Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: HarperPhotos on March 29, 2009, 11:42:13 pm
-
Gidday,
Greg from T.A. Macalister the New Zealand distributor for Nikon came to my studio to try out the new Nikon D3x.
I was very impressed by the files and will be purchasing one of these beast in the couple of weeks
I did a comparison with my Leaf Aptus 75 and other than file size they a pretty much on par and of course no moiré.
Cheers
Simon
-
Greg from T.A. Macalister the New Zealand distributor for Nikon came to my studio to try out the new Nikon D3x.
I was very impressed by the files and will be purchasing one of these beast in the couple of weeks
I did a comparison with my Leaf Aptus 75 and other than file size they a pretty much on par and of course no moiré.
Things will be even better with the D3x if you process your raw files with C1 4.6.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Simon
Thanks for the comparison. The only thing is Nikon always produces skin tones with more magenta whereas your Leaf back has more pleasant skin colour.
-
Simon
Thanks for the comparison. The only thing is Nikon always produces skin tones with more magenta whereas your Leaf back has more pleasant skin colour.
I'm glad someone else said it first
I've never liked skin-tones from nikon, but I bet it can be profiled to look more natural. I just know when I shot Nikon (for a brief period of time), skin was the hardest to get right. Other than that, a great system. I'll be really interested to see where the d3x goes in the next year. I'm on the verge of going MF Digital... and I'll admit that I'm seriously looking at the d3x as well. Currently a canon shooter... but the focus inaccuracies are killing me (and I don't shoot mark III's).
Thanks for the comparison!
-
lotta noise/artifacts in the black shirt on the nikon? aptus blacks are a lot cleaner aside from the moire. pretty nice though.
Gidday,
Greg from T.A. Macalister the New Zealand distributor for Nikon came to my studio to try out the new Nikon D3x.
I was very impressed by the files and will be purchasing one of these beast in the couple of weeks
I did a comparison with my Leaf Aptus 75 and other than file size they a pretty much on par and of course no moiré.
Cheers
Simon
-
lotta noise/artifacts in the black shirt on the nikon? aptus blacks are a lot cleaner aside from the moire. pretty nice though.
Really? I think I see more noise and artifacts on the Leaf file. Go figure.
-
Why compare the files at such low resolution?
-
Simon any chance you can try to process the two files at the same output size? Both jpegs here are downscaled but the Aptus one is smaller? Best is if you can post the raw files, of course...
BR
Yair
-
I'm coming from a Sinar e-75LV(Sold) and now a D3x.
No regrets so far.
Yes the Sinar files are larger,but for me that's where it stops.
The D3x is the current king of the DSLR's
-
I did a quick test outside my local supplier with a D3x, and while it has great resolution to a point, the lens system for the nikon just can't get anywhere near the detail and file quality that my A75-digitars produce. Don't get me wrong, 24-70 and 14-24 are just fantastic for the work I would produce with a D3 and are the best zoom lenses I have ever used, but they just can't hack digitars for wide angle architectural work. (And leaf does have a selective moire reduction tool which works nicely)
Ros
-
Gidday Simon,
Could you email Raws for these files to yourself via www.yousendit.com and post the links ?
Edmund
-
Edmund,
Did you compare the P45 with D3X before? Any RAW files available?
Thanks.
-
I did a quick test outside my local supplier with a D3x, and while it has great resolution to a point, the lens system for the nikon just can't get anywhere near the detail and file quality that my A75-digitars produce. Don't get me wrong, 24-70 and 14-24 are just fantastic for the work I would produce with a D3 and are the best zoom lenses I have ever used, but they just can't hack digitars for wide angle architectural work. (And leaf does have a selective moire reduction tool which works nicely)
Probably, but then again why use zoom lenses? If you try out a Zeiss 100mm f2.0 ZF on the D3x with a robust tripod, convert your files with C1 4.6, apply the right amount of sharpening and you won't be disapointed by the sharpness.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Probably, but then again why use zoom lenses? If you try out a Zeiss 100mm f2.0 ZF on the D3x with a robust tripod, convert your files with C1 4.6, apply the right amount of sharpening and you won't be disapointed by the sharpness.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard how good is the 100mm f2.0 ZF for wide angle architecture application? I would think that the zooms are better for that kind of work.
-
This whole business is degenerating; I have a D3x and a P45+, the P45+ is better at ISO 50 on architecture. But in practice, the MF solutions are not *flexible*.
One example is focus, the MF solutions don't have the liveview which allows you to adjust focus via the camera screen. Resolution doesn't help much if one cannot achieve focus. Using a Digitar on a back means moving to a non-reflex solution, with the attendant costs, it's not just a lens swap.
Rather than waste time explaining to photographers how dumb they are, you should get the design people to incorporate the features the customers request. Of course, the fact that just about every piece of MF equipment is made by a different subcontractor doesn't exactly help, when N and C and even L can just go and design the whole thing in one go.
I have a very pessimistic view of the whole MF business model. It's time for the Japanese to get here and ratiionalize production and sales a bit. As for Panoramas etc, I guess you all know about Gigapan
Edmund
Bernard how good is the 100mm f2.0 ZF for wide angle architecture application? I would think that the zooms are better for that kind of work.
-
I'm glad someone else said it first
I've never liked skin-tones from nikon, but I bet it can be profiled to look more natural. I just know when I shot Nikon (for a brief period of time), skin was the hardest to get right. Other than that, a great system. I'll be really interested to see where the d3x goes in the next year. I'm on the verge of going MF Digital... and I'll admit that I'm seriously looking at the d3x as well. Currently a canon shooter... but the focus inaccuracies are killing me (and I don't shoot mark III's).
Thanks for the comparison!
Exactly why I don't shoot Nikon anymore. I hate there color but i do like there system. Myself I look at the DSLR's for PR work anymore. But that is just me.
-
Bernard how good is the 100mm f2.0 ZF for wide angle architecture application? I would think that the zooms are better for that kind of work.
Brilliant actually... as long as you practise an ancient art called stitching. :-)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm coming from a Sinar e-75LV(Sold) and now a D3x.
No regrets so far.
Yes the Sinar files are larger,but for me that's where it stops.
The D3x is the current king of the DSLR's
The larger file is far from where the only difference is.
I have a D3 and a H3DII-31 and the difference is huge on a big screen
and a little less huge on print :-).
I also was, at one point, skeptical on the difference between a good DSLR and a MFDB.
Not anymore!. It IS a difference and not because of the larger files.
Its the colour, the contrast, the microdetails and the not so easy to explain.
Some doesnt see it and some does. And that is fine.
The ones that doesnt see the difference - go with the DSLR. It is cheaper and faster.
The one that does see the difference and think it is worth the price difference - go with the MFDB.
The most important thing is that most of us wants to work with the best file we can produce
and if it takes a MFDB to see and feel that - so jump in. If not - save your money.
A lot of us are not satisfied until we think it looks good to our eyes - not only the customers.
Only my 50 cents on this topic
Willow
-
There is a whole lot more sharpening in the Nikon picture...
Interesting. Can we see them at 100% without sharpening?
Nikon's dynamic range seems to be slightly shorter.
-
The larger file is far from where the only difference is.
Very true. There is DR, colour, larger viewfinders, leaf shutters, lack of AA filter, lenses, and ability to use back on view camera to consider (and I probably forgot something ):
-
Very true. There is DR, colour, larger viewfinders, leaf shutters, lack of AA filter, lenses, and ability to use back on view camera to consider (and I probably forgot something ):
I totally agree and did not even mention all this stuff which to me is the big difference between the systems. The DSLR's are great for there intended usage but all of it hit the image limit compared to MF. I'm sure many will disagree but I tried a lot of systems and I certainly see the difference.
-
Very true. There is DR, colour, larger viewfinders, leaf shutters, lack of AA filter, lenses, and ability to use back on view camera to consider (and I probably forgot something ):
you forgot the big advantage : you can keep the sensor clean
and 800th flash synch
IMO the handling of the nikon just wins 90% of the time over my blad
S
-
Simon any chance you can try to process the two files at the same output size? Both jpegs here are downscaled but the Aptus one is smaller? Best is if you can post the raw files, of course...
BR
Yair
Hi Yair,
Hope this is what you wanted.
Don’t get me wrong I still think the Leaf is a superior system. The Nikon D3x is going to fill certain aspects of my photography work.
Cheers
Simon
-
Simon any chance you can try to process the two files at the same output size? Both jpegs here are downscaled but the Aptus one is smaller? Best is if you can post the raw files, of course...
BR
Yair
Hi Yair,
Hope this is what you wanted.
Don't get me wrong I still think the Leaf is a superior system. The Nikon D3x is going to fill certain aspects of my photography work.
Cheers
Simon
-
you forgot the big advantage : you can keep the sensor clean
and 800th flash synch
IMO the handling of the nikon just wins 90% of the time over my blad
S
What you syncing at 800/th with?? the RZ is 400th only.
Snook
-
What you syncing at 800/th with?? the RZ is 400th only.
Snook
You actually quoted the answer to your own question
-
You actually quoted the answer to your own question
foto-z Sorry I did not see the blad..
Thanks for pointing it out...:+}
-
Foto Z not sure what you mean.
The RZ syncs at 400th with Flash? And the other posted 800/th?
