Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Mort54 on January 24, 2008, 06:21:35 pm
-
Phase One announced on their support forum that their new camera will make it's first public appearance at the Photo Imaging Expo in Tokyo on March 19-22.
-
Jeesh, and here I was hoping for an early Q1 release... crap.
-
I'm going to be in Tokyo in March/April. I shall try to drop in and have a look at the camera.
Hopefully I'll have a hy6 with me by then...
-
I'm going to be in Tokyo in March/April. I shall try to drop in and have a look at the camera.
Hopefully I'll have a hy6 with me by then...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169442\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
They better get their freakin Software up to date or they are going to lose a lot of business if they have not already.
I personally have been playing with light room and love it.
I will toss C-1 out the door as soon as or if Lightroom is made to tethered..
The fill light command works awesome and not sure why C-1 never had such an option?
Maybe they do in C-4..
Snook
-
They better get their freakin Software up to date or they are going to lose a lot of business if they have not already.
I personally have been playing with light room and love it.
I will toss C-1 out the door as soon as or if Lightroom is made to tethered..
The fill light command works awesome and not sure why C-1 never had such an option?
Maybe they do in C-4..
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169451\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I stopped using C1 about a year ago in favor of LR and ACR. I only use C1 for tethered into a lightroom auto-import folder. I too hope it will be possible to shoot directly into lightroom eventually so I can trash C1 all together. As far as C1 4.0 goes I think it's way too little way too late.
-
They better get their freakin Software up to date or they are going to lose a lot of business if they have not already.
I personally have been playing with light room and love it.
I will toss C-1 out the door as soon as or if Lightroom is made to tethered..
The fill light command works awesome and not sure why C-1 never had such an option?
Maybe they do in C-4..
Snook
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=169451\")
Yes we have received a memo from Phase One confirming that it will be shown there and a public statement regarding all the features and such should be forthcoming shortly. As soon as we can share information publicly we'll get it up here.
It is right on target with being in the first quarter as stated late last year.
Lance Schad
Capture Integration - Miami/Atlanta
Phase One Dealer of the Year
305-534-5701 office
305-394-3196 cell
877-217-9870
[a href=\"http://www.captureintegration.com]Capture Integration , Phase One Dealer[/url]
lance@captureintegration.com
-
I can't wait to retire my AFd! I hope the AFdIII is not stupid expensive.
Snook,
Try C1-4 on some files. Its not Light Room but it is FAST and a huge step in the right direction. The conversions seem better than ACR/LR, especially with Phase files but also with 1dsII and 5D files. I notice that I get artifacts on P25 and 5D files with ACR that are not present in C1. I'm not really digging into C1 4 until the Pro version is out.
-
I stopped using C1 about a year ago in favor of LR and ACR. I only use C1 for tethered into a lightroom auto-import folder. I too hope it will be possible to shoot directly into lightroom eventually so I can trash C1 all together. As far as C1 4.0 goes I think it's way too little way too late.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169466\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree .. way to little too late.. then they will have to work out all the bugs etc...
Lightroom is pretty sweet and I have only just begun to play with it..
Trying to get the organizing down and batching ( if possible) and export going..
I just do one by one right now which is impossible for some jobs..:+}
You say the auto import is working good? I have not tried that yet either.
What I wished for many times with C-1 is to be able and shoot full screen and no other tool bars up.. I think Aperture is the only one that allows that kinda..?
But I hate aperture apart from the Family albums..:+}
Snook
-
They better get their freakin Software up to date or they are going to lose a lot of business if they have not already.
I personally have been playing with light room and love it.
I will toss C-1 out the door as soon as or if Lightroom is made to tethered..
The fill light command works awesome and not sure why C-1 never had such an option?
Maybe they do in C-4..
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169451\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nailed it 100%. I do like lightroom, I have heard some chatter about dark channel file or something like that and LR not being able to see it. I did a shot the other day and it had pretty bad moire and I processed it in C1 PRo with the moire tool, it is pretty amazing. I will keep C1 around but I use LR any chance I can.
Love it!
Ken
-
I use lightroom for my catalogs but have to admit that the C1 conversions for my P20 are much better than lightroom, and the newest C1 is even better still.
Lightroom is also way slow to preview the images....
