Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: MichaelEzra on March 26, 2010, 05:00:27 pm
-
I visited yesterday Hasselblad's event in New York and had an opportunity to make a few snapshots with H4D-40 under strobes.
If anyone finds this useful, I have the JPG files that I created from lossless compressed raw files using ACR5.6.
No sharpening. Color noise reduction - standard value of 25. No lens corrections. JPG quality: 12
Lenses 100, 80 and 28mm
My max single upload file size here is 2 MB. All files size is 70 MB (about 14MB each) but I have no place to host at the moment...
If anyone could host the Zip file I can provide it.
EDIT: Download location: http://drop.io/39xh9wg (http://drop.io/39xh9wg)
Filename: H4D40_SampleFiles.zip
-
I visited yesterday Hasselblad's event in New York and had an opportunity to make a few snapshots with H4D-40 under strobes.
If anyone finds this useful, I have the JPG files that I created from lossless compressed raw files using ACR5.6.
No sharpening. Color noise reduction - standard value of 25. No lens corrections. JPG quality: 12
Lenses 100, 80 and 28mm
My max single upload file size here is 2 MB. All files size is 70 MB (about 14MB each) but I have no place to host at the moment...
If anyone could host the Zip file I can provide it.
Check this out ... let's you drop up to 100MB for free ...
http://drop.io (http://drop.io)
-
here you can upload for free: http://drop.io/ (http://drop.io/)
-
Thanks,
Download location: http://drop.io/39xh9wg (http://drop.io/39xh9wg)
Filename: H4D40_SampleFiles.zip
-
Thanks,
Download location: http://drop.io/39xh9wg (http://drop.io/39xh9wg)
Filename: H4D40_SampleFiles.zip
Look pretty good to me. 4416 looks slightly out of focus, but the files are clean and look good even at 200%. I want one.
Quentin
-
Look pretty good to me. 4416 looks slightly out of focus, but the files are clean and look good even at 200%. I want one.
Quentin
FYI, I used "True Focus" feature to focus all captures. Focusing was targeted on eyes.
-
Michael
Thank you for the upload
I think these files would look even better in Phocus.
am
-
As a Nikon D300 user right now, I am seriously thinking about MF in the next couple of months. I have been shooting for 25 years, the first 15 was 100% with an RZ67 and Bronica 6.45, never owned a 35mm until I went completely digital 10 years ago. I much prefer the crop of these files compared to 35mm for studio work and can't wait to get back to that.
The files here are clean and the close ups are sharp. The full lengths seem a little soft to me. They also look a little underexposed to me and lack a little contrast. Would love to play with the raws in Phocus. Being able to zoom in this close for retouching is amazing.
-
The files seem very blah to me. Flat and emotionless. Yes, maybe Phocus would have pulled more out of them. And yes, the full length seems soft. So much for the Focus Thingie. I just don't get the big whoop about these crop chip cameras. My feeling: Either buy a p65 and get full frame, or buy a Nikon/Canon and have an easy workflow. For $20k, you better knock my socks off; these files do not do it.
Or, in the case of these pictures, maybe it was just the bad model, the bad makeup, and the bad set. That'll do it to you.
-
I am a little disappointed with the quality of the images. Soft, flat and just look amateur. I know it just a set by Hasselblad, but please set up better lighting. I am looking to buy a new H4 in the next few weeks. I think Hasselblad needs to impress, not go backwards.
-
I am a little disappointed with the quality of the images. Soft, flat and just look amateur. I know it just a set by Hasselblad, but please set up better lighting. I am looking to buy a new H4 in the next few weeks. I think Hasselblad needs to impress, not go backwards.
lighting set up, model, location and actual photo are all substandard
but you can still see this camera delivers a photo which is tack sharp where it needs to be, see atatchment.
thanks for uploading the photos Michael! Hopefully see some studio shots of yours with this camera!!
marc
-
lighting set up, model, location and actual photo are all substandard
but you can still see this camera delivers a photo which is tack sharp where it needs to be, see atatchment.
thanks for uploading the photos Michael! Hopefully see some studio shots of yours with this camera!!
marc
thank you for uploading the images.
Actually the set up is great, because it allows to see what the camera can do with subpar lighting, processing and adverse conditions.
From there it can only get better.
For being sharp, it is sharp, but processing sucks big time. It is hard to judge colors and tonal range.
-
Michael:
would you consider uploading the raw file of the first file?
so we can have a peek at it in Phocus?
thank you.
am
-
Here is a link to the raw files:
A1214409: drop.io/A1214409
A1214412: http://drop.io/4adcl5v# (http://drop.io/4adcl5v#)
The JPG files were processed to deliver very plain, "raw-like" look of the images, not to impress with post processing.
XMP files are attached as well, if needed.
I'd be curious to see what Phocus can do. It would be fair to compare JPGs without sharpening.
Have fun!
-
A1214412: http://drop.io/4adcl5v# (http://drop.io/4adcl5v#)
Random:
* The file is out of focus.
* What is the workflow with Phocus and Hasselblad? When I opened this file in Phocus 2.1 it first made me "import" it. Does it require this extra step with every picture you shoot? What if you shot a job with a couple thousand frames? You'd have to import them all first, before you could actually begin working on them? Why? Can you set the camera to avoid this extra step? If it's a Hasselblad RAW and Hasselblad software, why doesn't the software just automatically "see" the RAW?
* I am on a PowerPC tower. This file imports, but then it turns into a corrupted looking yellow-lined preview after a few seconds. Does Phocus 2.1 require an Intel chip?
Thank you.
-
Michael thank you for the upload of the Raw files
the full length image is soft so didn't really spend much time on it.
The other file *IF* (so we read this if part).... it was my file this is probably how I would process it out in Phocus.
I'm sure others would probably process it out to their liking.
http://public.me.com/arashmoallemi (http://public.me.com/arashmoallemi)
Look for "michael H4D 40 File"
There is a full size Jpeg and a snap shot of the corrections if your interested.
@ gwhitf
Yes if you shoot to Card you get a 3FR file, and you have to import it into Phocus, but this is no different than LR or other Apps, For me it's part of importing from a CF Card to my capture folder.
When you shoot Tethered the files come into your capture folder with out any other steps.
Actually come to think of it, at least with my workflow, I'd never end up with a 3FR file, they are imported to FFF from the very start.
So this extra step is not really seen.
- Yes I do believe Phocus is an intel affair only, but it runs great on my MacPro (2.8 x 8 Harpertown + 6gig Ram, 512 V-ram) and MacBook Pros (both 2.4 with 4 gig ram, 256 V-Ram)
Thanks
am
-
That is a huge improvement. Exposure is up a little, contrast is there and great sharpness. You can zoom this up to 300% and still work on just the eye if you like. Great for retouching.
-
@ gwhitf
Yes if you shoot to Card you get a 3FR file, and you have to import it into Phocus, but this is no different than LR or other Apps, For me it's part of importing from a CF Card to my capture folder.
When you shoot Tethered the files come into your capture folder with out any other steps.
Actually come to think of it, at least with my workflow, I'd never end up with a 3FR file, they are imported to FFF from the very start.
So this extra step is not really seen.
- Yes I do believe Phocus is a intel affair only, but it runs great on my MacPro (2.8 x 8 Harpertown + 6gig Ram, 512 V-ram) and MacBook Pros (both 2.4 with 4 gig ram, 256 V-Ram)
Maybe if you used Phocus 2.1 every single day, you'd just get used to this workflow, but with Canon RAW, it's just so easy with DPP. A picture is a picture -- it just lives on the drive as a CR2 RAW, and you open DPP, and there it is, ready to work on, and FAST. Maybe that's why I've resisted Lightroom -- it seems so bloated and slow, when there is a deadline looming, and you just need it fast and easy.
I'll try to download Phocus 2.1 on my Intel 17 laptop and play with it. But for me, to think about a Hasselblad purchase, it now requires another investment from my solid G5 PPC tower, to an Intel. So add a few more thousand dollars to the investment line. Again, Canon and DPP do not require that. Again, advantage Canon, for being fast, not bloated, and easy to work with.
Thanks.
-
The focusing error may be due to miscalculation of the True Focus feature.
Focus was supposed to be retained on the eyes.
-
Maybe if you used Phocus 2.1 every single day, you'd just get used to this workflow, but with Canon RAW, it's just so easy with DPP. A picture is a picture -- it just lives on the drive as a CR2 RAW, and you open DPP, and there it is, ready to work on, and FAST. Maybe that's why I've resisted Lightroom -- it seems so bloated and slow, when there is a deadline looming, and you just need it fast and easy.
I'll try to download Phocus 2.1 on my Intel 17 laptop and play with it. But for me, to think about a Hasselblad purchase, it now requires another investment from my solid G5 PPC tower, to an Intel. So add a few more thousand dollars to the investment line. Again, Canon and DPP do not require that. Again, advantage Canon, for being fast, not bloated, and easy to work with.
Thanks.
I agree with you
The extra steps and stuff, I just chuck it up to the price of admission for that camera/software.
EVERY software that I use (PS, Phocus, C1-5, FCP... ) has some sort of "thing" I would like changed/fixed, but I'm too young to already have this much white hairs on my head, so I've learned to just not frat over it anymore
am
-
Maybe if you used Phocus 2.1 every single day, you'd just get used to this workflow, but with Canon RAW, it's just so easy with DPP. A picture is a picture -- it just lives on the drive as a CR2 RAW, and you open DPP, and there it is, ready to work on, and FAST. Maybe that's why I've resisted Lightroom -- it seems so bloated and slow, when there is a deadline looming, and you just need it fast and easy.
I'll try to download Phocus 2.1 on my Intel 17 laptop and play with it. But for me, to think about a Hasselblad purchase, it now requires another investment from my solid G5 PPC tower, to an Intel. So add a few more thousand dollars to the investment line. Again, Canon and DPP do not require that. Again, advantage Canon, for being fast, not bloated, and easy to work with.
Thanks.
