makes the transition from the Mamiya to the Canon seamless with rear button focus.
-
Mort, I'll send you the test profile I will make of my own back as soon as I manage to get enough natural light to create it.
I'll investigate the IR/UV issue carefully; it will take me some time though.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149299\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am convinced digital photography brings out veins under the skin
I bought an IR UV cut filter for my 80 and sinarback
Cannot see ANY difference at all with or without
maybe three in a stack would have an affect
But it does look quite funky on the camera
now a red filter (ie a blue cut) would cut would darken all non red items and in effect lighten reddy areas like bad skin
given a grey card shot at the time to bring the colours back ??
S
-
You can see the veins clearly in some of the advertising imagery; on the other hand, heroin chic leaves the girls with very little subcutaneous fat.
The place to look for an IR effect is in the blacks, eg. synthetic clothes which will look the same as other materials to your eyes, but not in the photos. However, if the camera profiles have been heavily edited this effect may have been minimised, with damaged normal-color rendition as a result. For instance my magnta-minimised P30+ portrait profile will certainly render real world magenta flowers with less saturation.
I'd say that to get good color rendition with an IR filter fitted you should use a profile made with the filter. If you get a filter, send me a spare one for my 80mm and I'll wave the profiling fee
Edmund
I am convinced digital photography brings out veins under the skin
I bought an IR UV cut filter for my 80 and sinarback
Cannot see ANY difference at all with or without
maybe three in a stack would have an affect
But it does look quite funky on the camera
now a red filter (ie a blue cut) would cut would darken all non red items and in effect lighten reddy areas like bad skin
given a grey card shot at the time to bring the colours back ??
S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149359\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Thanks for this post.
I just returned from a month long photo trip which was the first real test of my 645AFD and P30+ back. (Not being a pro I couldn't swing the P45+)
Your findings are very similar to mine. The overall quality, range and detail are substantially better than the Canon 5D I replaced.
I found the metering to be better than expected but it could be that the additional DR made it seem so.
Even though I have a pretty full kit of lenses I found myself using the 50-110 lens for about 80% of the shots.
Now if I could just get my hands on the 28mm.
-
Even though I have a pretty full kit of lenses I found myself using the 50-110 lens for about 80% of the shots.
Now if I could just get my hands on the 28mm.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149414\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm looking for a replacement for my Canon 85mm/1.2 for the 645. Anyone here have suggestions ? I prefer AF and primes.
Edmund
-
the 120 macro will be the closest with your back. But it's MF.
I think it's a really good lens.
Or the 150mm/3.5 AF but I do not know nothing about it.
-
I'm looking for a replacement for my Canon 85mm/1.2 for the 645. Anyone here have suggestions ? I prefer AF and primes.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149458\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Edmund,
I very highly recommend the Mamiya 80mm f/1.9. It gives you perhaps more shallow DOF than the 50 f/1.2 for Canon. It is manual focus and stepped down metering. If you cannot find it new, it is on Ebay very cheap. Frank Doorhof recently posted on his webpage on that lens. For portraits it works great by foot focus . It is also rather light weight.
Regards
Anders
-
The place to look for an IR effect is in the blacks, eg. synthetic clothes which will look the same as other materials to your eyes, but not in the photos.Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149370\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I disagree - there is some affect going on in the guys face - this is not unique to your photo or even your camera or even phase
My suspicion is that it is UV or IR 'leak'
and an IR cut filter wont sort it
Maybe it is not IR or UV but it is not nice
S
-
I disagree - there is some affect going on in the guys face - this is not unique to your photo or even your camera or even phase
My suspicion is that it is UV or IR 'leak'
and an IR cut filter wont sort it
Maybe it is not IR or UV but it is not nice
S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149504\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sam,
That was the point I was trying to make early. The red circles you drew are exactly what I was talking about.
db
-
I think it looks like the normal places a person would be a bit red on chilly day, especially if you are working your face muscles singing like that guy, but you can easily even that out a bit with some RAW adjustments. I don't see the big fuss. It seems like some expect the same smoothness in skin tone on "regular" people straight out of the camera as a retouched commercial for make-up. Ain't gonna happen. Joe Schmoe just isn't that picture perfect. JMHO.
-
...the same smoothness in skin tone on "regular" people straight out of the camera as a retouched commercial for make-up.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149553\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is my experience as well. At first I thought it was "digital" but now when I encounter it, if I go up to a person in my studio, and view the skin, parts of it will ofthen have a slight red/magenta tone (in need of some makeup.)