-
In reference to Mort's post, this is what a Phase representative said in the forums -
As promised here is an update to this thread:
Camera will first be shown at PIE (Photo Imaging Expo) in Tokyo March 19-22
As announced the camera will have Mamiya 645AFD interface so any digital back with this interface (including all competitors system) can be used on the new Phase One camera and this includes Mamiya film holders.
_________________
Kind Regards
Ulf Liljegren
Phase One
The thread. (http://forum.phaseone.com/viewtopic.php?t=4616&start=15&sid=986d93badcab45833d75c40a5d5d61d6)
Unless the LR and ACR are using the calibration file burned into the Phase One back's ROM, then C1 still has a big advantage. As for as I know LR/ACR do not use that data. If I'm wrong about this, then that would be good news
The new C1 Version 4 isn't 1/2 bad. The one thing I really dislike about C1 in general is their approach to "sessions" and the file structure. It creates so many preview and thumb files - which just eat up HD drive space. And if I'm not paying attention, some time the processed RAW files go to an folder and finding the TIFF can take awhile...
C1v4 needs some work for sure; I'm looking forward to seeing C1 Pro V4. C1 Pro 3.7.7 (and 3.7.8) has functionality the V4 does not, so Phase has left back owners in a awkward spot.
-
Unless the LR and ACR are using the calibration file burned into the Phase One back's ROM, then C1 still has a big advantage.
When P45+ support was first added to LR, I did a series of comparisons between it and C1 version 3.x (the most recent version before C1 - 4). The rendered results looked a little different between the two (slightly different color, slightly different brightness), but neither one looked better than the other, to my eye at least. The detail and noise looked identical to my eye, and I found the LR tone mapping to be slightly more pleasing (personal opinion, obviously). I didn't have any shots that exhibited moire so I couldn't compare the two on that. Anyway, I concluded at the time that there was no disadvantage to using LR over C1. I admit I haven't looked at C1, v. 4, so maybe the results would be different with it.
-
When P45+ support was first added to LR, I did a series of comparisons between it and C1 version 3.x (the most recent version before C1 - 4). The rendered results looked a little different between the two (slightly different color, slightly different brightness), but neither one looked better than the other, to my eye at least. The detail and noise looked identical to my eye, and I found the LR tone mapping to be slightly more pleasing (personal opinion, obviously). I didn't have any shots that exhibited moire so I couldn't compare the two on that. Anyway, I concluded at the time that there was no disadvantage to using LR over C1. I admit I haven't looked at C1, v. 4, so maybe the results would be different with it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169560\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
One thing I've noticed is that LR reads the phase files way underexposed. C1 files looks much better and balanced from start. Also skin tones are better in C1 IMO. Landscape or artistic work can be worked further in LR but if I need to work on a file that much I'll end up in PS anyway.
I think I've found a good system to integrate both:
I always import the files from the card via C1 creating a session. I preview the results, check WB possible settings, discard bad files etc... Then I import the hole session structure into LR. I keep the RAWs in the captures folder and If they go to PS I move them to the "process" folder. Then I may make a copy of the untouched RAWS and put them into an .dmg file inside the Session folder too. Storage space isn't an issue these days. When a project is finished I only keep the final tiffs, the Raws and the PS files that needed layer adjustments or some king of heavy work.
In some way, I don't really trust LR or Aperture, just keeping the adjustments in a separate/remote text file. I think it's better to process the files to "burn" the settings into them.
/Samuel
-
When P45+ support was first added to LR, I did a series of comparisons between it and C1 version 3.x (the most recent version before C1 - 4). The rendered results looked a little different between the two (slightly different color, slightly different brightness), but neither one looked better than the other, to my eye at least. The detail and noise looked identical to my eye, and I found the LR tone mapping to be slightly more pleasing (personal opinion, obviously). I didn't have any shots that exhibited moire so I couldn't compare the two on that. Anyway, I concluded at the time that there was no disadvantage to using LR over C1. I admit I haven't looked at C1, v. 4, so maybe the results would be different with it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169560\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think this may depend on how much the chip and other components in your back are "within spec". If the calibration file has to do a lot of correction on the file, the LR and ACR will show up more problems than C1.
I have tried LR and ACR (use it extensively with all Canon, Nikon and Hasselblad files) and my backs files (P45+) are just not as good in anything but C1. They show a slight centrefold, as well as a color cast not coming from the lenses going across the frame (about 150-200 kelvin in difference with a couple of points of cyan to the left of the frame.)