You get used to the extra step from 3FR to FFF but many Hasselblad users agree with you and wish this was not necessary. You do need the latest and fastest hardware, if keeping processing time as short as possible is important to you.
I have no problems meeting deadlines, naturally it is all about getting your self familiarized with a specific workflow.
-
Hasselblad has two raw file formats; fff [ffffehhh] and 3FR [frrrruuurrrr]
The one format is recorded when shooting tethered and the other when shooting to CF cards.
When you shoot to CF cards the camera will write the files in 3FR. When you wish to work with the 3FR files in Phocus you would need to import and convert the 3FR files to fff. The 3FR files are readable by Adobe where fff files are not - at least not yet.
I don’t see the True Focus as a 100% everything-is-going-to-be-in-focus-from-now-on solution. I see it as an extension of the ‘focus and recompose’ work-way. True Focus will not compensate for moving models or if you change the distance from your subject. You would still have to focus and recompose as frequently as you used to, but the distance error that you would normally experience with any camera when recomposing is now compensated for.
I was testing the H4 with the 100mm at F.2.2 at about 6’ away from the person that I was photographing. I shot around 20 frames using True Focus. The focus was not exactly on the eyes every time, it was sometimes an inch off, but I would address this to my or the subjects movements more than computational miscalculation. On all 20 frames I could see that the focus was closer to the point where I had pointed the True Focus then where the focus cross was pointing when pressing the shutter, which was typically somewhere at mid-chest level.
-
Thanks for the link Michael.
Brillant, file at 200% still great.
I'll do an extreme post prod bad treatment when I have the time with the raw and will post it here.
Regards,
Fred.
-
Was the model moving in the full length shots? Looks like she was standing still. Was a tripod used?
Why would you use true focus on full length shots? The face and her mid section would be on the same plane so why not just focus on her mid section with the center focus? At f16 and 125 I would have expected a sharp image though. I can see the benefit of true focus on close ups where eyes are not centered but doubt any benefit for full lengths.
Brian
-
I no longer notice the 3FR > FFF issue, it's amazing what you get used to.
Is it possible to set the Prefs of Phocus to somehow when you opened Phocus it would automatically start to import them in the background? Like you'd just walk away and make some coffee or something and then come back and they were there, and ready to be altered?
-
Euh...yeah. You can select all the 3FR files and import them. You can also make custom adjustments and import batches of 3FR with those custom adjustments and walk away.
You come back and you have your files waiting for you with an initial adjustment.
-
despite using Phocus on an almost daily basis, when I listen to those who really know their way around this and other image processing software, it never ceases to amaze me how many possibilities I'm missing.
I wish their was a simple YouTube video, where a real working photographer just set up his machine to come home after a job, and he talked in real world language, like a photographer, and not like a software engineer, and he'd say, "Do this, then do that, then make some coffee, then come back and do this", with Phocus.
I also watched one of the CaptureOne5 video tutorials, and the guy showed this slider bar called "Uniformity", which seemed to address a real issue that I saw when I shot PhaseOne backs, and that was a tendency for the skin tone to do this transition from Red around the nose and eyes, to yellowish in the middle skin of the face. It sounds so simple to fix, unless you're really in there doing it, or if you have twelve images to make match together. All this, with Phase, was radically dependent on the type of ICC input profile that was chosen. I had best luck to turn everything off and use "No Color Correction" with Phase, and then work from there. Everything else pumped up the saturation in the skin too much.
In that CaptureOne video, the guy corrected it, but he went way too far with the warmth. It's easy (or lazy) to just throw a bunch of warmth at a file, and say, "isn't that pretty", but sometimes, warm is not the right look for a shot. Somehow, that Uniformity slider bar seemed to reduce the difference from the Reds to the Yellows. To me, it seemed like a very valuable tool. I wonder if Phocus offers that. If you shoot people or Beauty, you really need it. That sample file that Michael posted, earlier in this thread, showed the same issue with Yellow-to-Red transitions, but I think it was made worse with so-so makeup technique.
http://www.phaseone.com/en/Software/Captur...-Tutorials.aspx (http://www.phaseone.com/en/Software/Capture-One-5-Pro/Pro-Tutorials.aspx)
(down near bottom, in left column: SKIN)
-
Is it possible to set the Prefs of Phocus to somehow when you opened Phocus it would automatically start to import them in the background? Like you'd just walk away and make some coffee or something and then come back and they were there, and ready to be altered?
There is an option to make a drop folder on your desktop in Phocus:
Make a folder on your desktop and make it your capture destination folder in Phocus, go to File in the menu and check the Export The New Image Automatically option. You can now drag and drop a fff or 3FR file from the finder window to the folder on the desktop and Phocus will automatically detect and develop/convert the image in the background.
The option is to convert 3FR file into either DNG, TIFF, JPG, or a PSD but not into a fff file. The same goes for a fff file.
-
The option is to convert 3FR file into either DNG, TIFF, JPG, or a PSD but not into a fff file. The same goes for a fff file.
I'm not really talking about developing/converting them at this point. I'm just talking about quickly getting them off the CF card, and into Phocus, so that they're there to be readily adjusted and tweaked and worked with (ie, Contrast, Levels, Saturation, Exposure, inside of Phocus). I'm just asking if there's an automatic way to convert them to card status to the software status. And also fearing/wondering how long all this would take if you came home with two or three thousand frames from a day's job. Just to import them so I can sit down and start tweaking them, to create Web Galleries.
-
I'm not really talking about developing/converting them at this point. I'm just talking about quickly getting them off the CF card, and into Phocus, so that they're there to be readily adjusted and tweaked and worked with (ie, Contrast, Levels, Saturation, Exposure, inside of Phocus). I'm just asking if there's an automatic way to convert them to card status to the software status. And also fearing/wondering how long all this would take if you came home with two or three thousand frames from a day's job. Just to import them so I can sit down and start tweaking them, to create Web Galleries.
You are basically importing/converting the files as you copy across so the process is the same as copying files off any other camera's CF card. The only difference would be if you had copied across a bunch of FFFs in the finder before importing them , though I have no idea why you'd do that.
To re-cap.
Put CF card in reader with Phocus running.
Phocus will (if you wish) detect the card and change the screen layout to reflect an import-centric layout (that you have chosen). Go through and select the files you want (or just select all) and hit import. At this point you have the option to apply some adjustments to the files as they come in or just bring them in vanilla.
Go and make a coffee (espresso if you have a FW800 reader).
Upon your return the files will be sitting there as FFFs in whatever folder you chose to import to.
Make your tweaks (file by file or to one then synchronise the others) or apply a preset set of tweaks to the files. These tweaks happen near instantly as you are not processing RAW data.
Hiit save and chose preview to export a 1000px (varies depending on camera and preferences) preview file from each master. Takes about 1 second per 10 images so 500 will take just under a minute.
Clear as mud?
Nick-T
-
Clear as mud?
Nick-T
I got it. Thanks.
http://hasselbladusa.com/products/phocus-video.aspx (http://hasselbladusa.com/products/phocus-video.aspx)
Love the emphasis on GPS in the video. Who uses that? (T. Richardson? So high, he forgot where he shot the job?)
-
I am wondering how your experience is working with Phocus
as I find it at times very tedious especially in it's responsiveness
when I use any of the adjusting sliders there is always a delay before I can move them
same happens when i change the actual windows size.
when I want to export previews from about 50 fff files it takes 10 seconds for the dialogue box to appear for file location.
flexcolor is a klunker of a piece of soft ware but was always very responsive.
I work on a mac 4x 2.5 GHz powerPC G5 with 6.5 GB DDR2 sdram, should be fast enough, right?
so i am wondering!!??
cheers
Marc
-
Nope, that is not fast enough, IMO at least and obviously yours too. Lets face it, though the G5 tower was a very adequate machine it still is years old!
I currently use a MacPro 2.26 octo-core with 24Gb of memory and 4drive striped Raid0 with an ATI4890 video card (the 1gb type). This is adequate at the moment.
Flexcolor still is, more stable and much faster. It does offer less functionality and renders the files less beautiful than Phocus. Flexcolor also has problems running on Snow Leopard (at least at my machine this is the case). Than again, I was able to get windows 3.11 running with around 5MB of files on my 486 in the early 90's...
I always liked Flexcolor but at a certain point it is time to move on. The G5 is introduced in 2003, the latest update in 2005, this makes this computer 7 to 5 years old.
I do feel there is room for improvement on the performance of Phocus. I personally find the performance on my machines, which are up to date, beneath what it should be, especially under certain conditions. I can cope with it and am certain performance will be addressed.
-
I currently use a MacPro 2.26 octo-core with 24Gb of memory and 4drive striped Raid0 with an ATI4890 video card (the 1gb type).
Wait a second -- you're running a G5 Octo-Mom tower with twenty four gigs of RAM, with the sidepipes, and the mag wheels and the zebra stripes, and you feel that honestly, this machine is still a tad sluggish for Phocus? 24 gigs of RAM? Yikes, I am certainly in trouble then.
Can you honestly assess how you think a 17 MBP laptop would do, in the field, on location, if you were trying to tether on a fast paced job, with Phocus? If your hot rod is marginal, how would a puny MBP ever keep up, if you were shooting fast, tethered? Can you describe where you'd think you'd see a performance hit? Thanks.
-
There is a difference on how I use my machines in the field or in the studio. In the studio I process during the shoot, I have bridge running, PS. I run actions. I adjust in Phocus. I run music, I watch television on a small window on the screen when there is something I don't want to miss. I find Phocus needs to be faster on this studio machine than it currently is under certain circumstances. I find it is slow in getting multishot images in, it slows down after about 30 shots. At that stage it gets about as fast as on my field machine, this is weird and IMO should not happen.
Besides that, I find something is too slow pretty fast. I also don't like CS4 and think it is unacceptably slow. I hope CS5 will improve in this area. Speed is also a matter of perception. Where I tend to be more forgiving when I am working on my own in the studio sipping on my excellent espresso or cappucino. I am totally unforgiving when dealing with a client looking over my shoulder and 2 female stylists which are tapping their feet on the ground waiting for a multishot image to come in.