-axel
-
Not to mention if he has a couple of whiskey after the BIG street show for many years you get that effect also.. Probably smokes too..:+}
Looks like skin problems of the guy, Not to blame the Back or Camera...
Snook
-
I think it looks like the normal places a person would be a bit red on chilly day, especially if you are working your face muscles singing like that guy, but you can easily even that out a bit with some RAW adjustments.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149553\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Maybe you are right, because you can see it in his eyes » he needs NeoCitron
-
This is my experience as well. At first I thought it was "digital" but now when I encounter it, if I go up to a person in my studio, and view the skin, parts of it will ofthen have a slight red/magenta tone (in need of some makeup.)
-axel
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149573\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have seen this on twenty year old non smoking non starved models
I even got eyebags on a six year old kid recently
I believe the cameras exagerate the effect - it is there - but really shows with digital
It seems like a 2% darkening in the skin colour of the model equates to a 10% darkening in the file
S
ps this is a very european phenomenon - I photographed an agrentinian with gold skin and couldnt even find anywhere to retouch
-
I believe the cameras exagerate the effect - it is there - but really shows with digital
It seems like a 2% darkening in the skin colour of the model equates to a 10% darkening in the file
That will happen if you boost contrast either globally with curves/levels or locally with large-radius USM. Either will intensify the visibility of any skin blemishes.
-
I agree with the above posts on both sides of the IR issue. I think digital can be a lot less flattering than film was for people - partly because in some areas/colors its too accurate (and we are not used to seeing it that way) and in other colors/areas its not accurate or exaggerated - so both too right and too wrong in the same file. Sharpness is another issue. I find the focus apex to be just a bit tighter with digital than film - so in portions of the image every pore, every flaw in the skin is visible - not so flattering either.
Questions are why and what can we do? I don't see the IR filters helping much. It's a bit of a pain to retouch every image so something along the lines of a skin profile would help. I don't find the ones phase supplied me for my P20 to be of much help.
-
That will happen if you boost contrast either globally with curves/levels or locally with large-radius USM. Either will intensify the visibility of any skin blemishes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149611\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course.
My opinion/thesis is that there is somthing about european skin and its translucence that cameras 'see throught it' (in the same way that xrays do)
Or are over sensitive in one channel (blue? nearlyUV?) in a way that just darkens those areas dissproportianaly to the rest of the image
So to get a real look you neet to sandwich two conversions - that skin and the rest - which is a stupidly long process
In my B+W days I was taught that tungsten was more flattering for the yellow light smoothed skin and blue filters were for 'hard men' portraits because the red imperfections went darker and brought more contrast to the image
Some one needs to test what happens if one shoots under the different sources and newtralises the image back with a grey card
S
-
I have seen this on twenty year old non smoking non starved models
I even got eyebags on a six year old kid recently
I believe the cameras exagerate the effect - it is there - but really shows with digital
It seems like a 2% darkening in the skin colour of the model equates to a 10% darkening in the file
S
ps this is a very european phenomenon - I photographed an agrentinian with gold skin and couldnt even find anywhere to retouch
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149605\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Is this the reason why most photographers say LEAF is usually better when it comes to skin tones?
-
Is this the reason why most photographers say LEAF is usually better when it comes to skin tones?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149681\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I dont know - maybe
I think the old myths - imacon is yellow - eyelike is flat - ect where often based around quick demos on canned camera 'looks' in early software
But the phenomonon is there (IMO) for both phase and sinar which are kodak and dalsa if I am not wrong
So it aint one chip and not the other
The eye/brain processor is of course running some pretty complex conversions so maybe the cameras just provide a more objective view of what people actually look like
S
-
I find that people seem to forget that digital is just that; DIGITAL. It is not supposed to look great straight out of the camera if you are shooting RAW. It's just collecting the data so you can decide what you want the photo to look like in post. It always cracks me up when people say things like: "Leaf has better skin tones" or "this or that camera has the best colors". What they should be saying is: "I like the colors I get with the files from this camera at default settings with this RAW developer". Having shot a RAW file you still have the work ahead of you equivalent of choosing a film before the shot back in the days. Nothing has changed, just reversed. And you have more control over the final look today. Now more than ever the photographer is creating the image, not your gear. JMHO.