Could you be more specific with your comment that I answered my own question? Are trying to say it is impossible or were they referrring to the Sinar or Leaf camera?
Snook
You quoted the original poster as saying "IMO the handling of the nikon just wins 90% of the time over my blad". The H series syncs at 1/800.
-
Maybe the D3x is "The" Medium format rumored by everyone hidden in a 35mm Body??? :+}
Snook
-
Hi Yair,
Hope this is what you wanted.
Don't get me wrong I still think the Leaf is a superior system. The Nikon D3x is going to fill certain aspects of my photography work.
Cheers
Simon
Nice moire on the Leaf file..
-
I think that the D3x is quite demanding regarding lenses. To show what the sensor can deliever one needs to use the best lenses.
I believe that a big part of the "softened" look which I thought was caused by the AA-filter might be limitations of the lens.
Without having done technical comparisons I also believe that the AA-filter of the D3x is indeed weaker than that of the D3 for example. I feel that besides the higher resolution of the D3x compared to a D3 the D3x therefore shows more "microdetail" and gets closer to MF-quality.
-
Exactly why I don't shoot Nikon anymore. I hate there color but i do like there system. Myself I look at the DSLR's for PR work anymore. But that is just me.
Guy,
It is not only you. Some have sensitive eyes, others do not. In the end it is the photos that counts, and MFDB clear lends an upper hand to those who have the eyes.
Sure, Nikon and Canon have improved, by big steps. Yet... above files appear clear, if at all one has the eye. Else just go with a DSLR and be happy!
Yup, people are pixel peeping. Even anxious trying prove DSLR same as MFDB, which it is not. Why should it???
Then... what does DSLR vs MFDB do for your photos? MFDB lends to slower and more planned photos (even more if you use manual and spot meter, that is fun!), and there is less auto features than DSLR, slower focus that need more planning... ehh... sort of more photographic to folks like me (but we are all different) . I was a Nikon guy before, but Nikon lost me in digital with all auto features and lack of color etc. They are still not up to as pleasing colors of my Aptus 65. Does it matter? Lets face that it seems though that digital has finally reached a level that also DSLRs can have reasonable pleasing color rendering (with suffice processing), although for a critical eye not yet as pleasing as film was. Ok, that is my impression. Leaf Aptus though already have pleasing colors to my eye, far more than Nikon, and pleasing sort of FILM LIKE appearance, but... it is digital... not film clearly, not look like film .
Anyways... just some comments to all...
Yair, What about next quantom leap for Leaf? Any thoughts on a real full frame 645 sensor with Foveon like technology? Now that could be something for an amateur like me to upgrade to... if give it a some years and continued $$ coming in, and if still pleasing rendering that Leaf is known for... but not higher resolution than I also can use my good Mamiya lenses that were for film... Thanks!
Anders
-
Anders,
I'm glad you have special eyes,however you are also an amateur that doesn't need to make money from his images.
When I compare the initial 2 images posted , I agree that the skin tone is more pink with the D3x.
Did you ever think that this could be more the true color of that persons skin?
I know which file I like to work on and that's not the moire(aptus) one.
To fix the skin tone would be a lot easier than the moire one.
A couple of years ago,loads of shooters had issues with the skin tones that the Canon 1DsMkII produced.
Anyway,all these comparisons between MFDB and DSLR are useless,especially the way they are done.
Still I have no regrets leaving my MFDB behind and yes I don't need fast sync speed etc.
Regarding the viewfinder,the D3x one is very good and lets not forget that 3inch screen on the back!
Best,
-
A couple of years ago,loads of shooters had issues with the skin tones that the Canon 1DsMkII produced
Still fighting with them (and dislike nikon's even more).
But... touché on the LCD screen and Moiré. TOTALLY agree. Why a $15K back can't be designed to house a big honkin' screen continues to elude me.
One thing, and this may or not be applicable to your comments, William... but the Aptus file has a noticeable "roundness" to the human features that the d3x lacks. In the working world, I'd bet this is something that just doesn't matter that much... but I still get the impression that the d3x file has a flatness/lack of dimensionality that I associate and continue to dislike about 35mm (and I shoot 35mm exclusively right now). That... and the d3x file has a "sharpened" appearance, as opposed to a natural sharpness. Look back 5 years ago, however, and they're both fantastic.
All these things have to be taken according to ones intentions and professional requirements.... so in the end these arguments are personal.
Me... I'll actually take the dimensionality, color, and natural sharpness (and the moiré!) over the 35mm IQ. But that's just me (and therefore not applicable to anyone here!).
-
When I compare the initial 2 images posted , I agree that the skin tone is more pink with the D3x.
Did you ever think that this could be more the true color of that persons skin?
I'll bite.
As someone who shot various nikon bodies at weddings (as a test)... in the field... for half a season last year I can attest that skin (in my humble perceptions!) is something that Nikon doesn't do well. Canon has it's probs too (reds), but I found that under just about any condition that skin was a problem for nikon. Jeff Ascough, one of the most noted wedding photogs in the world, has similar conclusions. From what I can tell... he WANTED nikon to work well for him as the d3/d700 are such great wedding cams (my observations, not his words), but couldn't get skin tones that were pleasing on a regular basis without considerable post work.
YMMV.
The aptus, whether accurate or not... which will be difficult for any of us to ascertain online... certainly appears more pleasing, less flushed, to me.
-
Are people really quibling over skin tones? You do know you can shoot RAW and roll your own color, right? I never had problems with Canon 1ds2 skin because I fixed everything in the raw converter or in post. Its really simple to set up a preset that suits your taste in skin. Use Color editor in C1 or Light Room.
-
CS4 is neither the best for D3x nor for Leaf files imho, I suspect that if you rerun the two files through C1 or NX2 (for D3x) and LC11 (for a75), skin tone or moire will all become no issues.
-
CS4 is neither the best for D3x nor for Leaf files imho, I suspect that if you rerun the two files through C1 or NX2 (for D3x) and LC11 (for a75), skin tone or moire will all become no issues.
Gidday,
I have processed the Leaf Raw file in Leaf Capture 11. I don’t have Nikon NX2 soft wear yet.
When it comes to Moiré I don’t have time nor my clients to sit at my Mac having to mask different parts of the image to remove moiré.
I did a fashion shot last week where I took over 300 images.
Even with a Caprock Moiré filter on the Leaf I was still getting colour moiré.
I can tell you now its not a good look when your client is say what's that funning looking colours on my garments.
Hence why I am look a the Nikon D3x and there are some other reasons as well.
Cheers
Simon
-
I do not beleive the color BS because most files are tweaked through raw and then in photoshop.
Atleast in my line of work.
One thing I have HATED since moving to MFD is the MOIRE. what a pain in the ass.
The only real way to get rid of some of it is processing 2 files which is a pain and many times the pattern is still there.. UFFFFFFF.
Snook
-
I do not beleive the color BS....
and subtlety is obviously your forté, eric.
-
I'll bite.
As someone who shot various nikon bodies at weddings (as a test)... in the field... for half a season last year I can attest that skin (in my humble perceptions!) is something that Nikon doesn't do well. Canon has it's probs too (reds), but I found that under just about any condition that skin was a problem for nikon. Jeff Ascough, one of the most noted wedding photogs in the world, has similar conclusions. From what I can tell... he WANTED nikon to work well for him as the d3/d700 are such great wedding cams (my observations, not his words), but couldn't get skin tones that were pleasing on a regular basis without considerable post work.
Would you say that this is influenced by the raw converter used?
I have no problem with people liking the Aptus better, but at least the D3x should be converted with a decent converter. ACR is clearly not even in the top 3 converters for Nikon files.
Using one of these popular car comparisons, if the D3x were a BMW M3 and the Aptus a Ferrari, converting D3x files with ACR would be like fitting the M3 with Ford Fusion tyres...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Would you say that this is influenced by the raw converter used?
Cheers,
Bernard
Of course... I don't think you can rule out any part of the chain. But there are common tendencies that I've seen (which should be considered as MY perceptions, not the whole industry's)... and I will not say, for a moment, that you can't get good color out of Nikon or Canon. You can. For me, it's just more work than I'd like. Skin just never looks "right". Like in my previous posts, I'll be the first to say much of what we're all talking about boils down to perception and personal preference. I don't like the moiré any more than you guys do... but I don't like the look of the 35mm files as well.
So, this isn't an argument as much as it is a statement of what I perceive, based on what I've experienced in the past (or as Eric would say, "Color BS")
Horses for courses.
-
I do not beleive the color BS because most files are tweaked through raw and then in photoshop.
Atleast in my line of work.
One thing I have HATED since moving to MFD is the MOIRE. what a pain in the ass.
The only real way to get rid of some of it is processing 2 files which is a pain and many times the pattern is still there.. UFFFFFFF.
Snook
Well, the skintone issue is real whether you believe it or not. For whatever reason, the DSLR camera profiles don't hold up well under variable lighting or various ethnicities; a skin that looks great from shadow through highlight areas outside under an overcast sky can turn to magenta-ish on skin highlights and green-ish on skin shadows indoors -- and that's more of a PITA to fix in post than moire. By contrast, skin out of my P back always looks like real skin regardless of the light it was shot under and regardless of the person's ethnicity.