In the field I use an early 2008 MBP 15, 2.4Ghz with 6Gb of main memory. In single shot it can cope quite easily, though (as I mentioned in an other post before) don't expect it to fly. Take the pace down a bit and use the machine for capturing and gettting the images in. I rarely process on this machine during a shoot, only if I really have to but I try to avoid that at all times. I also use this machine to do multishot shoots, with this it needs to get 4 shots in, computate the final RAW (of 228MB) and get that in. This process I find is taking too long. It works for about 30shots after which it slows down too much. The good thing is that these sessions normally are slower than the faster paced sessions with people in it.
As mentioned processing or regularly adjusting images in Phocus in the field during a shoot is not what I do a lot because I do find Phocus too sluggish for that. Things like cropping and resizing take way too long.
What I do is; I set up Phocus the way I want it, eg. filenames, storage location, WB, exposure, etc (as much as possible). I shoot, I change naming during the shoot and that is about it. Coming home, I hook up the MBP to the MacPro and pump over the .FFF files. On that machine I do post-processing.
If I really have to I could do it on the MBP but that takes longer.
Did I mention I am waiting for the Arrandale MBP's ?
BTW, the G5 is no longer, it has been Intel processors for a while now.
-
Can you honestly assess how you think a 17 MBP laptop would do, in the field, on location, if you were trying to tether on a fast paced job, with Phocus? If your hot rod is marginal, how would a puny MBP ever keep up, if you were shooting fast, tethered? Can you describe where you'd think you'd see a performance hit? Thanks.
I can.
It's kind of like shooting with a Canon tethered, and dropping a qualude at the exact moment you start shooting. The first 15 minutes go fine, then things start sloooowwwwiiinnnngg down, you feel all gigly because there is sooo much detail but right when thing start moving you stop and say, okkaaay, waaaiiitt a sec...gotta give the ccoooooommmmppuuuutter a miinnute to caaaaatch up.
Then you start again, but you can't quite catch up, you feel kind of dizzy and sluggish, I mean, you're laughing though, cause heh, 20 grand of equipment is on that stick between you and the model and you're just sitting there laughing...that's some funny sh*t. then you really start laughing your ass off, dreaming about the next upgrade and how pushing another 10 million pixels through the needle hole will cost you about as much as a new lighting set up... Holy moly this stuff is goooooood... and that true phocus stuff is gonna blow your mind man, focus, push button, frame, push button, push shutter relea... wait a sec. the computer... oh did i push that second time, hey, guy standing next to me, you're the assistant right? you got another one of those big funny pills man?
-
Thank you both. I think I've got my answer about using Phocus in my world.
I think it sounds just fine, if I was a StillLife guy, working in the studio, with a tower, not shooting fast.
Thank you.
-
Thank you both. I think I've got my answer about using Phocus in my world.
I think it sounds just fine, if I was a StillLife guy, working in the studio, with a tower, not shooting fast.
Thank you.
How fast would you normally work? What is your typical way of working? Maybe I can tell you more precise what to expect.
-
dropping a qualude at the exact moment you start shooting.
When I saw these downloads I looked at them. Good detail, kind of weird processing, very challenged subject and scene. Actually the model is pretty, but hair, makeup, lighting, set . . . well let's be kind and say not exactly professional.
Anyway, late Friday night I was moving some data and came across a full length retail shot of a model in studio shot with a 1ds2, not a mark 3 but 2 so I processed it in CS4 adobe raw, and slightly sharpened it and upsized it in processing.
It looked great, very close to this image in detail from this blad and I was gonna post it but naw, it's not really apples to apples, it's a different model, no reason to get back into the 35mm thing vs. 645 thing.
But looking at the difference in detail there is no doubt that the blad file has more, but nothing I really notice even on a 30 inch monitor.
I guess that's not he point because I don't think at this stage in digital you buy any camera (and I mean any camera) because you really have to, you buy it because you want to.
Want is a good reason and if you want it I suggest you do it, live with it's limitations and not worry about it, but have to . . . that's a whole other thing.
What I did notice in working some other images in cs4 how well content aware scale works.
If your a vertical 2:3 hater even a 4:3 hater, look at that function cause the whole world becomes a 4x5 camera.
[attachment=21119:content_...re_scale.jpg]
[attachment=21120:content_...e_scale2.jpg]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bxde0bq3hs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bxde0bq3hs)
Now as far as the Canon and tethered, I use a 2008 macbook pro and a 23" monitor on location and studio. Just came off a pressured gig in studio and I don't see any slow down and I shoot fast. We run bridge in the background for flipping through naming, rating etc. We do use a non powered usb repeater, but rarely an issue. Had one crash in a weeks shooting, so I guess not too bad considering we shot a gazillion images.
What we've learned to do is after about 1/2 day's shooting when we take a break, if we get a break, we restart everything. It seems to clear it out.
Anyway, as they say results may vary.
BC
-
Now as far as the Canon and tethered, I use a 2008 macbook pro and a 23" monitor on location and studio. Just came off a pressured gig in studio and I don't see any slow down and I shoot fast. We run bridge in the background for flipping through naming, rating etc. We do use a non powered usb repeater, but rarely an issue. Had one crash in a weeks shooting, so I guess not too bad considering we shot a gazillion images.
My feeling is, someone is going to find The Sweet Spot in this marketplace, and they're going to make a ton of money. It might be Pentax, but somehow I doubt it. It might be Canon 1ds4. It might be the successor to the Nikon D3x.
There is a sweet spot in there that's going to be very popular with commercial photographers. It will be the ease of a 5D2, but with more horsepower, and more Ooomph. To me, those are the three cameras to watch for. But with Pentax, there are about ten thousand unknown variables at this point, and any three of them, in tandem with each other, would take it out of the running.
CaptureOne was at its best at v3.79, in my opinion. It was solid, and light on its feet, and it would run on any machine, and it was fast. It seems that Lightroom, CaptureOne5, and Phocus 2.1 have all gotten very bloated in their old age. Again, to me, (like Canon approaches it), I'd devise a lightweight application for Tethering, and uncouple it from the Processing Module. Or, just offer a "mini-App" that's for tethering/capturing only, that would fly, on a MBP. Let's be honest: how many people are actually going to drag a Tower out on location any more. It was fun the first few times, but those times are long gone.
One opinion only.
-
I think this is a great thread. What Hasselblad should really do is create some Youtube videos (I think Cooter or Gwhtf suggested it) shot in one take showing the whole shoot process all in real time. I'm happy with the performance of my MBP with a 31 MP product but I don't think I shoot at the pace of Cooter and others.
Nick-T
-
I think this is a great thread. What Hasselblad should really do is create some Youtube videos (I think Cooter or Gwhtf suggested it) shot in one take showing the whole shoot process all in real time. I'm happy with the performance of my MBP with a 31 MP product but I don't think I shoot at the pace of Cooter and others.
I agree, it would be helpful. But please tell them not to do it in the style of that other video on their site, where they talk about "ultimate image quality" and all that other sales talk. It is just complete bullshit, and anybody that's about to drop twenty or thirty grand does not want to hear some hypey bullshit sales talk.
Talk to them like photographers; not like you're trying to sell them a car or something. It's insulting, and it's just so completely transparent and fake. Talk to people like you're in a photo studio; not like you're in a flourescent lit office building, listening to a PowerPoint lecture.
-
Talk to people like you're in a photo studio; not like you're in a flourescent lit office building, listening to a PowerPoint lecture.
Nick,
IMO, I'm with Gwitifh (I still can't spell that name).
What Blad or anyone needs to do when they show workflow is to show a pretty photograph.
No offensive to Michael for posting those blad images, cause it was kind of him to put em up, but whoa . . . the look of the set, the lighting everything is so challenged it makes you hurt.
A few years ago we were casting in Miami and in another studio were some US Leaf reps shooting a demo. They made the model look like a burn victim and then were printing huge images out and sticking them all over the wall. She asked my assistants if they could help the Leaf guys out to try to not make her look so awful.
That won't sell anything.
A while after that I suggested to the Phase people that they should set up a demonstration in a real studio, give everyone a cf card with a phase logo and put up two sets with real models, real stylists and real lighting options and crew and let potential customers shoot something pretty . . . something that makes em' smile.
They passed on that idea, instead they we're much happier to loan a camera to a friend of mine who was a celebrity, but still I think it's a good idea to allow a photographer to shoot something pretty in a demonstration, not just let them look at pixels.
Let's be really honest. You don't need a blad to make money. A 5d2 covers that easily. Making money in photography isn't about the camera, but if you feel you shoot better with a blad for your own soul, or shoot something prettier than you normally would, that'll sell it.
Hasselblad, Leica, those are photographic names that resonate with greatness, so make sure that nothing coming out of those cameras is not great.
BC
-
James, non taken:)
These JPGs certainly have specific level of ugliness on a few levels:) I was surprised to see the set.
This test was intended to be for True Focus feature, I was curious how it would behave when camera is panned horizontally (A1214409_H4D-40_ISO100_100mm.JPG) and when almost no compensation is necessary (A1214412_H4D-40_ISO100_100mm); It was not interesting to me to test any other aspects of HD40 as I expected it to be sort of on par with everything else similar.
I grabbed a couple of 24x36 sample prints from hd40 captures there. Truly, it was not impressive at all. A full body shot was also soft, though that one was not filling the entire frame.
Images themselves were just as inspiring.
All this can certainly be flipped and one can make breathtaking images with this camera, HB lenses and 16bit 40MP give lots of room to play if anyone is game.
But, I am not selling Hd40:) nor buying one at this time...