The above has showed up equally on my P45+ and a loaner P45+, so there is something in what phase is saying, LR and ACR will probably do a great job with most P1 files, just not all...
-axel
-
The above has showed up equally on my P45+ and a loaner P45+, so there is something in what phase is saying, LR and ACR will probably do a great job with most P1 files, just not all...
I agree. Enough people CAN see an improvement when they process the images in C1 that it obviously has to be true. But for whatever reason, I get the opposite results. Samuel mentioned that LR renders somewhat underexposed compared to C1. What I see is that C1 renders a bit too bright, and LR renders about right (on a calibrated monitor, with luminance set to 110). That's why I mentioned in my earlier post that I preferred the LR tone mapping. It's weird how we can get these diametrically opposed results, but as you say, it may be due to something like the calibration file, and the extent to which a given back deviates from the optimum.
I may give C1, v. 4 a try this weekend and see if my experience is any different.
-
In some way, I don't really trust LR or Aperture, just keeping the adjustments in a separate/remote text file. I think it's better to process the files to "burn" the settings into them.
I agree. I export all my "saleable" files to a "Masters" directory in PSD format. I still keep the LR adjustments in LR, but I have the added security of having the master file with all adjustments "burned in".
-
Personally I have found ACR/LR better in every aspect, even less artifacts, due to much better sharpening algorithms. The "black calibration" etc is just bs as far as I can tell. And the end result is always so much better because you can control it so much more in ACR/LR. As for Moiré there is an excellent photoshop plugin from P1 that does the exact same thing as the built in function in C1, actually I've found it better many times. I've gone back several times during last year to compare the two products and the result is always the same, ACR/LR is a clear winner.
Maybe the people that prefer C1 just don't do much editing on their files? Because if you do I don't see how you could live with C1's limited toolset.
-
It depends where you do your editing - for me it's in CS3. All the adjustments in LR are neat and the GUI is sexy enough, but I'm really not interested in global edits. I prefer to select regions and make local improvements to key areas. The goal of the raw converter (for me) is to deliver the best, most neutral image which is primed for editing in CS3. If the goal were to open the raw file, apply a color/contrast scheme to the entire image and not edit specific areas, then I can see the appeal of LR. I don't work that way, so to me LR is just a really fancy can opener while all the cooking and seasoning is done elsewhere.
As Axel stated, the calibration file can be extremely important - it's removing sensor color cast. If your back doesn't have much color shift across the sensor, then this correction isn't as important. If a back has extreme shifts from left to right, trust me, the loss of this information makes post processing more complicated, time consuming - and downright upsetting. If LR incorporated this data, then I'd give LR a second chance. If I could select areas and feather selection, then I could probably due 50%+ of my editing in LR and in some cases there would be zero need for CS3. I imagine Adobe has already figured this out.
-
Hi
I agree that LR should go tethered. With the latest version of capture one I did notice they have plenty of color spaces which is great while LR only has three & I wish LR would give us the option of adding our own preferred color space. I really do enjoy LR & would rather work in one one platform for capturing.
Denis
-
I wish LR would have the same RGB numbering as PS so that I caneasily figure out what the values will be when the file goes to PS for final editing. I hate those existing numbers. Will it ever happen?
-
Henry - if you selected ProPhoto as the output space from LR, wouldn't LR and CS3 match since both are using the same color space (assuming ProPhoto was your working space in CS3)? Worked for me on a Mac when I tried the LR demo several months back. It was hard to know if I was click on exactly the same pixel when comparing, but the values seemed close enough that I was reasonably confident the apps were in sync.
In case you're wondering - I was having some profiling issues at the time, so I was busying taking screen shots, crops of this and that and trying 4 different raw editors to make sure everything was using the same color profile.
-
After reading this thread and seeing all the thumbs up for LR, I went back to really see if c1 was better and ran several P20 files through both. I have made some conclusions which I'll share. Definitely more detail is recovered with C1, color is better and its faster to boot. I thought about cutting out 100% crops to share with you all but didn't have time. You'll just have to go out and try it yourself if you don't want to believe me. Also in some images with very fine detail LR got a lot of CA or colored fringing around very fine branches in bushes and trees where C1 was perfect. I could not get them to go away with LR CA tools but never even had to think about them with C1. In another image there where two tree trunks, one behind the other in a small section of the image. In the Lightroom rendering they looked like the same tree, but in the C1 I could clearly make out that it was two separate trees - and that was one area that really convinced me that I needed to run my best files through C1. I like the look of the files better in C1-DB but the detail and noise is better in C1 V4-Beta 2. The new beta has shadows and highlight recover tools just like LR. I think where LR excels is in the color adjustment tools and grey scale conversion tools. These are better certainly. I have to use Lightroom to catalog my images because its the only tool that works with all my cameras but I now sort my images with C1 and delete the junk first because the previews are so much faster for stuff like checking focus, etc. For some reason LR is really slow with the p20 files, but not bad with the leica DMR or canon files.