As for pattern moire on your DB, if you get one that has smaller sensuls -- meaning a higher resolution back -- pattern moire becomes much less of an issue. Color moire is a different animal and agreed, it is a PITA to deal with.
Cheers,
-
I have no problem with people liking the Aptus better, but at least the D3x should be converted with a decent converter. ACR is clearly not even in the top 3 converters for Nikon files.
totally agree here... and I wish I had the gear to do the tests.
I will say this. I find the d3x a very compelling camera. Even given the nit-pick of my previous replies, it is definitely in contention as a possible upgrade for me. I wish it had a bit more of the look i see from MF... but as a total package, it's about as close to an "mf-killer" as there is out there. And surely it's a better all-arounder.
-
Well, the skintone issue is real whether you believe it or not. For whatever reason, the DSLR camera profiles don't hold up well under variable lighting or various ethnicities; a skin that looks great from shadow through highlight areas outside under an overcast sky can turn to magenta-ish on skin highlights and green-ish on skin shadows indoors -- and that's more of a PITA to fix in post than moire.
Shooting so many weddings has made this abundantly clear to me. Mixed lighting is a DSLR's worst nightmare. Going through an entire wedding and setting WB when you can't even find a consistent skin-tone gradient is oh so fun. OK... so I'm not going to shoot a wedding with a phase back, so you've got me there. But the color response of a dslr in those situations is pretty telling.
To play devil's advocate though... I've noticed that the shear resolution and bit-depth of the backs (looking at other people's files... I don't own a back) sure seems to make them very sensitive to color temp. Skin always looks quite natural to me, but the temp of the light is rendered so precisely that carelessness in lighting technique is exposed pretty quickly. This, to me, though is more about precision in lighting technique than it is about color response by the sensor.
-
Well, the skintone issue is real whether you believe it or not. For whatever reason, the DSLR camera profiles don't hold up well under variable lighting or various ethnicities; a skin that looks great from shadow through highlight areas outside under an overcast sky can turn to magenta-ish on skin highlights and green-ish on skin shadows indoors -- and that's more of a PITA to fix in post than moire. By contrast, skin out of my P back always looks like real skin regardless of the light it was shot under and regardless of the person's ethnicity.
As for pattern moire on your DB, if you get one that has smaller sensuls -- meaning a higher resolution back -- pattern moire becomes much less of an issue. Color moire is a different animal and agreed, it is a PITA to deal with.
Cheers,
Hi jack,
Some months ago I was given the opportunity to try the new Leaf Aptus-II 10 which is 56 million pixels.
I did a similar sent up with “the shirt from hell “ and again the colour moiré was prevalent.
Digital cameras back reps go ghostly white when I bring out this shirt.
Cheers
Simon
-
Digital cameras back reps go ghostly white when I bring out this shirt.
It looks more like they go a pinkish magenta
-
Shooting so many weddings has made this abundantly clear to me. Mixed lighting is a DSLR's worst nightmare. Going through an entire wedding and setting WB when you can't even find a consistent skin-tone gradient is oh so fun. OK... so I'm not going to shoot a wedding with a phase back, so you've got me there. But the color response of a dslr in those situations is pretty telling.
To play devil's advocate though... I've noticed that the shear resolution and bit-depth of the backs (looking at other people's files... I don't own a back) sure seems to make them very sensitive to color temp. Skin always looks quite natural to me, but the temp of the light is rendered so precisely that carelessness in lighting technique is exposed pretty quickly. This, to me, though is more about precision in lighting technique than it is about color response by the sensor.
The skin tone thing is just a non-issue for me, a beauty shooter. I've shot editorial beauty and fashion for years with a 1ds2, Phase backs, and Leaf backs. The only people who ever complained about the 1ds2 files were retouchers, not really about color, but more the gradations between light and dark. I roll my own color in C1 color editor or Light Room and can match Canon, Nikon, Phase and Leaf files easily. I now shoot film (best work flow, costs passed on to the client, best color out of the box) or my Leaf 54s, or for catalogue, a 5D Mark I.
Look up some of BCooter James Russell's posts on MFDB and their annoying color sensitivity/accuracy.
-
The skin tone thing is just a non-issue for me, a beauty shooter. I've shot editorial beauty and fashion for years with a 1ds2, Phase backs, and Leaf backs. The only people who ever complained about the 1ds2 files were retouchers, not really about color, but more the gradations between light and dark. I roll my own color in C1 color editor or Light Room and can match Canon, Nikon, Phase and Leaf files easily. I now shoot film (best work flow, costs passed on to the client, best color out of the box) or my Leaf 54s, or for catalogue, a 5D Mark I.
Look up some of BCooter James Russell's posts on MFDB and their annoying color sensitivity/accuracy.
TMARK
Do you shoot film for beauty?
,,, a budding beauty shooter wants to know,,,
-
From my experience the skin color issue is less with beauty.
I believe the reason for this is:
major make-up on the model and the images are retouched heavily afterwords anyway.
Look at all the covers of the magazines!
In the meanwhile I'm very happy with my D3x and I don't miss what I had before with MFDB.
Happy shooting you all!
Best,
Willem.
-
If you look at the grey bars on the colour chart you can see that there is a heaps of blue in the Nikon and blue/mag in the Leaf. If you would like to PM me I'll happily tweek the raw files in their respective convertors to see how close I can get them. I really want to love the nikon but at the moment I dont see it as being much better than the Mark3. I'm looking at a couple for my rental dept. but nikon doesnt seem that interested in me . Can I ask what profile you used for the color look in Leaf? It looks alot like one of the product profiles. With this camera on Portraits I always suggest AdobeRgb its just more neutral.
-
Guy,
It is not only you. Some have sensitive eyes, others do not. In the end it is the photos that counts, and MFDB clear lends an upper hand to those who have the eyes.
Sure, Nikon and Canon have improved, by big steps. Yet... above files appear clear, if at all one has the eye. Else just go with a DSLR and be happy!
Yup, people are pixel peeping. Even anxious trying prove DSLR same as MFDB, which it is not. Why should it???
Then... what does DSLR vs MFDB do for your photos? MFDB lends to slower and more planned photos (even more if you use manual and spot meter, that is fun!), and there is less auto features than DSLR, slower focus that need more planning... ehh... sort of more photographic to folks like me (but we are all different) . I was a Nikon guy before, but Nikon lost me in digital with all auto features and lack of color etc. They are still not up to as pleasing colors of my Aptus 65. Does it matter? Lets face that it seems though that digital has finally reached a level that also DSLRs can have reasonable pleasing color rendering (with suffice processing), although for a critical eye not yet as pleasing as film was. Ok, that is my impression. Leaf Aptus though already have pleasing colors to my eye, far more than Nikon, and pleasing sort of FILM LIKE appearance, but... it is digital... not film clearly, not look like film .
Anyways... just some comments to all...
Yair, What about next quantom leap for Leaf? Any thoughts on a real full frame 645 sensor with Foveon like technology? Now that could be something for an amateur like me to upgrade to... if give it a some years and continued $$ coming in, and if still pleasing rendering that Leaf is known for... but not higher resolution than I also can use my good Mamiya lenses that were for film... Thanks!
Anders
Anders,
some subjects you can shoot slower and more planned (and the somewhat slower pace is one of the things I really like for some things), other subjects are just to fast for a MF-camera and it would be pure luck if you "catch" them with a MF camera.
The other difference is ISO and DOF and lens speed.
If I wanted the same DOF and the same noise quality I could shoot my d3x at ISO 1600 with f1.4, or my Sinar probably with ISO200 (or eventually 400) at probably f2.0 or f2.8.
This makes at least 4 stops difference in flexibility.
Now for the color part its hard for me to comment, overall I would agree that MF delievers great color and color is easy to handle. However I cant say that I find it hard to get the skin color I like with the D3x.
-
Well, the skintone issue is real whether you believe it or not. ................. By contrast, skin out of my P back always looks like real skin regardless of the light it was shot under and regardless of the person's ethnicity.
As for pattern moire on your DB, if you get one that has smaller sensuls -- meaning a higher resolution back -- pattern moire becomes much less of an issue. Color moire is a different animal and agreed, it is a PITA to deal with.
Cheers,
With all due respect, this is not necessarily true. You can line up 7 cameras and under the same lighting, subject, exposure get 7 different results and depending on the lighting, subject and exposure find one is more pleasing than the other. I am positive on this as I have owned 5 digital backs, 12 dslrs and one digital rangefinder and at one time or another compared one, two, even three cameras to see the results.
I have shot as many different ethnic skintones with different cameras around the world as anyone and can promise you there is no holy grail, though for basic easy to hit color the dslrs are usually much easier.
With mfdb's ambient color shows more in soft subdued light, light overcast, or silked light than it does with direct or hard light, though most digital backs do not like abrupt hard light transitions and tend to throw a magenta curve on skin going from light to dark, usually more noticeable on white translucent skin (every model in NY).
Digital backs overall, and depending on the processor are very sensitive when it comes to ambient color, digital in general reads ambient color different than most films, but digital backs are the worst or best depending on subject.
Still, when you talk "pleasing" color it covers a lot of territory and a lot of different steps. Step 1 is what you and the client sees in first view, whether it's on the computer or the camera lcd. Medium format lcd's are almost impossible to read so don't bother showing those to the client, the newer dslrs are quite good. In fact shoot a d3x, d3, d700 next to a mfdb untethered and show the images to the client.