-
My feeling is, someone is going to find The Sweet Spot in this marketplace, and they're going to make a ton of money.
i was thinking along these lines last week when i was decieving myself (again) about why and how i could go forward with hasselblad.
thinking to self: you know they'll get there kipling, writing on the wall and all that stuff... just trade into the h4d thing, buy the newest macbook, torture yourself another year or so, and see it as the bridge to the h5d mk II that they are surely working night and day on. so many photographers would give a thumb to shoot with the hc 100mm on a scaled down h with 30mp, that huge viewfinder, good iso and live view. there gonna do it!
then i called my rep all excited by my hasseblad business plan and he said: oh sorry, there's no trade up for the h4d40, you'll have to sell your h3d on your own and buy at full price...
I have no idea who thinks this stuff up, maybe it's really good business sense, i don’t know, but it really cleared my head for a second, and i realized that none of these companies are thinking about my business or my profession. i don't even think canon intentionally moved in a direction that was intended to change any certain line of photography. it's all just a bunch of tech that's crammed into a black (or brown grey) box and presented as the next shabam for silly named target groups. call it something jazzy an see what happens.
canon hit the jackpot, but i'd bet a million there was a board meeting and the president of retail technology and marketing hype said hd-video will be great for our nest eggers and best agers with children and grand children!
and he was probably right, but no way in hell did he say: now we will revolutionize web based commercial photography!
i think that's why they avoid something like james idea like the pest. it would be catered to the wrong audience. you might alienate the real target group, the group that the marketing guy made up to save his ass until the numbers come out in the 3rd quarter. or the group that likes big, bigger, biggest or marketing jive like true focus and real full frame...
-
I have to agree with James about manufactures setting up and showing hi quality images. Its sad to see some sad looking images, it turns me off. I can shoot that image with my nikon D700, why do I need to spend $28,000 on an H4-50.
Unfortunately for my need a fashion shoot would not work, I need to see how the H4-50 works for architectural photography on a Cambo Wide DS. I am personally spending a few bucks and running my own full location architectural test shoot, with H4-50, H4-40 and P45+. My work flow just works better with a digital back.
-
A while after that I suggested to the Phase people that they should set up a demonstration in a real studio, give everyone a cf card with a phase logo and put up two sets with real models, real stylists and real lighting options and crew and let potential customers shoot something pretty . . . something that makes em' smile.
Actually something that Hasselblad UK did all through 2009.
As for model sets / models / lighting, whatever we do... somebody won't like it. ')
Here is my take on the image that is in focus.....
http://drop.io/xdweau4# (http://drop.io/xdweau4#)
-
David
would you mind posting a screen shot of your corrections in phocus?
Also in general I wanted to add that I don't have much problem shooting fast tethered to a MacBook Pro, I don't run any other apps and when there is down time I always restart the machine...
am
-
Here you go...
[attachment=21133:Screen_s...15.43.22.png]
There is also +10 on Vibrancy, not shown here.
D
PS. You could argue my -0.04 EV correction is not doing very much!
-
As for model sets / models / lighting, whatever we do... somebody won't like it. ')
Dave,
Whatever, but . . .
Man if your selling to good photographers, show good pictures.
But your image is not really a matter of taste, it's just a matter of execution which gives you a less than desirable final image, especially since you know everyone is going to be zooming in on parts and pieces to check detail.
It's also not a matter of fashion, portrait or any genre, because I don't know where this image falls. It's certainly not fashion, or portrait, it's just a photograph.
All of us are only as good as what we have in front of the lens. Even something well presented and simple carries more weight than something over thought.
You can sell and market your cameras anyway you like, that's your business, but in my mind if I was selling a high megapixel, leaf shutter lens camera, I would do something that would show the benefits of both, i.e. freeze fast moving subjects and show the ability to crop a full length vertical from a horizontal. (we do this all the time, now that 1/2 of all still imagery is shot on white).
I have to admit it kind of surprises me to see this type of imagery when there are so many set builders, background painters, models and crew that are looking for work. You could easily pull together a good assembly of talent and keep it on budget, because in today's market "budget" seems to be the phrase.
If your gonna do backdrops, work at this level . . . IMO
http://www.deborahfreedman.com/ (http://www.deborahfreedman.com/)
BC
-
Actually something that Hasselblad UK did all through 2009.
As for model sets / models / lighting, whatever we do... somebody won't like it. ')
Here is my take on the image that is in focus.....
I attended one of these (for the H40) in London February 2010 (and MD 'blad UK was there) and one for the H3D11-50 last year before I bought mine.
I see you used f/16... I was shooting ambient last week @ 200 iso 1/120th f/6ish and had no where near enough DOF.
Do you all use f/16 for close-up heads, or accept that half of it is OOF?
To use f/12 ambient (overcast) I would have had to crank it up to 800iso... would that have been the best option?
Do the H4s perform better @ 800 iso than the H3s?
I found, at the pixel/hair's-breadth level, there was camera shake at 1/90th 110mm.
f/16 looks OK... is diffraction a myth?
-
Youtube video request acknowledged.
gwhitf, will cover those points you mentioned, anything else?
If you are experiencing sluggish performance with Phocus, something is not right, time to check the computer for adequate space and the host of regular maintenance items. I prefer to use the dual core iMac with 27" screen and 512MB VRAM display card as Phocus makes use of OpenGL to process the graphics display (GPU) as recommended by Apple, leaving CPU cycles for other tasks (meaning you can export hundreds of previews while burning a DVD, et al...)
However, money does not grow on trees and I regularly use my three-year old MacBook Pro 15" with 2GB RAM and a 256MB VRAM video card to shoot tethered in the field on location. Do I have the same zippy performance as the mac-daddy iMac, hell no, but I also don't need a cart and electricity so it works for me. Plus, the demands of the shoot determine what you need to bring, and if zippy is in order, well you know what to bring, right? Can't complain if you bring a knife to a gun fight, though...
Working photographers open RAW files, set color temp (white/grey balance), push saturation, modify exposure, courtesy sharpen and export. Done. Doesn't matter if it's Lightroom, C1, Aperture, CRAW. Same as it ever was. So learning Phocus is like learning to drive the rental car, get in adjust the seat, find the wipers/light switch and drive.
The rest is human opinion and preference.
Something to make you laugh at the seriousness of the debate (teddy bears not included) : http://www.youtube.com/user/HotwireDigital#p/f/4/80K2fvIl-dY (http://www.youtube.com/user/HotwireDigital#p/f/4/80K2fvIl-dY)
John
-
Dave,
You can sell and market your cameras anyway you like, that's your business, but in my mind if I was selling a high megapixel, leaf shutter lens camera, I would do something that would show the benefits of both, i.e. freeze fast moving subjects and show the ability to crop a full length vertical from a horizontal. (we do this all the time, now that 1/2 of all still imagery is shot on white).
BC
I took some two, three and four people horiz last week (politicians so open-season) good enough to take a head from (with H3D11-50) shall I post one?
One of the benefits of high MPx is that you do not need to frame close for moving subjects, but I am planning to use shutter-beams.
-
Something to make you laugh at the seriousness of the debate (teddy bears not included) : http://www.youtube.com/user/HotwireDigital#p/f/4/80K2fvIl-dY (http://www.youtube.com/user/HotwireDigital#p/f/4/80K2fvIl-dY)
John
LOL
funny video
So how did a ten year old afford the Hassy?
For the most part I agree with you, I use C1, phocus and LR on regular bases, they are all means to the end result.
am
-
LOL
funny video
So how did a ten year old afford the Hassy?
For the most part I agree with you, I use C1, phocus and LR on regular bases, they are all means to the end result.
am
...her Dad (sorry parent) obviously works for Hasselblad, as the camera seems disposable...
When my 9 year old niece used my ELD, I taught her to use the strap first, and she would not have left the camera on the lawn. She got a good picture of her father, who is difficult to photograph. (now she is 17, and says she would like to do some Photoshop work for me)
I use a teddy-bear, but mine did not come ready-stuffed, and I have to get inside it!
-
Something to make you laugh at the seriousness of the debate (teddy bears not included) : http://www.youtube.com/user/HotwireDigital#p/f/4/80K2fvIl-dY (http://www.youtube.com/user/HotwireDigital#p/f/4/80K2fvIl-dY)
Wow. Impressive.
-
Dave,
Whatever, but . . .
Man if your selling to good photographers, show good pictures.
But your image is not really a matter of taste, it's just a matter of execution which gives you a less than desirable final image, especially since you know everyone is going to be zooming in on parts and pieces to check detail.
It's also not a matter of fashion, portrait or any genre, because I don't know where this image falls. It's certainly not fashion, or portrait, it's just a photograph.
All of us are only as good as what we have in front of the lens. Even something well presented and simple carries more weight than something over thought.
You can sell and market your cameras anyway you like, that's your business, but in my mind if I was selling a high megapixel, leaf shutter lens camera, I would do something that would show the benefits of both, i.e. freeze fast moving subjects and show the ability to crop a full length vertical from a horizontal. (we do this all the time, now that 1/2 of all still imagery is shot on white).
I have to admit it kind of surprises me to see this type of imagery when there are so many set builders, background painters, models and crew that are looking for work. You could easily pull together a good assembly of talent and keep it on budget, because in today's market "budget" seems to be the phrase.
If your gonna do backdrops, work at this level . . . IMO
http://www.deborahfreedman.com/ (http://www.deborahfreedman.com/)
BC
BC,
Again complaining about the quality of the images posted.
Ok, I got your wised point about "good image". We all know what a pro work is right?
But when I want to be informed about a gear, the last thing I want to see is precisely the kind of pics that you've posted
in order to correct the Heresy.
These are fine for a "look at my last pro work" topic. Not to be informed.
I do not want to be distracted by a "pro" session and all the post-prod stuff behind.
I much prefer a flat, boring and unpersonal pic like the ones posted. That's what I want to see when talking about evaluating
a camera. Do not need any master piece because Hasselblad or Leica. David is not pretending being HCB.
Last time he posted the 800 iso I liked it because it was a great sample to see something in the worsed conditions.
You are (and most the people here) experienced enough to know perfectly what you would have been capable to do, no?