-
Having shot a RAW file you still have the work ahead of you equivalent of choosing a film before the shot back in the days. Nothing has changed, just reversed. And you have more control over the final look today. Now more than ever the photographer is creating the image, not your gear. JMHO.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149754\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Getting off subject, but need to state my view;
The photographer had choice with film too - gear did not dictate, but it was much EASIER (not to mentiond CHEAPER), just choose film before you shot. Now requires more involvement from all, not only professionals who were part of printing process before with film, but also us amateurs who were not.
Film nowadays is more difficult than even five years ago when I got serious into photography and slides; finding film, processing, making it DIGITAL.
Regards
Anders
-
On the IR/UV thing
While profiles and 'looks' can help I dont think they can be the answer - they only perform transforms on data they have
An extreme example to demonstrate the point.
If a digital camera were blind to red then no profile or transform could correct that
Because red would be black and black would be black
No mathematic al transform (which is what profiles/looks are) could know which black areas were supposed to be red and which black areas supposed to be black
Extrapolate this theory and you are lead to the use of phisical filters at some point in the capture process to create an image that is percived correctly by the eye before or after conversion
Being that red skin areas go dark that would demonstrate an insensitivity to red so it would appear that using a (mild) red filter (which cuts other colous but red) could be the solution
This would have of course to be used in conjunction with a grey card or white reference to remove a blatant hue from the image
Is this filter exactly what used to be known as a 'warm up' filter in the 'old days'
S
-
Morgan,
Here is what I think at the moment:
1. If a sensor is blind to some color, you cannot put it back into the images.
2. If a sensor is too strongly sensitive to a color, you can scale back that color in the imagery mathematically ,provided it can discriminate it.
3. If a sensor is under-sensitive to a color you can intensify it mathematically, provided again that you can discriminate it.
The discrimination bit depends on the Bayer filters which are set in front of the actual photosites.
As an example, take the Leica M8 and its IR sensitivity. Here case (2) applies. but a look at the curves for the Kodak sensor used in the Leica M8 shows that they are getting collinear in the IR region and so IR cannot be *easily* discriminated from red. So it's easier to just kill the IR physically with a filter. I think this argument may carry over to the digital backs with similar Kodak sensors (Phase, Hassy) although they already have a stronger IR filter in front of *all* the Bayer filters.
i would agree that it's possible that some color-hue filters over the lens might also help with discrimination between visible colors. And also bring the sensor back into its linear region. In particular a blue (cooling) filter used under incandescent light should help bring up the blue channel and get rid of blue channel noise visible when the blue channel is low and other channels are strong.
Maybe some experiments would be in order here ?
Edmund
On the IR/UV thing
While profiles and 'looks' can help I dont think they can be the answer - they only perform transforms on data they have
An extreme example to demonstrate the point.
If a digital camera were blind to red then no profile or transform could correct that
Because red would be black and black would be black
No mathematic al transform (which is what profiles/looks are) could know which black areas were supposed to be red and which black areas supposed to be black
Extrapolate this theory and you are lead to the use of phisical filters at some point in the capture process to create an image that is percived correctly by the eye before or after conversion
Being that red skin areas go dark that would demonstrate an insensitivity to red so it would appear that using a (mild) red filter (which cuts other colous but red) could be the solution
This would have of course to be used in conjunction with a grey card or white reference to remove a blatant hue from the image
Is this filter exactly what used to be known as a 'warm up' filter in the 'old days'
S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149780\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Morgan,
Here is what I think at the moment:
1. If a sensor is blind to some color, you cannot put it back into the images.
2. If a sensor is too strongly sensitive to a color, you can scale back that color in the imagery mathematically ,provided it can discriminate it.
3. If a sensor is under-sensitive to a color you can intensify it mathematically, provided again that you can discriminate it.
The discrimination bit depends on the Bayer filters which are set in front of the actual photosites.
As an example, take the Leica M8 and its IR sensitivity. Here case (2) applies. but a look at the curves for the Kodak sensor used in the Leica M8 shows that they are getting collinear in the IR region and so IR cannot be *easily* discriminated from red. So it's easier to just kill the IR physically with a filter. I think this argument may carry over to the digital backs with similar Kodak sensors (Phase, Hassy) although they already have a stronger IR filter in front of *all* the Bayer filters.
i would agree that it's possible that some color-hue filters over the lens might also help with discrimination between visible colors. And also bring the sensor back into its linear region. In particular a blue (cooling) filter used under incandescent light should help bring up the blue channel and get rid of blue channel noise visible when the blue channel is low and other channels are strong.