They will point to then Nikon and say, will you use the "Big" camera for this.
The second step is in processing for web galleries or contact sheets. That is probably the hardest to produce as you want to get close to the final look without spending 33 hours per shoot day in post.
The third step is the first round of high rez processing and regardless of the processor, nearly all digital requires a certain amount of work in photoshop just to get to a film emulation look. Once again lighting, subject, backgrounds can make this a fairly easy step or difficult.
The fourth and final step is the final retouching stage and this is the great equalizer. All digital images from ANY digital camera if done right can be made to look good to exceptional, though once again it requires local not global corrections and a very refined level of skill.
Bottom line, if you shoot people the dslrs are just easier. Easier to shoot, easier to process, easier to chose almost any converter. They may be a little more color dumb, but so was film, though they also don't pick up such fine irregularities that you see every imperfection.
The one exception to this is tungsten. I do find the p30+ to read tungsten light on skin much better than the dslrs.
As far as pattern moire, digital backs (at least the 5 I've owned will moire on certain patterns at a rate of 20 to 1 compared to the dslrs).
Nothing is harder to remove than pattern moire, color moire can usually be painted out, and if I am shooting on figure fashion with a db, we must tether and process out high rez on certain garments, knowing there will be issues. Usually we shoot the session, review the select, shoot close to the same pose again though closer in as to replaced the artifacts with a tighter image. With challanged garments you must shoot a medium format back tethered to know if the moire is real or an lcd abberation.
With the dslrs we just shoot.
http://www.russellrutherford.com/ (http://www.russellrutherford.com/)
-
Ok, this is not mixed light, but I feel the skin here looks just how it was/how I saw it.
Converted in NX2, no color adjustments, WB preset (so not even custom WB)
One thing I have to admit that sometimes I find the skin tones to be slightly yellowish with the Nikon.
(http://www.pbase.com/tstreng/image/110799681/original.jpg)
-
I actually find it to be hard to not get good skin tones from my P21, I used to have all sorts of problems with a 1ds mark 2. I find with skin, if you don't get it right in the converter it's quite hard to fudge later in PS.
-
TMARK
Do you shoot film for beauty?
,,, a budding beauty shooter wants to know,,,
Yes and no. I used to shoot 4x5, Chrome (Kodak E100g). Now I shoot editorials on film, Tri-X, TMax, 400NC. Commercial beauty clients expect an MFDB and the 30" Polaroid. For editorials I keep it real with whatevcer suits me, which lately is negative film.
-
With all due respect, this is not necessarily true. You can line up 7 cameras and under the same lighting, subject, exposure get 7 different results and depending on the lighting, subject and exposure find one is more pleasing than the other.
No argument on the 7 different results Jamie,
But with all due respect, when I shoot people with my P back, the skin color is always great right out of C1, whether I am shooting under strobes in a studio, the sun reflected or diffused outdoors, or indoors under tungsten... Re 7 results, my experience with DSLR skin color is limited to Canon, Nikon and Leica -- and frankly, none of them can touch my P captures, thought the DMR was perhaps closer than the others, but then it had moire issues...
Re moire. Perhaps in fashion, pattern moire is more of an issue than color moire -- and admittedly I don't do a lot of fashion. However, on the occasions I have, I rarely see it in fabrics with my P45+, though definitely saw it more with the P25+. However for industrial and architecture, pattern moire is easily concealable while color moire usually shows up in areas of repetitive high frequency detail, like roofing and mini-blinds, and usually it's the ugly red/blue version. And here is it not so easy to simply "paint it out" in post lest you kill all that detail; and blurred sections of mini-blinds or roofing do not make for good final results... By contrast, pattern moire shows up in localized areas of even regular texture, like walls or siding, and a simple brush usually fixes it with little detrimental effect to the final image.
Cheers,
-
To play devil's advocate though... I've noticed that the shear resolution and bit-depth of the backs (looking at other people's files... I don't own a back) sure seems to make them very sensitive to color temp.
Indeed, you do need to get the color balance precisely set with a DB, or at least with Phase backs; their AWB is atrocious (read, totally sucks) compared to even a consumer P&S cam. So to clarify, I do shoot a Macbeth at the start of each set or session
-
Are people really quibling over skin tones? You do know you can shoot RAW and roll your own color, right? I never had problems with Canon 1ds2 skin because I fixed everything in the raw converter or in post. Its really simple to set up a preset that suits your taste in skin. Use Color editor in C1 or Light Room.
Suggesting software as the solution misses the point completely.
If a $40k back can't capture accurate skin tones out of the box, it ain't worth the box.
Besides, photographers have already taken the likes of Adobe to task to provide them with capable software, and the company delivered.
Now it's time to take the likes of Phase and Leaf to task. Their costs are high, their overall volume is low, and we're in a tough economic state.
Can they really afford to lose yet more market share to Canon & Nikon?
-
Gidday,
Below is a link to down load the Raw Leaf and Nikon images.
https://rcpt.yousendit.com/670715809/e1aa97...48fcddfb789367a (https://rcpt.yousendit.com/670715809/e1aa97df66db1bbfd48fcddfb789367a)
Look forward to every ones opinions.
Cheers
Simon
-
The D3x has acceptable skin tone, I think. Even the 1Ds3 has acceptable skin tone. Many here used the original 5D for fashion/beauty; I find it to be the best of the Canons, interestingly realistic on skin, capable of expressing nuance.
The statement that the cameras themselves are now unusably bad simply doesn't hold anymore.
However the manufacturer renderings and Adobe's are heavily edited for cultural stereotypes. This may account for some of the disparities that have been observed here.
Edmund
-
The D3x has acceptable skin tone, I think. Even the 1Ds3 has acceptable skin tone. Many here used the original 5D for fashion/beauty; I find it to be the best of the Canons, interestingly realistic on skin, capable of expressing nuance.
Edmund
Edmund is quite correct. I am doing the retouches of a recent beauty shoot that I did with my 5D classic. I must admit the photos look
amazing...still. It is making me rethink my "need" to upgrade my camera.
-
Look forward to every ones opinions.
Perhaps this is not the opinion you are looking forward to read, but there is a chance that the following info may be useful.
1. Both shots are somewhat underexposed, but the DR of the scenary is so tiny, that it does not matter.
2. I can not imagine, why on earth someone would put up with the garbage produced by the Leaf. One should stick a label on it: NOT FOR GARMENT. I have read about specialö filters substituting for the AA filter; aren't they useful?
3. Do you have any particular reason to shoot with the D3X at ISO 50? Here is the news: there is no ISO 50 with the D3X.
ISO 50 is simply an exposure bias +1 EV with ISO 100. Now, here is the problem: if the exposure at ISO 50 was so low as in this shot, then it would have been horrendeously underexposed at ISO 100 (i.e. with half the exposure). Though the DR of this scenery is no challange for any PS, another scenary with a real dynamic range could be challenged by this shortening.
Attached the *raw* histogram of both shots.
A side issue: ACR grossly misinterprets the raw data of the Leaf; nothing new in the MFDB segment.
-
Perhaps this is not the opinion you are looking forward to read, but there is a chance that the following info may be useful.
1. Both shots are somewhat underexposed, but the DR of the scenary is so tiny, that it does not matter.
2. I can not imagine, why on earth someone would put up with the garbage produced by the Leaf. One should stick a label on it: NOT FOR GARMENT. I have read about specialö filters substituting for the AA filter; aren't they useful?
3. Do you have any particular reason to shoot with the D3X at ISO 50? Here is the news: there is no ISO 50 with the D3X.
ISO 50 is simply an exposure bias +1 EV with ISO 100. Now, here is the problem: if the exposure at ISO 50 was so low as in this shot, then it would have been horrendeously underexposed at ISO 100 (i.e. with half the exposure). Though the DR of this scenery is no challange for any PS, another scenary with a real dynamic range could be challenged by this shortening.
Attached the *raw* histogram of both shots.
A side issue: ACR grossly misinterprets the raw data of the Leaf; nothing new in the MFDB segment.
Gabor which part of your colourful histograms represents garbage?
Simon's exposure in the Leaf file is nearly perfect BTW and the Moire filter in LC11 gets rid of the colour moire very efficiently - you should try it on before calling names:-)
I agree that ACR is not the best tool for processing some specific files, though.
Yair
-
Gidday,
Some thing also I should mention is as a advertising photographer that in in the past few months my advertising clients and photo retouches have been asking for the Camera Raw images so they have the controls to do what they want.
They are all using Adobe Camera Raw to process the images.
So all I am do now is checking the files in ACR and applying a xmp file as I see it and its of the the client, end of story on to the next job.
Cheers
Simon
-
Well, after looking at those raws, I am more sure than ever that I will not buy a D3X.
I will keep my D3 and H3DII-31.
-
Gabor which part of your colourful histograms represents garbage?
For the improbable case that you really wanted to ask a question: the one, where Leaf Aptus 75 occurs on two places. However, the histogram does not reflect the moire, at least I don't know know how to isolate that in the histogram.