So what's the point asking being more pro each time someone is posting pictures? The pro is you, that I know.
Take your responsabilities and kindly provide to us the 100% Pro pictures you ask to people that did not pretend posting
a final art.
With all my respect.
Fred.
-
BC,
Again complaining about the quality of the images posted.
I'm not answering for BC; actually, OK, I will. It's about always keep a good face forward. It's about showing your best work. All that work that went into designing that TrueFocus contraption, and all the work to get ASA 800 looking great, and one of the first pictures you see from it is some Trade Show model, with bad makeup, and the frames out of focus. It's not Michael's fault, it's the fault of Hasselblad for allowing CF cards to be inserted in those demo cameras. Remember that other story of another company that glued shut the CF door, during the trade show? Now that was smart.
That would be similar to you, going out and shooting a job, but you shoot on JPG LOW, and you don't bother to tweak the file once you get home, nor retouch it -- you just stick it up on the Splash Page of your site, hereby saying to the world, "This is my best work".
I think there was a time, when you could go to University of Arizona, and you could go into the darkroom and print from original Ansel Adams negatives. I'm not saying you'd put it in your book, but let's face it, it would be pretty bad-ass to print a neg of Halfdome. It's always been weird to me that these MF companies spend zillions designing these cameras, then they never hire a competent photographer to shoot RAW files for them, and then make them available for download, to learn the software. I'm not talking retouching fakery here, to make the camera look better -- i'm talking about uploading the RAW files, and let people download them, to see THE TRUTH about what the camera really renders, in real life. But they were files that were lit well, and composed well, with decent talent. There's not a person I know that wouldn't want to download a RAW file from Demarchelier or Michael Thompson or Misrach or whomever, just out of curiosity, but also to really work the software hard.
Signed,
Not BC
-
I'm not answering for BC; actually, OK, I will. It's about always keep a good face forward. It's about showing your best work. All that work that went into designing that TrueFocus contraption, and all the work to get ASA 800 looking great, and one of the first pictures you see from it is some Trade Show model, with bad makeup, and the frames out of focus. It's not Michael's fault, it's the fault of Hasselblad for allowing CF cards to be inserted in those demo cameras. Remember that other story of another company that glued shut the CF door, during the trade show? Now that was smart.
That would be similar to you, going out and shooting a job, but you shoot on JPG LOW, and you don't bother to tweak the file once you get home, nor retouch it -- you just stick it up on the Splash Page of your site, hereby saying to the world, "This is my best work".
I think there was a time, when you could go to University of Arizona, and you could go into the darkroom and print from original Ansel Adams negatives. I'm not saying you'd put it in your book, but let's face it, it would be pretty bad-ass to print a neg of Halfdome. It's always been weird to me that these MF companies spend zillions designing these cameras, then they never hire a competent photographer to shoot RAW files for them, and then make them available for download, to learn the software. I'm not talking retouching fakery here, to make the camera look better -- i'm talking about uploading the RAW files, and let people download them, to see THE TRUTH about what the camera really renders, in real life. But they were files that were lit well, and composed well, with decent talent. There's not a person I know that wouldn't want to download a RAW file from Demarchelier or Michael Thompson or Misrach or whomever, just out of curiosity, but also to really work the software hard.
Signed,
Not BC
Gwhitf,
I totally agree with your points, so as I agreed with what BC was saying, BUT, if you are right to point a minimum of decence, I think a flat pic with no post prod is a better way in these cases to provide enough information.
You won't tell me that looking and examinating some boring flat Raw pics, you are not capable of anticipating the kind of quality that can be acheived when used properly and post-produced accurately.
If a poster would send you a remarkable pro RAW file, as BC suggested, then you'll have to complain because of the post-prod involved behind, or the lights settings in this particualar shot or whatever.
I've been a designer and work with and for pro photographer for enough years to know how they can sometimes be with that.
I have nothing against BC, I respect their work, but I'd like to see the comments of this forum if he posted the "best works" he is asking to the others in order to provide info about a gear. Imediatly, you'll have people jump on that because of artistic choices, lights, post prod, etc etc...
To me, more it is neutral, better it is.
Leica, Hasselblad etc...have already their army of masters that provide for them and for us, the high quality pics they diserve. If I want to see what you say, I go to the "show me your last pro work" topic or to the brand website. But that was not the case here, and that was my point.
Regards,
Fred.
-
But when I want to be informed about a gear, the last thing I want to see is precisely the kind of pics that you've posted...
These are fine for a "look at my last pro work" topic. Not to be informed.
I do not want to be distracted by a "pro" session and all the post-prod stuff behind.
really? i'd pay james cash to watch a session of what he does.
i could care less about looking a true focused eyelashes, i want to see top dog jumping through flaming hoops.
true pressure, true sets, true workflow, true lighting, true stills and motion, true directing, true work.
what is false focus anyway..?
-
really? i'd pay james cash to watch a session of what he does.
i could care less about looking a true focused eyelashes, i want to see top dog jumping through flaming hoops.
true pressure, true sets, true workflow, true lighting, true stills and motion, true directing, true work.
what is false focus anyway..?
I think my post have been totally misunderstood.
You are talking about something else.
These posters did not pretend providing us an all session in the real world.
I agree with your point, but it is totally different.
This was just some files to give us an idea , and it has to be taken that way IMO.
Fred.
-
I think my post have been totally misunderstood.
You are talking about something else.
These posters did not pretend providing us an all session in the real world.
I agree with your point, but it is totally different.
This was just some files to give us an idea , and it has to be taken that way IMO.
Fred.
any way you slice it i'd rather see the highest quality shot possible, either as a test shot or from start to finish.
-
any way you slice it i'd rather see the highest quality shot possible, either as a test shot or from start to finish.
I'd like to see both, a sample with best quality possible, and a flat unpersonal one so that I can get rid off the work involved in the first one.
IMO.
Fred.
-
I'd like to see both, a sample with best quality possible, and a flat unpersonal one so that I can get rid off the work involved in the first one.
IMO.
Fred.
So far we have the flat one, would certainly be great to see a fully finished image. If Hasselblad lends me the camera, I would be glad to create one:)
-
So much zeal on the board...
But it gets down to the real deal when it is time for the workflow demonstration. Conjecture is replaced with first-hand knowledge when shooting with the gear in your own hands. Those who have shot with the H4D have acknowledged that it works as advertised, super-fast auto-focus, and even the harshest critics have grumbled about the great big LCD screen on the back, curiously annoyed that it is available to anybody who wants to own the camera.
I have an open invitation to anyone who is interested in a hands-on demo of the H4D and Phocus in Atlanta. Want to shoot from start to finish? Me too. Bring your computer, lights, and other items (camera too?) deemed necessary for a qualified, bona-fide demo if you don't want to use mine. Light it how you see fit, stage it, then let's shoot it.
Can't get here? Atlanta in the Spring is not to be missed...
Southeast US? Fine, I'll travel to you.
But it is important to know beforehand that a.) you are going to be impressed with the technology that has been developed, and b.) you and I will know what went down in the demo, it will be up to you if you choose to post it here; this isn't about a showdown - it's about getting to the facts and history proves the most qualified statements are supported by those with experience.
Yep, I'm gonna hear plenty about this one...
John
-
It's always been weird to me that these MF companies spend zillions designing these cameras, then they never hire a competent photographer to shoot RAW files for them, and then make them available for download, to learn the software. There's not a person I know that wouldn't want to download a RAW file from Demarchelier or Michael Thompson or Misrach or whomever, just out of curiosity, but also to really work the software hard.
I do not think MF companies are spending zillions to develop their cameras, otherwise they would produce something proper.
As for downloading those files from the photographers you mentioned, I do not think it is viable because of costs of the right of use.
To give you an example: Michael Thompson is a guy that did not even shoot a polaroid to a friend, for free.
-
Gwhitf,
I totally agree with your points, so as I agreed with what BC was saying, BUT, if you are right to point a minimum of decence, I think a flat pic with no post prod is a better way in these cases to provide enough information.
You won't tell me that looking and examinating some boring flat Raw pics, you are not capable of anticipating the kind of quality that can be acheived when used properly and post-produced accurately.
I agree.
It is actually possible to see what the camera can do from those flat files.
The irony of all those who complained about the lighting, make up and hair, is that very likely, most of the files they produce on their own regular work, before they pass the photoshop man, are probably as bad as the ones Michael quickly took at the trade show.
-
There is no generic solution that pleases all for this kind of event.
If you shoot it like a 'real' situation, somebody will complain it is not flat enough to see potential, or it is not their style of shooting.
Shoot it like it was at the above event, it is not perfect for all.
The idea of the event in New York was to get the camera in as many hands as possible.. More than 1400 people actually. They could come and go as they please at the time that was convenient to them.
Stage a dogs jumping through hoops for a couple of hours and not everybody would be able to stay, find it interesting etc etc...
Ultimately if you want to do the big proper production test, then use somebody like John to do it with you.
David
-
then i called my rep all excited by my hasseblad business plan and he said: oh sorry, there's no trade up for the h4d40, you'll have to sell your h3d on your own and buy at full price...
I have no idea who thinks this stuff up, maybe it's really good business sense, i don’t know, but it really cleared my head for a second, and i realized that none of these companies are thinking about my business or my profession. i don't even think canon intentionally moved in a direction that was intended to change any certain line of photography. it's all just a bunch of tech that's crammed into a black (or brown grey) box and presented as the next shabam for silly named target groups. call it something jazzy an see what happens.
I thought Hasselblad upgrade or trade-in is not as good as phaseone.
They don't trade-in their own back here while Phaseone trade-in any DB.
That makes the aftermarket value of Hasselblad DB less.
That is why my 2nd DB is still phaseone.
I really wish they will improve on this. I really like files from Hasselblad DB.
But not their business policy.
-
There is no generic solution that pleases all for this kind of event.
If you shoot it like a 'real' situation, somebody will complain it is not flat enough to see potential, or it is not their style of shooting.
Shoot it like it was at the above event, it is not perfect for all.