Maybe some experiments would be in order here ?
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149790\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I hate to say it, because I like a good virtual punch up, but I think we are in complete agreement
A guess is that this is particularly a high ISO situation because nowadays the sensors who have originall been specced ISOs at 25-50 are being pushed by market forces and software into being used a up to an eight times the sensitiviy to thier original design, one would not be suprised if 'linearity loss' was one of the compromises of the ISO race
hope you enjoying the P45 - now you can 'experiment' as much as you want rather than hypothesize
S
-
Edmund
Getting back to the Mamiya ZD screen Phase One combo....
How is that working out for you?
I've got a P30+ and am currently using the cheesy Phase screen overlay but would use this combo if it works.
don
-
Edmund
Getting back to the Mamiya ZD screen Phase One combo....
How is that working out for you?
I've got a P30+ and am currently using the cheesy Phase screen overlay but would use this combo if it works.
don
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149844\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No complaints so far, but I haven't done any checking yet as to the exactness of the borders.
However, of course, the ZD back and the P45 have very similar sizes, the P30, NOT !!!!
Bill Maxwell can scribe lines on any screen as well.
Edmund
-
Ok if we can't get good correction with profiles then we need:
1) UV filter to stop veins under skin from showing
2) IR filter to keep red blotches off skin.
What would be awesome is to get a flat piece with both coatings that we could stick over our sensors - what's that place that's taking off the IR and AA filters from the DSLR sensors MAXMAX? Maybe they could do it?
-
Ok if we can't get good correction with profiles then we need:
1) UV filter to stop veins under skin from showing
2) IR filter to keep red blotches off skin.
What would be awesome is to get a flat piece with both coatings that we could stick over our sensors - what's that place that's taking off the IR and AA filters from the DSLR sensors MAXMAX? Maybe they could do it?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=149900\")
[a href=\"http://maxmax.com/aXNiteFilters.htm]http://maxmax.com/aXNiteFilters.htm[/url]
Look at the cc1 and cc2 filters they can be mounted on the lens
Marc
-
Ok if we can't get good correction with profiles then we need:
1) UV filter to stop veins under skin from showing
2) IR filter to keep red blotches off skin.
What would be awesome is to get a flat piece with both coatings that we could stick over our sensors - what's that place that's taking off the IR and AA filters from the DSLR sensors MAXMAX? Maybe they could do it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149900\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have already bought an UV/IR cut filter and it doesnt work*
My guess is that one that really worked would have a significant ND effect too
I am sure the makers compromise in thier designs
A really strong UV/IR cut filter may affect ISO and there not be a percieved market for such in this ISO obsessed age
But in a studio with a lot of light I coulc live with my back at 12 ISO
S
*correct this affect
-
Ok if we can't get good correction with profiles then we need:
1) UV filter to stop veins under skin from showing
2) IR filter to keep red blotches off skin.
What would be awesome is to get a flat piece with both coatings that we could stick over our sensors - what's that place that's taking off the IR and AA filters from the DSLR sensors MAXMAX? Maybe they could do it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149900\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, I think good profiles can be made for the P30+ and P45+. The previous models had a different less strong IR filter, I believe, so one would need to shoot with a 486 (IR,UV cut) , maybe and then reprofile to get rid of any IR effects.
One of the problems is that people in the US hate magenta in faces, but I've looked hard at people's faces and some magenta is really often there (burst blood vessels etc). This means that a profile that is pleasing -rather than realistic- needs to be edited. My profiles are in fact heavily edited.
BTW, some of the older Phase profiles are seriously bad (spiky), but I have recomputed versions that are much smoother. In particular for the P25.
Edmund
-
I am still using Mammy -the P45+, AFDII- as a walkbout camera, while I get used ti the controls. For street and walkabout photography, the 800 and 400 Iso settings seem perfectly usable, apart from some striation issues (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20901) which I have reported to Phase via the dealer and hope to get solved.
Focus with the Mamiya is good, setting the camera to spot metering or going to manual exposure is sometimes a necessity to avoid over-exposure.
The screen on the Phase back seems its weakest point.
At the risk of repeating myself, I would like to say that I really like the Mamiya "look" with this back.
Edmund