Simon's exposure in the Leaf file is nearly perfect BTW
In your opinion. However, exposure in this case was not an issue; I noted that only as general information.
the Moire filter in LC11 gets rid of the colour moire very efficiently - you should try it on before calling names:-)
Great; what is the price for that? I mean the downside, not the price of LC11.
-
Great; what is the price for that? I mean the downside, not the price of LC11.
In LC11 you could apply moire reduction only to specific areas using the selective tools without doing anything to the other part of the image. I could see no side effect by applying the moire filter ... the only downside IMO, is the additional time of processing, as Simon has pointed out.
Just 2 humble cents from another Simon.
-
Gidday,
Some thing also I should mention is as a advertising photographer that in in the past few months my advertising clients and photo retouches have been asking for the Camera Raw images so they have the controls to do what they want.
They are all using Adobe Camera Raw to process the images.
So all I am do now is checking the files in ACR and applying a xmp file as I see it and its of the the client, end of story on to the next job.
Cheers
Simon
Frankly this is about the worst thing as a photographer we should be doing also. Do we really want to give up our control of a image as we perceived it and do we want someone else taking full liberties of our work. I know this is OT and all but this one cuts into your life blood. Basically you are just a shooter and not the artist they hired to do create the art. Long topic and I am sure many views on it but personally I am against it just like I am against undercutting prices.To me they both fall in the same space we are just the mechanical part of the process. The other issue is ACR sucks for many different types of camera's. I am not a fan of ACR and Phase files and as we see in another thread not so much with Leaf either and Hassy not sure they can even be seen. Someone correct me here but it is not as universal as one would think and also not very good in a lot of files. Personally i won't do this, but that's me or I would sign off on it with absolutely no responsibility for final results.
-
Gidday,
Here’s another image with the Nikon D3x
Stats:
Nikon D3x
Nikon AF180mm Lens
125 Sec, F11.0, 50ISO
Processed in ARC
Cheers
Simon
-
Frankly this is about the worst thing as a photographer we should be doing also. Do we really want to give up our control of a image as we perceived it and do we want someone else taking full liberties of our work. I know this is OT and all but this one cuts into your life blood. Basically you are just a shooter and not the artist they hired to do create the art. Long topic and I am sure many views on it but personally I am against it just like I am against undercutting prices.To me they both fall in the same space we are just the mechanical part of the process. The other issue is ACR sucks for many different types of camera's. I am not a fan of ACR and Phase files and as we see in another thread not so much with Leaf either and Hassy not sure they can even be seen. Someone correct me here but it is not as universal as one would think and also not very good in a lot of files. Personally i won't do this, but that's me or I would sign off on it with absolutely no responsibility for final results.
Gidday Guy,
Oh to live in a perfect world. I have come very accustomed to my luxurious life style from 24 years as a advertising photographer. If my clients what raw images they get raw images period.
Cheers
Simon
-
In LC11 you could apply moire reduction only to specific areas using the selective tools without doing anything to the other part of the image.
Awesome. Part of the image is clear and part of it is blurry! IME, tweaking areas with tools like that just degrades the image. You shouldn't have to do it, to be honest. Never mind something like a field of wildflowers where there's not enough of a homogeneous area for a selection tool to really work.
But I suspect if DBs put even a small AA filter on, their "advantage" would completely disappear.
BTW, my vote for pleasing tones goes to the A900(the other issues it has aside, of course).
-
Well, after looking at those raws, I am more sure than ever that I will not buy a D3X.
I will keep my D3 and H3DII-31.
A very good combination for sure.
Now, if I may ask, what did you look at the raw with and what exactly is you don't like about them?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The nikon's skin colors are pretty far off in Capture NX...
-
Willow,
if I had a D3 and the Hasselblad,I certainly would find no need for the D3x.
However my D3x is currently my main squeeze,and it certainly delivers the goods!
Question for Simon,
why are you using the D3x at 50 ASA?
The optimum for the D3x is 100 ASA.
Question for Bernard, does Capture One have a fill light function like ACR?
Best,
Willem.
-
Willow,
if I had a D3 and the Hasselblad,I certainly would find no need for the D3x.
However my D3x is currently my main squeeze,and it certainly delivers the goods!
Question for Simon,
why are you using the D3x at 50 ASA?
The optimum for the D3x is 100 ASA.
Question for Bernard, does Capture One have a fill light function like ACR?
Best,
Willem.
Gidday Willem,
The reason I set the Nikon D3x at 50 ISO is was it could. I had never had use one before so was not to sure what to set it to.
I just assumed it would be better at 50 ISO and also I set the Leaf Aptus to the same ISO.
Can I ask what wide angle lens you are using for your type of architectural work.
Cheers from the other side of the Tasman.
Simon
-
Question for Bernard, does Capture One have a fill light function like ACR?
Yep, significantly better IMHO.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Awesome. Part of the image is clear and part of it is blurry! IME, tweaking areas with tools like that just degrades the image.
Not the case...
-
A very good combination for sure.
Now, if I may ask, what did you look at the raw with and what exactly is you don't like about them?
Cheers,
Bernard
I looked at the raws with ACR ( not good with Nikon I think ) and C1.
It was not that I did not like the files. I just think there is a big difference
between Leaf and D3X ( and between H3DII-31 and D3X ).
I am very surprised if people do not see this difference
And I do not think there is much to gain from going from D3 to D3X besides
the file size.
-
Gidday,
Below is a link to down load the Raw Leaf and Nikon images.
https://rcpt.yousendit.com/670715809/e1aa97...48fcddfb789367a (https://rcpt.yousendit.com/670715809/e1aa97df66db1bbfd48fcddfb789367a)
Look forward to every ones opinions.
Cheers
Simon
Thank you Simon,
I processed the Nikon file in Raw Developer and the Aptus one in Leaf Capture and loaded 2 sets of JPEGs and a ReadMe file to here (https://rcpt.yousendit.com/671266928/ff5db5f480a8f3d18107ff0428879a06). I wanted to see how each file at its native size compares to the other one when scaled up/ down and also to confirm that in this particular case Leaf Capture works better than ACR. There is no sharpening applied to the downscaled Leaf file.
Yair
-
D3 and D3x are two different animals when it come to the sensor AFAIK. And colors, IR sensitivity ...
Edmund
I looked at the raws with ACR ( not good with Nikon I think ) and C1.
It was not that I did not like the files. I just think there is a big difference
between Leaf and D3X ( and between H3DII-31 and D3X ).
I am very surprised if people do not see this difference
And I do not think there is much to gain from going from D3 to D3X besides
the file size.
-
Thank you Simon,
I processed the Nikon file in Raw Developer and the Aptus one in Leaf Capture and loaded 2 sets of JPEGs and a ReadMe file to here (https://rcpt.yousendit.com/671266928/ff5db5f480a8f3d18107ff0428879a06). I wanted to see how each file at its native size compares to the other one when scaled up/ down and also to confirm that in this particular case Leaf Capture works better than ACR. There is no sharpening applied to the downscaled Leaf file.
Yair
FWIW, I processed the Leaf file in both ACR and Raw Developer just to see how ACR handles a medium format file, using minimal adjustments in the conversion and then opeining them in CS4. (My Haaselblad raws are not supported in ACR.) I was quite surprised by how superior the RD conversion was to that from ACR. The ACR TIFF was lifeless and and flat and had lousy skin color, whereas the RD TIFF had a really nice skin color and depth/three dimensionality to it. At least from that limited evidence, I cannot imagine how anyone would use ACR/Lightroom. The workflow with ACR/Lightroom is surely better, but it appears that you are sacrificing so much in IQ after spending a serious amount of money to get that IQ.
-
Gidday,
Below is a link to down load the Raw Leaf and Nikon images.
https://rcpt.yousendit.com/670715809/e1aa97...48fcddfb789367a (https://rcpt.yousendit.com/670715809/e1aa97df66db1bbfd48fcddfb789367a)
Look forward to every ones opinions.
Cheers
Simon
thanks for taking the time to do this..
I would much prefer to live with the moire on the leaf.. I am a studio still life guy and just don't think the dx3 is up the demands...I was wondering what the files looked like and again thanks for posting them.. I think I will be sticking to mfdbs for awhile.
-
FWIW, I processed the Leaf file in both ACR and Raw Developer just to see how ACR handles a medium format file, using minimal adjustments in the conversion and then opeining them in CS4. (My Haaselblad raws are not supported in ACR.) I was quite surprised by how superior the RD conversion was to that from ACR. The ACR TIFF was lifeless and and flat and had lousy skin color, whereas the RD TIFF had a really nice skin color and depth/three dimensionality to it. At least from that limited evidence, I cannot imagine how anyone would use ACR/Lightroom. The workflow with ACR/Lightroom is surely better, but it appears that you are sacrificing so much in IQ after spending a serious amount of money to get that IQ.
I agree 100% about RD. With Leaf files you can also set it to work with the factory's input profiles and curves if you like.
Yair
-
I agree 100% about RD. With Leaf files you can also set it to work with the factory's input profiles and curves if you like.
Yair
Raw developer probably is the best processing software on the planet though the interface needs a lot more development.
It can actually make a Phase (kodak chip camera) file mimick the film like look of a leaf file, which is not easy to do, but RD will do it.