The idea of the event in New York was to get the camera in as many hands as possible.. More than 1400 people actually. They could come and go as they please at the time that was convenient to them.
Stage a dogs jumping through hoops for a couple of hours and not everybody would be able to stay, find it interesting etc etc...
Ultimately if you want to do the big proper production test, then use somebody like John to do it with you.
David
Then you achieved your goals and I hope the sales were good.
But to be clear, I never suggested taking an image through heavy retouching and post processing, though now that it's been mentioned, I do think it would be a good idea to see how well it holds up in comparison to less costly still cameras.
I think that might make a good demonstration, take two images, one with a h4dIII-40 (I hope I go the naming right) and a 5d2, take them to Pascal and video tape the results.
My ONLY suggestion was to put better material in front of the lens, but once again since your happy with the results, you need no other comments, you're where you want to be.
From a professional standpoint you buy a camera for two reasons. To improve your art and hopefully your bottom line.
Looking at the changes in our industry, the advent of the 5d2, 7d, or even the smaller cameras that seems to be in every housewife's hands shooting micro stock so they can take the family out for one extra dinner at Denny's it makes me think it is time to put the magic back into hands of the photographer, which probably means producing something that just can't be done by the next door neighbor, which for me means tomorrow we are pricing out a RED system.
Best of luck. Honestly.
BC
-
If you shoot it like a 'real' situation, somebody will complain it is not flat enough to see potential, or it is not their style of shooting.
Ultimately if you want to do the big proper production test, then use somebody like John to do it with you.
David
That was exactly my point.
What can be done here on a website is limited. If we are talking about testing the use in a real pro session, then there is no other way than doing what John suggested.
Also guys, talking about real life shooting, I've never seen here or somewhere else, a test made in such a way that they provide all the chain involved informations, that including the time measured in seconds for thethered, displaying etc...
And for a good reason: then you'll have people that will complain about the processor used, the sofware inhability, the type of connectors that were wrong etc...,and will denie the results.
It is virtually impossible and ( and I may have understood the BC point badly, if so I apologyse ) that is why I said that the BC point was not realistic in that case.
On the other hand, the "good" point of having flat, unartistic or non professional images, is that there is no room for debating this or that choice and everybody can take its own conclusions when seeing the files.
Remember the freaky fashion shot in the Bahamas made by Leica for the S2 ? That was marketing, but do you see something like that more, let's say, "scientifical" ? They did a test here that I remember compeating with a Phase, but was it a real work situation? Did they had the pressure, the art director behind ? etc...I doubt we'll see that one day.
Yes, comparing the high-end 35mm to H will lead this forum into another battle 35mm vs MFD I'm afraid, where passion, exagerations (in the best case) will be the tone.
I'm not sure this would be a good idea...
Fred.
-
I got it. Thanks.
http://hasselbladusa.com/products/phocus-video.aspx (http://hasselbladusa.com/products/phocus-video.aspx)
Love the emphasis on GPS in the video. Who uses that? (T. Richardson? So high, he forgot where he shot the job?)
I would, I think anyone that uses a camera in different locations would welcome GPS. My hat is off to Hasselblad for making it an easy option and I wish Canon would take note.
Anyone that shoots travel or Journalist should find it a God send, GPS helps pinpoint location and saves hours when keywording.
I shoot Aerials mostly with Canons and long for a built in solution for GPS.
Kevin.
-
Then you achieved your goals and I hope the sales were good.
But to be clear, I never suggested taking an image through heavy retouching and post processing, though now that it's been mentioned, I do think it would be a good idea to see how well it holds up in comparison to less costly still cameras.
I think that might make a good demonstration, take two images, one with a h4dIII-40 (I hope I go the naming right) and a 5d2, take them to Pascal and video tape the results.
My ONLY suggestion was to put better material in front of the lens, but once again since your happy with the results, you need no other comments, you're where you want to be.
From a professional standpoint you buy a camera for two reasons. To improve your art and hopefully your bottom line.
Looking at the changes in our industry, the advent of the 5d2, 7d, or even the smaller cameras that seems to be in every housewife's hands shooting micro stock so they can take the family out for one extra dinner at Denny's it makes me think it is time to put the magic back into hands of the photographer, which probably means producing something that just can't be done by the next door neighbor, which for me means tomorrow we are pricing out a RED system.
Best of luck. Honestly.
BC
I agree a Post Production video would be a very nice thing. I may have something along those lines..
-
Stage a dogs jumping through hoops for a couple of hours and not everybody would be able to stay, find it interesting etc etc...
Ultimately if you want to do the big proper production test, then use somebody like John to do it with you.
David
: )
I'll try and not use metaphors in the future.
-
: )
I'll try and not use metaphors in the future.
I was metaphorically replying..
-
I was metaphorically replying..
then make a production video with that h4d40 where the photographer is busier than a one-legged woman in an ass kicking contest, and i'll watch.
-
then make a production video with that h4d40 where the photographer is busier than a one-legged woman in an ass kicking contest, and i'll watch.
But it still might not fit the way you do things?
Why would you not try yourself?
-
Dave,
...If I was selling a high megapixel, leaf shutter lens camera, I would ... show the ability to crop a full length vertical from a horizontal. (we do this all the time, now that 1/2 of all still imagery is shot on white).
BC
This is from an H3D11-50 picture of four people 3/4 length.
It was a semi-photojournalist type picture of politicians canvassing.
[attachment=21152:Clive_4_...Spencer2.jpg]
Edit...
Since posting this I have calibrated my monitor, and it now looks awful!
-
Dick, did you use a lot of fill and/or recovery in this image? It shows that typical orange translucency in the skin that you get when you add this too much.
I thought I was going nuts doing so much work on white. Good to see I am not the only one
-
Dick, did you use a lot of fill and/or recovery in this image? It shows that typical orange translucency in the skin that you get when you add this too much.
I thought I was going nuts doing so much work on white. Good to see I am not the only one
It looks very underexposed, too underexposed to be rescued well.
-
Dick, did you use a lot of fill and/or recovery in this image? It shows that typical orange translucency in the skin that you get when you add this too much.
I thought I was going nuts doing so much work on white. Good to see I am not the only one
It looks very underexposed, too underexposed to be rescued well.
This was taken in overcast conditions, in a narrow street where all the light was coming from above.
In the unadjusted image in phocus there was little difference in colour between the hair and the forehead.
I could have adjusted the colour temp, but did not.
I had to use recovery on the shirt, and moire for the glasses.
-1.5ev
+10 contrast
83 recovery
100 clarity
By getting back the colour in his face I revealed his less than perfect complexion ( he is a Brit, and not a film star, and would not contemplate using make-up).
I used curves to darken the mid tones (face).
Phocus can miraculously recover very under-exposed (parts of ) images, but that is not a problem here. On some of the picture I took that day I would have to use recovery on the foreheads (my solution for that is to turn the camera upside-down and use fill-flash).
The picture looks rough largely as it is about 1,500 Mpx cropped from a 50Mpx file showing four people 3/4 lemgth. (Remember I posted it to show that you could get an acceptable image from a small crop) Maybe I over-adjusted it... but it is amazing how much adjustment you can get away with in Phocus.
This (below) is about three Mpx cropped from 50Mpx... the ambient light was better there (it was in a more open area, so there was more low fill) and I have made no adjustments. His complexion looks pale on my laptop, but OK on my Eizo (which I have not calibrated yet). Here too, the lower part of the face is lighter than the forehead, and using a fil-flash under the camera might have helped.
[attachment=21155:Nadhim__...up_girls.jpg]
Clive (the gray-haired Gentleman ) is our District Council candidate, and Nadhim Zahawi, on the left, is our (Stratford-upon-Avon) selected parliamentary candidate, as our current Member of parliament, John Maples, is retiring at the next General Election.
-
But it still might not fit the way you do things?
Why would you not try yourself?
try what, making a production video/shoot for hasselblad?
I'd love to, i'll need an h4d40 and a production budget...
seriously, who is served by the kind of stuff just posted?
is that a joke? the guys sideburns are orange!
-
try what, making a production video/shoot for hasselblad?
I'd love to, i'll need an h4d40 and a production budget...
I meant - if you were interested in an H4D, it would make sense to test under your own conditions, as opposed to making a decision based on anything else... i.e Youtube Hasselblad video.
-
I had to use recovery on the shirt, and moire for the glasses.
-1.5ev
+10 contrast
83 recovery
100 clarity
Dick,
Having to use -1.5ev and then 83(too high!) recovery would point to an extremely over exposed image.
Then adding +10 contrast would ruin highlights even more.
100 on clarity is also doing no good to the highlights.
I suggest you start again?
David
-
I meant - if you were interested in an H4D, it would make sense to test under your own conditions, as opposed to making a decision based on anything else... i.e Youtube Hasselblad video.
As far as a video, I think you've got it covered by this Atlanta WiredUp guy, that did the "any 10 year old can be a professional photographer video".
http://www.youtube.com/user/HotwireDigital#p/f/4/80K2fvIl-dY (http://www.youtube.com/user/HotwireDigital#p/f/4/80K2fvIl-dY)
That shows workflow so maybe Hasselblad can license it from him.
BC
-
As far as a video, I think you've got it covered by this Atlanta WiredUp guy, that did the "any 10 year old can be a professional photographer video".
http://www.youtube.com/user/HotwireDigital#p/f/4/80K2fvIl-dY (http://www.youtube.com/user/HotwireDigital#p/f/4/80K2fvIl-dY)
That shows workflow so maybe Hasselblad can license it from him.
BC
Okay BC. This time I agree with you.
Fred.
-
If I am going to test drive a Porsche, I want to go fast on winding roads. If I am going to test a H4 I want to shoot on a hi end project. Nobody wants to test drive their Porsche on the 405 freeway at 5pm why test your H4 and have it look like its a high school portrait.