I'm looking forward to a new release of C1-DB more than what their new camera will be.
-
The trouble with C1, for me, was that it makes too many decisions as soon as the file opens. Sharpening is perhaps the most annoying. Even with sharpening apparently off, it still sharpens. Maybe the new version will be better but from what people are saying about how it looks, I doubt it. I agree colour is more pleasing, My preference is to be able to set a range of presets, including sharpening if I need it at that stage, and apply that. I hate machines/software making decisions for me.
-
I should point out that I shoot mostly high-end fashion editorials and product still-life, not trees and tree trunks. The controls you have in LR/ACR are priceless, especially for skin tones. I also hate the sharpening in C1 which still produces ugly artifacts even when you turn it down to 0. As far as detail goes LR produces more detail than I could ever ask for, so no complaints there, nor have I found any anomalies as CA, color shifts, etc. Just pure, crisp quality.
I get the feeling that people who like C1 are the ones who faithfully wants to reproduce reality without much editing, like landscape photographers. And people who like LR/ACR generally are the ones who want to create their own vision and appreciate the creative control.
-
[/quote]
I get the feeling that people who like C1 are the ones who faithfully wants to reproduce reality without much editing, like landscape photographers. And people who like LR/ACR generally are the ones who want to create their own vision and appreciate the creative control.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169929\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
I think it is about where you edit. I process using C1 and edit in CS3. I shoot beauty and editorial. I use C1 on Phase files for a thick, color accurate file, disable sharpening, process to tiff and either hand it off to a retoucher or use CS3 to get the look I'm going for. I use layers, a lot. I don't think LR has layers. My whole issue with LR is that I never really saw the point. It has a nice GUI and is a nice concept, but the one size fits all converter is (in my opinion) lacking for really demanding work, and the editing toolset is not as complete as CS3.
-
I get the feeling that people who like C1 are the ones who faithfully wants to reproduce reality without much editing, like landscape photographers. And people who like LR/ACR generally are the ones who want to create their own vision and appreciate the creative control.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169929\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
+1
(Still think C1 produces the best file, wish it would not do so many baseline adjustments for me though...)
-
I think it is about where you edit. I process using C1 and edit in CS3. I shoot beauty and editorial. I use C1 on Phase files for a thick, color accurate file, disable sharpening, process to tiff and either hand it off to a retoucher or use CS3 to get the look I'm going for. I use layers, a lot. I don't think LR has layers. My whole issue with LR is that I never really saw the point. It has a nice GUI and is a nice concept, but the one size fits all converter is (in my opinion) lacking for really demanding work, and the editing toolset is not as complete as CS3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170032\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think you misunderstood, I still do most of the work and fine tuning in CS3, but there are adjustments that are easier, faster and better done during the RAW processing phase. Being able to apply layers in ACR would be cool though.
-
Actually I'm not a landscape photographer at all, and my example I discussed above was just a test with images I had handy.
By all means if you like one program better than another, then thats what you should use.
I shoot people mostly and find I can't get good skin color with lightroom or ACR with any of my cameras, and believe me, I would like to be able to since that would shave one or two steps from my workflow. I know that many people have posted to forums about C1 sharpening but honestly I think that's been cleared up - 3 years ago I tried c1 shelved it and didn't try it again until last fall when I bought my phase back. Sharpening problem seems gone - maybe all that still report issues with it are just reading old internet posts instead of testing themselves?
Flexcolor is the software that gave me the best skin color out of any of them I have tried so far. Raw Developer wasn't bad either.
Lightroom sure wins on workflow ....
-
Deleted
-
I'm now using a workflow where I generate a throw-away profile for each sets of images, using my own custom software. This solves the issues with a lot of mixed-light situations. I'm considering marketing it for C1 users - would this generate interest ?
Edmund