Yair, we've talked about this before, but I've never understood why Leaf or Hasselblad didn't buy Brian's software, throw some serious development money at it and have a C-1 competitor, or with RD's processing, a C-1 beater that would process all files.
Some companies talk about open formats, but not when it comes to processing and if you want to be the standard of the industry, the software must process all files.
Only RD and LR/Photoshop does this.
(This is why every retoucher uses photoshop to process in).
-
I processed the Nikon file in Raw Developer and the Aptus one in Leaf Capture and loaded 2 sets of JPEGs and a ReadMe file to here (https://rcpt.yousendit.com/671266928/ff5db5f480a8f3d18107ff0428879a06). I wanted to see how each file at its native size compares to the other one when scaled up/ down and also to confirm that in this particular case Leaf Capture works better than ACR. There is no sharpening applied to the downscaled Leaf file.
The color of the D3X rendering is way off. Had you picked WB on the white or light gray patch, it would look very differently. I don't have Raw Developer, but even with ACR the rendering of the shirt is much better than what you uploaded (at least it looks better, but I don't know how it is in reality). The skin color depends on the selected profile.
The garment looks the best in the full-size Aptus shot as long as there is no moire. However, the moire removal removes the fine structure as well; on that area the D3X shot is better than the full-size Aptus.
I wonder what the excuse is for using MFDBs for anything moire-prone, except for the lack of skill in processing the raw files.
-
D3 and D3x are two different animals when it come to the sensor AFAIK. And colors, IR sensitivity ...
Edmund
I have seen some side bye side comparison and I could not see any significant difference between D3 and D3X.
But if you can backup your word with some images, I am willing to reconsider.
-
I wonder what the excuse is for using MFDBs for anything moire-prone, except for the lack of skill in processing the raw files.
Multishot. There is nothing that compares to a multishot file when dealing with moire prone garments.
-
Here is an ACR rendering of the D3X image with the color profile Camera D2X Mode 2:
http://www.yousendit.com/download/UmNJN3RRTXZ6NEozZUE9PQ (http://www.yousendit.com/download/UmNJN3RRTXZ6NEozZUE9PQ)
-
Multishot. There is nothing that compares to a multishot file when dealing with moire prone garments.
1. How many cameras offer this choice, and at what extra price?
2. What if someone is wearing that garment? Model deep frozen before the show?
-
Yikes,
That rendering is awful! Funny thing is that when I balance on the neutral patches of the card with Yairs file it doesn't alter but neither does it when I do that on yours. The background is a dreadful yellowish thing and there is an awful cast over his skin making you wonder how long he is dead. Both files (Panopeepers & Yairs) show way too much magenta in the skin to be pleasant IMO.
I most definitely prefer the Leaf file but I do see why the D3x file might be considered adequate enough for many.
Nowadays multishot backs are not that much more expensive than single shot. 50% of all MFDB brands offer it (that sounds much better than there are only 3 current models ).
First the clothing in this case hangs and is not worn. Even with this model I could take a single and a multishot and blend the 2 together which is actually something I quite regularly do with models. Nowadays much clothing is shot either styled flat or on dolls (much cheaper than models ) in which case it is a complete non-issue.
Most people that have never worked with multishot underestimate the range you can put it to use.
-
Here is an ACR rendering of the D3X image with the color profile Camera D2X Mode 2:
http://www.yousendit.com/download/UmNJN3RRTXZ6NEozZUE9PQ (http://www.yousendit.com/download/UmNJN3RRTXZ6NEozZUE9PQ)
Why use a D2X profile on a D3X file? The sensors are very different so what you have done was not just killing the model but also killing any detail that the D3X was able to show in the Nikon T-shirt.
If you read the ReadMe file that I've posted, I said that the D3X's files are quite new for me but even so, in RD I think that I've managed to keep the detail in, keep the background White (although I guess it was Yellow as the flash duration was fairly short, or shorter than what 1/125 can record) and make the skintone look real, if only a bit red-ish.
As for the Moire tool in LC, you are welcome to download the software from our website (http://www.leaf-photography.com/ShowFaqs/MenuID/373/ParentMenuID/355) so that you can try it for yourself and see that it does not affect detail in any way whatsoever. I did say in my ReadMe that there is pattern Moire that cannot easily be removed from the raw file.
BTW RD is available as a free, fully functioning DEMO (http://www.iridientdigital.com/) version and the licence is $125 so it is worth your investment for getting the most out of your photos.
Can we agree that since we are both not photographers (at least I'm not), we should let the photographers here judge the results photographically and not by reading numbers off a non-photographic analysis tool.
Kindest
Yair
-
FWIW, I processed the Leaf file in both ACR and Raw Developer just to see how ACR handles a medium format file, using minimal adjustments in the conversion and then opeining them in CS4. (My Haaselblad raws are not supported in ACR.) I was quite surprised by how superior the RD conversion was to that from ACR. The ACR TIFF was lifeless and and flat and had lousy skin color, whereas the RD TIFF had a really nice skin color and depth/three dimensionality to it. At least from that limited evidence, I cannot imagine how anyone would use ACR/Lightroom. The workflow with ACR/Lightroom is surely better, but it appears that you are sacrificing so much in IQ after spending a serious amount of money to get that IQ.
ACR is a mediocre converter with good workflow. Adobe is succeeding in establishing itself as the Microsoft of graphics software.
Adobe do listen to customers, but something is going wrong here.
RD has does a stellar, superb job on most camera files so far, but IMHO it is below its usual quality on the D3x.
C1 seems to be the converter to beat for D3x, I think, although Gimp (UFRaw) is actually quite good, and NX2 is the reference implementation with all the strange Nikon color twists.
Edmund
-
Why use a D2X profile on a D3X file?
Because this demonstrates, how much effect different color profiles can have on the ACR rendering; there are nine profiles, and ACR now supports one's own color rendering.
As to "killing the model": that's the question of taste, for we don't know the reality. Who said you that the gentleman has a tanned color? I myself despise tanning.
The details on the shirt are not lost due to the color profile, I guess you know this. Aside from the raw converter, the contrast setting plays a huge role; I did not turn up the contrast. Beside, I would not be surprized to be shown in a competent comparison of the shot between different converters that ACR's result is inferior for the D3X. I am rather a critic of ACR, but a fair comparison of the rendering is more laborous, and for the comparison of cameras one has to evaluate the best way to process the raw files.
As for the Moire tool in LC, you are welcome to download the software from our website (http://www.leaf-photography.com/ShowFaqs/MenuID/373/ParentMenuID/355) so that you can try it for yourself and see that it does not affect detail in any way whatsoever
I don't know who you want to fool: yourself or me. The moire is in the raw channels, it is not caused by the raw conversion. Just as the lack of the AA filter has its advantages, simulating that effect has the disadvantages as well. You can't have your cake and eat it.
-
Because this demonstrates, how much effect different color profiles can have on the ACR rendering; there are nine profiles, and ACR now supports one's own color rendering.
As to "killing the model": that's the question of taste, for we don't know the reality. Who said you that the gentleman has a tanned color? I myself despise tanning.
The details on the shirt are not lost due to the color profile, I guess you know this. Aside from the raw converter, the contrast setting plays a huge role; I did not turn up the contrast. Beside, I would not be surprized to be shown in a competent comparison of the shot between different converters that ACR's result is inferior for the D3X. I am rather a critic of ACR, but a fair comparison of the rendering is more laborous, and for the comparison of cameras one has to evaluate the best way to process the raw files.
I don't know who you want to fool: yourself or me. The moire is in the raw channels, it is not caused by the raw conversion. Just as the lack of the AA filter has its advantages, simulating that effect has the disadvantages as well. You can't have your cake and eat it.
A "color profile", be it an ICC input/ output profile, a matrix or a simple set of "instruction" can contain a contrast curve that will affect the appearance of detail without touching neither contrast nor sharpness settings. Try a raw converter that supports input profiles like C1, RD or LC and you will see it straight away. Speak to Edmund if you want further explanation on how profiles work.
The Moire tool in LC works on the raw data and not on the conversion. The upside is that you can create a new, "corrected" raw file that can be then converted in ACR or any other converter. It does not simply simulate an AA filter but uses the old patented Leaf MagicAl algorithm to identify the affected pixels and to adjust the hue/ saturation of each one of them without moving them or changing their luminance values. Again you do not have to trust me on any of this you just have to try it before dismissing it.
Yair
-
Is there Raw Developer for PC? I see it for Mac but not pc
-
A "color profile", be it an ICC input/ output profile, a matrix or a simple set of "instruction" can contain a contrast curve that will affect the appearance of detail without touching neither contrast nor sharpness settings
Yes. As I wrote, the details are an issue of contrast. It is not bad to remember: the color profile is primarily, secondarily and tertiarily about color. The effect of the profile on the contrast can be enhanced, mitigated or eliminated any time later, unlike the effect on the color.
The Moire tool in LC works on the raw data and not on the conversion. The upside is that you can create a new, "corrected" raw file that can be then converted in ACR or any other converter. It does not simply simulate an AA filter but uses the old patented Leaf MagicAl algorithm to identify the affected pixels and to adjust the hue/ saturation of each one of them without moving them or changing their luminance values. Again you do not have to trust me on any of this you just have to try it before dismissing it.