-
If I am going to test drive a Porsche, I want to go fast on winding roads. If I am going to test a H4 I want to shoot on a hi end project. Nobody wants to test drive their Porsche on the 405 freeway at 5pm why test your H4 and have it look like its a high school portrait.
What you say is=of course!
But then, what would you do? Go to the shop, hire the porshe and drive it on your own, with your own style and THEN, you and only you, decide if this is a car for you.
Or am I wrong?
Fred.
-
Dick, did you use a lot of fill and/or recovery in this image? It shows that typical orange translucency in the skin that you get when you add this too much.
I thought I was going nuts doing so much work on white. Good to see I am not the only one
This was taken in overcast conditions, in a narrow street where all the light was coming from above.
In the unadjusted image in phocus there was little difference in colour between the hair and the forehead.
I could have adjusted the colour temp, but did not.
I had to use recovery on the shirt, and moire for the glasses.
-1.5ev
+10 contrast
83 recovery
100 clarity
By getting back the colour in his face I revealed his less than perfect complexion ( he is a Brit, and not a film star, and would not contemplate using make-up).
Isn't this the sort of image that 35mm DSLR's were made for?
-
Isn't this the sort of image that 35mm DSLR's were made for?
If you had read the above posts, you might have realized that this is a 1.5Mpx crop from a 50 Mpx file, and was taken in less than ideal light, so, if it is the same quality as a 35mm DSLR picture, my Hasselblad is doing very well, thank you for the compliment!
-
This is from an H3D11-50 picture of four people 3/4 length.
It was a semi-photojournalist type picture of politicians canvassing.
[attachment=21152:Clive_4_...Spencer2.jpg]
Fresh from the mortician.
-
Dick,
Having to use -1.5ev and then 83(too high!) recovery would point to an extremely over exposed image.
Then adding +10 contrast would ruin highlights even more.
100 on clarity is also doing no good to the highlights.
I suggest you start again?
David
Thank you, David.
It is very easy to over-adjust.
I now find that setting the white balance colour temperature to 6000 and ev- .5 produces better results.
It seems that the orange sideburns and the moire on the glasses were caused by the adjustments.
[attachment=21164:clive_4_...pencer_5.jpg]
-
As far as a video, I think you've got it covered by this Atlanta WiredUp guy, that did the "any 10 year old can be a professional photographer video".
http://www.youtube.com/user/HotwireDigital#p/f/4/80K2fvIl-dY (http://www.youtube.com/user/HotwireDigital#p/f/4/80K2fvIl-dY)
Yet again, Victor Hasselblad rolls over in his grave, and then shakes his head in disgust.
-
Thank you, David.
It is very easy to over-adjust.
I now find that setting the white balance colour temperature to 6000 and ev- .5 produces better results.
It seems that the orange sideburns and the moire on the glasses were caused by the adjustments.
[attachment=21164:clive_4_...pencer_5.jpg]
Uh, Dick, you might want to pay some attention to the view through the right side of his spectacles....
Steve Hendrix
-
This is from an H3D11-50 picture of four people 3/4 length.
It was a semi-photojournalist type picture of politicians canvassing.
[attachment=21152:Clive_4_...Spencer2.jpg]
Umm Dick
Turn the Moire filter off while you're at it I think you have it at 4 or 5... That is what is causing the funky-ness in the skin...
-
Turn the Moire filter off while you're at it I think you have it at 4 or 5... That is what is causing the funky-ness in the skin...
Nick,
Stuff like this is exactly what would make a simple YouTube video so useful. Imagine some knowledgeable photographer, or digital tech, and he'd have a file open, and he'd go down the list of all the settings, and he'd talk in real world language about what his Default settings were.
File this under "attracting interest and getting connected" with your product. Of course, everyone would love to demo a new camera easily, in person. In my case, it's a four hour drive to my nearest Dealer. So I might want to watch a simple YouTube video first, just to begin to get my head around a camera, or back, or piece of software, before I committed eight hours on the road, plus a possible hotel. Yes, of course, the Dealer might come to me, but I'd rather learn on his turf, with the software already installed and tweaked, rather than spending two hours beforehand, just getting stuffed installed at my place, or that he realized he left some vital cable back at his home office.
The purpose of the video is a simple, non confrontive way to just put your foot in the water. No driving necessary. If the RAW files look promising, then maybe the next step is to call the Dealer and commit the time to doing the demo.
Imagine how many Hasselblad dealers that there are. And then imagine how many potential customers. And then imagine how many of those customers would have a sizable travel day, just to reach a dealer. And as it is now, all there is on the Hasselblad site is a bunch of corporate-speak, making everyone (read: me) doubt everything they're hearing, since it's not coming from a working photographer. The video doesn't have to be fancy; in fact, it would probably score more "honesty points" if it was just some guy sitting there, with red eyes, with two empty coffee cups on his desk, and an ashtray, with Pandora running in the background, rather than some overly-groomed Hasselblad employee with a shirt with a logo on it. Anything they do, they ought to run it thru you first, so that you can run your Bullshit Radar on it, (including the insulting video of the 12 year old girl).
Just a suggestion.
-
I agree with ghwitf on the youtube videos - definitely would be an asset to address the points brought forth.
To be fair, the message in the video with the young girl was to address the topic of "Phocus is too hard to learn/use." All things in perspective, it is a non-sales-y, no logo-on-the-shirt, non-corporate-style video, much like the points mentioned. Humorous and coy, but could be viewed as surreal if taken out of context.
Posting can be a contact sport on LL, and the preceding posts were opinions of how difficult Phocus is to use. Now there's a reference of the difficulty level.
Here are professionally produced videos of photographers speaking about the H4D, (not going through the workflow:)
Michael Grecco (http://www.youtube.com/user/HotwireDigital#p/a/f/1/Dfv9hl2DlAo),
Kevin Then (http://www.youtube.com/user/HotwireDigital#p/a/f/2/21x8hFoKzOE),
Steve McCurry (http://www.youtube.com/user/HotwireDigital#p/f/3/uCOhkWHgagA)
John "Atlanta WiredUp guy" - bcooter, excellent
-
Making money in commercial photography is a contact sport. Finding a professional camera that you won't have to fight with, or wait on, is a contact sport.
I would assume that you view your own business in the same way. How about a video of a twelve year old girl selling Hasselblad cameras, and running a Dealer-based retail business, day to day. Would that insult you? Fuck yes. Nothing wrong with a little humor, but in the appropriate context. I can laugh with the best of them. But don't insult me, and then ask me to write a check for $25k for a camera with an unproven history.
PS. I sat thru the Steve McCurry video, and waited for any real information on the Hasselblad camera. In the end, it's an ad for Steve McCurry. Do you not see that? Can you guys miss the point this much?
-
PS. I sat thru the Steve McCurry video, and waited for any real information on the Hasselblad camera. In the end, it's an ad for Steve McCurry. Do you not see that? Can you guys miss the point this much?
I could not make it through half of it and I was already skipping some bits.
it is pretty easy to get bored listening and looking at the obvious.
Those videos are aimed to dentists.
-
Making money in commercial photography is a contact sport. Finding a professional camera that you won't have to fight with, or wait on, is a contact sport.
I would assume that you view your own business in the same way. How about a video of a twelve year old girl selling Hasselblad cameras, and running a Dealer-based retail business, day to day. Would that insult you? Fuck yes. Nothing wrong with a little humor, but in the appropriate context. I can laugh with the best of them. But don't insult me, and then ask me to write a check for $25k for a camera with an unproven history.
PS. I sat thru the Steve McCurry video, and waited for any real information on the Hasselblad camera. In the end, it's an ad for Steve McCurry. Do you not see that? Can you guys miss the point this much?
I think the only people impressed by these promo videos using well known photographers to sing the praises of a new piece of equipment are the 'dentist' and rich amateur customers. Far more useful would be a set of short informative YouTube videos. Also do these guys really use the equipment they promote or are they getting paid to say they do. I've just got back from India and saw Steve McCurry working for the best part of a week and all he had hanging off his shoulder was a Nikon D3s........
Pete
-
I think the only people impressed by these promo videos using well known photographers to sing the praises of a new piece of equipment are the 'dentist' and rich amateur customers. Far more useful would be a set of short informative YouTube videos. Also do these guys really use the equipment they promote or are they getting paid to say they do. I've just got back from India and saw Steve McCurry working for the best part of a week and all he had hanging off his shoulder was a Nikon D3s........
Pete
It's a market that can't be ignored by the manufacturers, proven by the popularity of all the workshops and forums.
-
Also do these guys really use the equipment they promote or are they getting paid to say they do. I've just got back from India and saw Steve McCurry working for the best part of a week and all he had hanging off his shoulder was a Nikon D3s........
McCurry must need a break after all those travels around the world with that Hasselblad. He had to get home and sit down and crop all those images down to 24x36 proportion, I guess. He must be exhausted.
http://stevemccurry.wordpress.com/ (http://stevemccurry.wordpress.com/)
-
McCurry must need a break after all those travels around the world with that Hasselblad. He had to get home and sit down and crop all those images down to 24x36 proportion, I guess. He must be exhausted.
http://stevemccurry.wordpress.com/ (http://stevemccurry.wordpress.com/)
I think he was conducting a workshop whilst he was there. One of his students was using a Hasselblad H3d or whatever, but he had two assistants carrying his gear for him. One for the cameras and one for the Profoto lighting set up that he lit every shot with. To be honest it's a great camera but probably not the ideal street camera, unless you can afford to drag two assistants around with you.
When I say student, I mean a mature student. Probably a Dentist or a Surgeon.......
As things have gotten tougher I think established Name Photographers make more money from these Workshops, Seminars and Portfolio Reviews than they do from actually shooting. I suppose we can all be grateful these rich amateur photographers can afford to buy this expensive gear otherwise it wouldn't be available for us to buy too.
-
I think the only people impressed by these promo videos using well known photographers to sing the praises of a new piece of equipment are the 'dentist' and rich amateur customers. Far more useful would be a set of short informative YouTube videos. Also do these guys really use the equipment they promote or are they getting paid to say they do. I've just got back from India and saw Steve McCurry working for the best part of a week and all he had hanging off his shoulder was a Nikon D3s........