I won't install the program for the purpose of a one-time evaluation, but if you happened to have done this on the present sample raw image and have the adjusted raw file, I would happily take a look at it. This notwithstanding the fact, that the range of correctable moire is quite limited, judged from the sample.
-
A "color profile", be it an ICC input/ output profile, a matrix or a simple set of "instruction" can contain a contrast curve that will affect the appearance of detail without touching neither contrast nor sharpness settings.
This is not true, the way you've expressed it. 'Without touching neither' means 'touching either'. You've got a double negative. You presumably meant, ...'will affect the appearance of detail without touching either contrast or sharpness settings...", or you meant,.....'will affect the appearance of detail touching neither contrast nor sharpness settings...'
Sorry to be such a pain, but one needs to be precise in such matters .
-
Ok, here is my own C1 conversion of the D3x image. I have done ONE single skin tone edit using the C1 Pro color editor.
By the way, the magenta skin issue is interesting, people I see in public transportation often have bright pink faces; however I do agree that it looks horrid in print. Which is why I fixed it to yellow. A pair of color-aware female eyes to whom I showed the edited AND unedited images said the difference is -to her- quite subtle, and that with this red-haired type the magenta rendering is not shocking, quote "with that bottom part, the top part is to be expected". I'm sure glamour shooters have heard similar remarks
Frankly, if this is the worst that can happen to D3x color, I can live with it.
As for the difficulties we are all having with raw conversion on this image, I think there are some lens-color flare effects, possibly, which account for our problems with background color and with setting the shadow point.
Edmund
-
Because this demonstrates, how much effect different color profiles can have on the ACR rendering; there are nine profiles, and ACR now supports one's own color rendering.
As to "killing the model": that's the question of taste, for we don't know the reality. Who said you that the gentleman has a tanned color? I myself despise tanning.
As long as you don't confuse ACR "profiles" and ICC profiles. I find it funny that Adobe, itself a founding member of the ICC cannot manage to work fully inside the consortium with regards t camera color.
Re. the model, Americans seem to dislike magenta skin tints a lot; I think non-natives cannot "feel" the reason, and need to just accept it intellectually.
Edmund
-
I am not an American but find too much magenta less pleasing as well which is why I would prefer your interpretation of the skin in this image
Granted, maybe this man in reality looks like a piece of meat but that doesn't mean it is nice to look at.
-
Granted, maybe this man in reality looks like a piece of meat but that doesn't mean it is nice to look at.
World meet Gregg-- Gregg meet world
Ha!-Ah yes a truer word was never spoken!-- Prime New Zealand Hogget actually-- he's certainly not Lamb--
He's actually a luuuuuuvly chap!
Sorry Gregg
DesW
-
Sorry no disrespect intended. It does sound a bit harsh maybe after reading it back. I still think he is not displayed in the most pleasing way which ofcourse is not his fault. My comment was merely to say it might be his true tonality but in most cases I prefer pleasing over reality. Unless it is a product in which case I happily take the correct colors.
Ah anyway, I think you know what I mean and again in no way I meant it to be personal or offense. If anyone feels offended about it, sorry for that.
-
Hey there,
first of all i want to thank you that there is still a forum on the internet where a thread is not dumped after two replies becaus of trolling and fighting
i find the conversation very constructive and interesting
i do own a D3 and a Leaf Aptus22 on a contax but mainly use it on my Sinar P2 with Rodenstocks (not digital ones... can´t/don´t want to afford them...)
i owned a D2x and was never really satisfied with its color reprodcution nor its dynamic range compared to the leaf aptus22 back...
nowadays i find myself takin the D3 more often then my D2x, i think mostly because of the 14bit uncompressed RAW quality, sharpness, color and so on and also get quite pleasing results without tweakin so much compared to my aptus22 converted with leaf capture into tiff 16bit prophotoRGB and then processed in CS4...
i have to admit that i mainly use Zeiss ZF lenses on the Nikon if it comes to higher quality shots, for press i use nikkors...
i see a big difference in the glass but also in the sensors... thats why i choose the contax for its zeiss glass...
one part i want to try out is to convert these two shots (thx to the OP for the data!!!) and see what the D3x is cabable of compared to a MFDB...
i am fighting with my self not to buy the D3x because of the Aptus22... ;-))
what i found out last shooting was, after doing it thethered with the aptus onto my MacBookPro was that i don´t really miss the flexibility of the D3 in the studio much...
outside is a different theme... but i would like to take the MFDB also outside... but the limited iso range sometimes teaches me better... ;-)
to all MFDB owners with newer backs then mine, how is the high iso on your backs? usable?
ok, enough diffuse talk
thx for the files, i will convert them using ACR, Nikon Capture2, Lightroom and Leaf Capture and lets see... maybe i find a good workflow :-) i do think that you can get out most of the qualitiy of the nikon with NX2...
take care
robb
-
nowadays i find myself takin the D3 more often then my D2x, i think mostly because of the 14bit uncompressed RAW quality
From reading many such statements, it is obvious that Nikon and Sony greatly contribute to the digital illiteracy (not innumeracy) of their customers. Both call the lossy format "compressed", even though the non-lossy format of the A700 and A900 is compressed as well. Nikon's offering of now three formats is certainly a challenge for many customers.
-
As long as you don't confuse ACR "profiles" and ICC profiles. I find it funny that Adobe, itself a founding member of the ICC cannot manage to work fully inside the consortium with regards t camera color.
I am 100% sure that you know Adobe's answer, but some readers of the thread may not know it and it's fair to present Adobe's side as well; following is from the DNG Profile Editor FAQ:
Why introduce another camera profile format instead of using ICC camera profiles?
Some technical background is required to fully appreciate the reasons.
First, ICC camera profiles used by raw converters today are designed to process output-referred (i.e., rendered) image data, not scene-referred (i.e., raw) image data. Furthermore, the sequence and placement of color transformations described in an ICC camera profile can prevent other image processing stages (such as highlight recovery algorithms) from performing optimally. Third, there is no standard that describes the input color space of the ICC camera profile color transformation (it is often, but not always, a tone-mapped set of RGB camera coordinates). Consequently, ICC camera profiles are not portable: they can only be used with the raw converter for which they were explicitly created in the first place. Using an ICC camera profile designed for one raw converter with another raw converter nearly always produces incorrect (though sometimes entertaining) results.
In contrast, DNG camera profiles are designed specifically to process scene-referred image data. The color matrices, color tables, and tone curve transformations are applied in separate stages (instead of all in one step) to minimize exposure dependencies and to enable other image processing stages to perform optimally. The entire color processing model is described in the DNG 1.2 specification and SDK, thus enabling portability of DNG camera profiles among all raw converters that support DNG 1.2. Unlike ICC profiles, DNG profiles can store color adjustments separately for two illuminants (usually illuminants A and D65), which are used by the raw converter to derive the final color transformation automatically from an image's white balance. Finally, multiple DNG camera profiles can be embedded within DNG raw files, thereby making DNG images self-contained and ensuring that the photographer's chosen "color appearance" stays with the file wherever it goes.
-
From reading many such statements, it is obvious that Nikon and Sony greatly contribute to the digital illiteracy (not innumeracy) of their customers. Both call the lossy format "compressed", even though the non-lossy format of the A700 and A900 is compressed as well. Nikon's offering of now three formats is certainly a challenge for many customers.
Ok, Panopeep, tell us which is which on the D3x ?
Edmund
-
The question isn't only "why use X and not Y", it's also why not work *within* the industry organization which standardizes color interoperability?
I have had this discussion with Thomas Knoll several years ago. So have quite a few other people. My argument at the time was that although ICC profiles are not necessarily appropriate as such, the technology itself (file formats, readers, editors) is well understood and therefore can be useful extended and reused to create a world of third-party tools.
Some companies eg. Leaf have been exemplary in working as much as possible within existing frameworks, defining the colorimetry of their Raw files while Adobe kept inventing reasons why "it wasn't possible". As an example, while standard ICC output-referred profiles are not the best tools for decoding Raw, they are extremely useful for describing "looks".
Adobe has acute NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome. As a result, they now have their own new formats for everything, and have created customer lock in. I wish them good luck, when I see the quality of what comes out of ACR, compared to what comes out of Raw Developer which has a staff of ONE PROGRAMMER, I can't help thinking that Adobe have become middle aged. The best workflow is useless if the file quality is junk.
Edmund
I am 100% sure that you know Adobe's answer, but some readers of the thread may not know it and it's fair to present Adobe's side as well; following is from the DNG Profile Editor FAQ:
Why introduce another camera profile format instead of using ICC camera profiles?
-
People who want to see what contorsionate manipulations are done by ACR behind the scenes can find all the gory details here:
http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2009/02/adobe-hue-twist.html (http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2009/02/adobe-hue-twist.html)
The same site has lots of very interesting albeit geeky color info regarding camera color.
Edmund
-
Ok, Panopeep, tell us which is which on the D3x ?
Edmund, I was serious. I regularly see posts on different forums stating that the Nikon compression is lossy (and that Sony's CRAW is lossy but not more than Canon 's raw), and the best quality can be achieved by recording the uncompressed data.
Nikon built a tradition of confusion by create either only lossy format (like the D70), or lossy highly compressed vs. lossless slightly compressed version (which they call "uncompressed") with the D100, D200 and D2X. After they decided for a lossless highly compressed version in addition to the slightly compressed lossless and highly compressed lossy format starting with the D300, the problem arose, how to call these, and they kept the old, incorrect terminology:
uncompressed, meaning lossless, slightly compressed,
compressed, meaning highly compressed, lossy and
lossless compressed, meaning what it says.
To uphold the traditional confusion, the D90 and some others write only losslessly compressed raw data.
-
Edmund, I was serious.
I know you're serious. I was trying to figure out what is available on my D3x.
Edmund
-
Btw, the D3X image uploaded by Simon/HarperPhotos too is uncompressed; 49 MB, instead of 26-30 MB in losslessly compressed form. I am all for choices and decision making by the user, but Canon seems to be right with not giving any choice in this regard.
-
Btw, the D3X image uploaded by Simon/HarperPhotos too is uncompressed; 49 MB, instead of 26-30 MB in losslessly compressed form. I am all for choices and decision making by the user, but Canon seems to be right with not giving any choice in this regard.
I don't understand why there would be a choice between lossless compression and uncompressed, except if the compression slows down the frame rate, maybe.
Edmund
-
I don't understand why there would be a choice between lossless compression and uncompressed, except if the compression slows down the frame rate, maybe.
That is probably not the reason. DPReview's frame rate figures show, that the frame rate is the same with large, fine JPEG as with raw (which does contain a much smaller JPEG). As the encoding of the large JPEG image requires much more processing power than the encoding of the raw (the compression is lossless JPEG), the processor seems not to be challenged. Though if the bit depth is 14bit, the frame rate looks differently.
I guess the reason for offering the uncompressed format is the fear of misunderstanding by the potential users, many of whom would think that there is no lossless raw recording (justifiedly due to the traditional euphemism of Nikon on this area).
PR by fooling the customers is mandatory. Think of the recent "higher ISO" announcement by Hasselblad. One needs to understand the meaning of ISO gain in order to realize, that anhancing the camera's ISO ability is not possible without replacing the electronics. If one reads the info carefully, one finds that the "higher ISO" in fact is improved noise reduction.
The faking of higher and highest ISOs is standard feature of DSLRs as well. Canon is not alone in this game; as I noted above, ISO 6400 is fake with the 5D2, but the "High" classification starts with 6400. Nikon is doing the same: the D300 offers ISO 200 to 3200 and HI 0.3, HI 0.7 and HI 1. However, in reality ISO 3200 is already fake.
-
That is probably not the reason. DPReview's frame rate figures show, that the frame rate is the same with large, fine JPEG as with raw (which does contain a much smaller JPEG). As the encoding of the large JPEG image requires much more processing power than the encoding of the raw (the compression is lossless JPEG), the processor seems not to be challenged. Though if the bit depth is 14bit, the frame rate looks differently.
I guess the reason for offering the uncompressed format is the fear of misunderstanding by the potential users, many of whom would think that there is no lossless raw recording (justifiedly due to the traditional euphemism of Nikon on this area).
PR by fooling the customers is mandatory. Think of the recent "higher ISO" announcement by Hasselblad. One needs to understand the meaning of ISO gain in order to realize, that anhancing the camera's ISO ability is not possible without replacing the electronics. If one reads the info carefully, one finds that the "higher ISO" in fact is improved noise reduction.
The faking of higher and highest ISOs is standard feature of DSLRs as well. Canon is not alone in this game; as I noted above, ISO 6400 is fake with the 5D2, but the "High" classification starts with 6400. Nikon is doing the same: the D300 offers ISO 200 to 3200 and HI 0.3, HI 0.7 and HI 1. However, in reality ISO 3200 is already fake.
How many photos were taken today, while spending time an all these BS?
-
How many photos were taken today, while spending time an all these BS?
1. I never take a photo. My skill and my equipment is for making them.
2. How many photos could you have taken from wherever, while spending time on forums with subjects out of the range of your understanding?
-
Gidday,
Greg from T.A. Macalister the New Zealand distributor for Nikon came to my studio to try out the new Nikon D3x.
I was very impressed by the files and will be purchasing one of these beast in the couple of weeks
I did a comparison with my Leaf Aptus 75 and other than file size they a pretty much on par and of course no moiré.
Cheers
Simon
They both look good, but pretty horrific moire on the inside of the shirt with the Leaf. Psychedelic even.
-
They both look good, but pretty horrific moire on the inside of the shirt with the Leaf. Psychedelic even.
I spent some time watching pedestrian traffic today, and saw several pink-magenta faced people walk by, including one woman. It's impossible to know what that guy really looks like without seeing him in person, but that horrid magenta can certainly occur in nature.
I people here are interested, I can make Capture One profiles available which have this magenta edited out.
Edmund
-
I spent some time watching pedestrian traffic today, and saw several pink-magenta faced people walk by, including one woman. It's impossible to know what that guy really looks like without seeing him in person, but that horrid magenta can certainly occur in nature.
I think the most useful would be to ask that gentleman to ask someone to make a polariod shot of him, send that to someone with a scanner and then we all know his "true colors" (viewed on uncalibrated monitors).
-
I think the most useful would be to ask that gentleman to ask someone to make a polariod shot of him, send that to someone with a scanner and then we all know his "true colors" (viewed on uncalibrated monitors).
Or just Color Munki his face.
-
It's fairly obvious from the color chart in the files that the Nikon is more saturated by about 15% in the reds, magentas and purples and that the oranges are leaning red by about 15% as well. Voila, Aptus color in your Nikon.
I don't understand all this obsession with the color differences in these two files. It takes 30 seconds in LR to make the nikon file look virtually identical to the aptus file in regards to color using only saturation and hue sliders. It takes 2 seconds more to save these settings as a preset.
That moire on the other hand. . .
[attachment=12716:Picture_2.png]
-
For entertainment purposes, here is the just posted color-corrected Lightroom version next to my C1 conversion.
I think Lightroom Guy looks like someone who might be getting out of a coffin to go and find lunch, while C1 Guy looks more like a person who would buy the customer lunch
In fact, if these two renderings of a Raw were any guide, anyone contemplating buying into MF might consider just getting C1 as a first step.
- Notice the much more translucent "washed" hair
- Notice the eyebrow color
- Notice the well defined sides of the face
- Notice much lighter underchin area, even though the T-shirt shadows are not blocked out.
- Globally I'd say the C1 skin tone is much much better.
In fact, the C1 conversion has a bit of that MF look to it
I do realize this is just cultural interpretation - what we're doing here is really creating an image rather than adhering to reality ... T
Edmund
-
Edmund, your D3x shot looks quite a bit better. Can you post it next to the Aptus shot, processed for the same look? I think I see a little yellow in the D3x shot.
-
Edmund, your D3x shot looks quite a bit better. Can you post it next to the Aptus shot, processed for the same look? I think I see a little yellow in the D3x shot.
It wasn't the same look, it was a different non-magenta rendering. And btw, I cannot, I believe, process Leaf in C1
It is indeed very yellow. Not that I mind, too yellow or too magenta, take your pick
I'll try and setup something more similar later on so we can compare skin tone.
Edmund
-
It wasn't the same look, it was a different non-magenta rendering. And btw, I cannot, I believe, process Leaf in C1
It is indeed very yellow. Not that I mind, too yellow or too magenta, take your pick
I'll try and setup something more similar later on so we can compare skin tone.
Basically I am curious how people get good skintones from the Nikon. How it is done, how much work it is, if it can be (largely) automated, and how close the end look is.
-
Basically I am curious how people get good skintones from the Nikon. How it is done, how much work it is, if it can be (largely) automated, and how close the end look is.
I think I could make an edited C1 profile for the Nikon which would immediately bring caucasian skin tones in line with expectations for portraits; I did this a long time ago for the Leica and some Phase backs. The Leica profile had a lot of success, the Phase profiles found some users, the Canon 5D profile was not well accepted although I thought it was excellent. The Canon 1Ds2 was impossible for me to profile correctly. Maybe I should make a Nikon D3x profile available and see what people make of it.
Edmund
-
Basically I am curious how people get good skintones from the Nikon. How it is done, how much work it is, if it can be (largely) automated, and how close the end look is.
There really is no exact formula for getting great skintones from any digital camera. You can get to pleasing color with base adjustments in a converter but for exact looks it takes local adjustments. That's why photoshop has layers and why God made retouchers.
We just finished an ad for a sports campaign of 5 people, all caucasian and though there are adjustments that get decent color, in the final post work, it took a great deal of local corrections.
Personally, I think overall the Canon 1ds3 has the most pleasing skin tones and seems to require less work in post, but a lot of this comes down to personal preference and how exacting you are about color and look.
There is no single holy grail but I do find for finish, to send an image to retouching, regardless of camera Raw Developer produces the best look. In fact I find it interesting that I like the Phase files processed in Raw Developer better than in Phase's own software, though I find C-1 to do well on both the Canon and Nikon files, though once again, this is a matter of personal preference.
To me, none of the digital files out of camera look like film, (and that covers a lot of territory), as to me overall digital is flat and just has a more global color look than film and always requires more post work to emulate a film look.
What we show at the start of the shoot to what we deliver in final, is usually way different. It shouldn't be but it is.
When it comes to digital cameras of any make, any format, retouching and printing are the great equalizers.