Pete
I find nothing wrong with them selling to hobbyists, in fact if they sell a lot to this market it should help lower the cost to professionals.
I actually don't take exception to those promo videos because it's just another way for a photographer and a camera maker to advertise themselves.
What I think, and obviously this is just my opinion, is to sell me any expensive camera I need more assurances about the complete package.
Sure, before I write the final check I'll test it myself, in my own real life style and workflow, but before I waste any time on any of these systems anymore, I'd like to know a few basics that are never addressed in any of these videos.
1. Does the software start fast, either tethered or non tethered.
2. When tethering is the software stable, can you shoot more than 100 images to a folder without crashing?
3. When the cord disconnects (all cords eventually get stepped on or disconnect) how long does it take to restart the process, does it require a complete computer restart, or does it just connect when you plug it back in?
4. What is the total costs, not just a cost of a camera and lens, but the real costs. Does it require a huge tower and graphics card to work fast, how large are the raw files, are lenses (with the correct firmware) available for sale in every major market.
5. What's the deal with this two raw file format thing? If I shoot non tethered, for any reason, do I absolutely have to ingest the files in focus to make a fff file? Do I have to save the 3fr files for safety's sake, is there any instances of file corruption from the conversion of 3fr to fff and if so is there any software for recovery?
6. What about pattern moire, cause that's a deal killer in non aa filtered cameras. Some things can be fixed easily some can take a thousand dollars in retouching.
7. How completely stable is the whole process, working under pressure with a room full of demanding, tapping their toes clients?
8. What does the image on the lcd look like. Does it compare to a Canon, a Nikon can I see enough subtleties in light and tone to make decisions, or is it just a rough reference of the image? Does it work in bright sunlight?
And now my final question and I'm very serious about this.
If I decide to by an hd40 or whatever it's called, and sell off my 4 contax's and 2 phase backs, a p31+ and a p21+ WILL I SEE A DIFFERENCE IN THE FINAL FILE? Not a pixel peeping put a loupe on a 30" monitor difference but are the skin tones better, the color response prettier and not so Phase blotchy exact?
In other words will it make prettier, more reliable photos?
Any one of those 8 questions that come in as a negative can cost me six figures very quickly or make me put the camera in a bag and pick up the Canons. I'm not going that route anymore where $50,000 worth of cameras set on the shelf while I shoot with cameras costing 1/3 of that.
I know I can and might test it myself, but before I even go to the point of this I'd like those questions answered either in video on just in writing.
My day's of free beta testing are 100% over. I don't need a 30% off deal on a new camera, what I need/want/desire is a prettier photograph with less workflow not more.
Right now we're in the process of testing a RED. I think the 5d2 for video is a little mushy, a little soft and has a lot of workarounds, though for the price it's an amazing camera.
The thing is when testing the RED if I even think for one moment that their software crashes my computer, the camera is not stable or overheats, the workflow is still a work in progress I'll pass on it in a heartbeat.
No more beta testing is my rule as I have work to do. We all have work to do.
I respectfully ask these questions.
BC
-
I find nothing wrong with them selling to hobbyists, in fact if they sell a lot to this market it should help lower the cost to professionals.
I actually don't take exception to those promo videos because it's just another way for a photographer and a camera maker to advertise themselves.
What I think, and obviously this is just my opinion, is to sell me any expensive camera I need more assurances about the complete package.
Sure, before I write the final check I'll test it myself, in my own real life style and workflow, but before I waste any time on any of these systems anymore, I'd like to know a few basics that are never addressed in any of these videos.
1. Does the software start fast, either tethered or non tethered.
2. When tethering...
These are actually similar questions you asked on a similar thread sometime ago.
I responded, but as far as I can remember, you did not comment further, thus I assume I had provided pleasing answers.
I am happy to repeat the process again, if you are.
David
-
Actually, well-heeled dentists and doctors were always a large part of Hasselblad's customer base in the old days of the 500 series. And that's where you can find the pick of the vintage stuff, now.
John
-
And now my final question and I'm very serious about this.
If I decide to by an hd40 or whatever it's called, and sell off my 4 contax's and 2 phase backs, a p31+ and a p21+ WILL I SEE A DIFFERENCE IN THE FINAL FILE? Not a pixel peeping put a loupe on a 30" monitor difference but are the skin tones better, the color response prettier and not so Phase blotchy exact?
In other words will it make prettier, more reliable photos?
Any one of those 8 questions that come in as a negative can cost me six figures very quickly or make me put the camera in a bag and pick up the Canons. I'm not going that route anymore where $50,000 worth of cameras set on the shelf while I shoot with cameras costing 1/3 of that.
I know I can and might test it myself, but before I even go to the point of this I'd like those questions answered either in video on just in writing.
My day's of free beta testing are 100% over. I don't need a 30% off deal on a new camera, what I need/want/desire is a prettier photograph with less workflow not more.
Right now we're in the process of testing a RED. I think the 5d2 for video is a little mushy, a little soft and has a lot of workarounds, though for the price it's an amazing camera.
The thing is when testing the RED if I even think for one moment that their software crashes my computer, the camera is not stable or overheats, the workflow is still a work in progress I'll pass on it in a heartbeat.
No more beta testing is my rule as I have work to do. We all have work to do.
I respectfully ask these questions.
BC
BC,
Honestly, thinking in pure workflow-hassle-free, the gear that come to my mind is the MarkIII or whatever CaNikon will produce in the next years.
I'm not sure in terms of ergonomics, you'll find something much better than the Contax.
Now, for the backs, I do not think you'll notice a great difference from your P21-31, but upgrading you'll have more room in PP, and better studio's workflow.
Will that gain be really significant that would justify the expense? That is a concern.
In 2010, I don't see the point any more to use MF if you do not need at least 40MP, and ready to deal with all the digital chain involved at the highest power available.
You know that if one element of the chain is not at the top, this means loosing performance.
If this situation keeps going, I won't be surprised to see more and more MF users going 35mm, because you'll soon need a personal nuclear central in order to power these gears, the studio and extracts the maximum output. Or MFD cut their prices soon, or I'm afraid they'll face some serious problems.
If your daily work is similar to a formula 1 race, with chronometer to check how fast is the workflow and 10 cofees per day to maintain pressure: 35mm is probably a better experience. IMO.
Regards,
Fred.
-
Sure, before I write the final check I'll test it myself, in my own real life style and workflow, but before I waste any time on any of these systems anymore, I'd like to know a few basics that are never addressed in any of these videos.
O.K I'll have a go at answering these with respect to Hasselblad and Phocus.
1. Does the software start fast, either tethered or non tethered.
Takes 10 seconds or so to open and read the thumbs with 200 images in a folder. Would take longer with more images to read. Same boot speed wether camera connected or no.
2. When tethering is the software stable, can you shoot more than 100 images to a folder without crashing?
Yes.
I guess the max I've ever shot to one folder in a day is about 600.
3. When the cord disconnects (all cords eventually get stepped on or disconnect) how long does it take to restart the process, does it require a complete computer restart, or does it just connect when you plug it back in?
It just connects. Only time it will take longer is if it gets yanked when images are being downloaded. This might need a software restart, very rarely a hardware restart.
4. What is the total costs, not just a cost of a camera and lens, but the real costs. Does it require a huge tower and graphics card to work fast, how large are the raw files, are lenses (with the correct firmware) available for sale in every major market.
I'm sure MR williams can give you costs. I shoot mostly to a tower but happily to a laptop, I'd have to shoot a video to show you.. All lenses in rental will have current firmware (it doesn't get updated that often)
5. What's the deal with this two raw file format thing? If I shoot non tethered, for any reason, do I absolutely have to ingest the files in focus to make a fff file? Do I have to save the 3fr files for safety's sake, is there any instances of file corruption from the conversion of 3fr to fff and if so is there any software for recovery?
yes this is a cause of much (deserved) confusion. You don't have to keep the raw file. I've never come across an issue with conversion to FFF. It's not an onerous process, pretty much the same process as importing some Canon files into lightroom or aperture or whatever.
6. What about pattern moire, cause that's a deal killer in non aa filtered cameras. Some things can be fixed easily some can take a thousand dollars in retouching.
I get less pattern moire now than I used to with a 22MP. When I do get it the Phocus Moire tool does an amazing job. At higher levels (and as DICK demonstrated expertly) you can get artifacts. In that case you turn the filter on and choose to export a PSD, Phocus will automatically create a layered file with and without the filter so you can mask out the artifacts.
I've been dealing with moires for 10 years (6MP product) and can honestly say that the Phocus moire filter is the best EVER solution, kudos to them.
7. How completely stable is the whole process, working under pressure with a room full of demanding, tapping their toes clients?
Well for me very stable and the users I polled on the subject agreed.
8. What does the image on the lcd look like. Does it compare to a Canon, a Nikon can I see enough subtleties in light and tone to make decisions, or is it just a rough reference of the image? Does it work in bright sunlight?
On my 31? It sucks. The LCD on the 60 compares to my iphone though I couldn't take it outside as that was in R&D.
And now my final question and I'm very serious about this.
If I decide to by an hd40 or whatever it's called, and sell off my 4 contax's and 2 phase backs, a p31+ and a p21+ WILL I SEE A DIFFERENCE IN THE FINAL FILE? Not a pixel peeping put a loupe on a 30" monitor difference but are the skin tones better, the color response prettier and not so Phase blotchy exact?
In other words will it make prettier, more reliable photos?
I think only you can answer this with a test.
Phew.
Nick-T
-
3. When the cord disconnects (all cords eventually get stepped on or disconnect) how long does it take to restart the process, does it require a complete computer restart, or does it just connect when you plug it back in?
BC
It just connects. Only time it will take longer is if it gets yanked when images are being downloaded. This might need a software restart, very rarely a hardware restart.
Nick-T
Nick,
Let's say the firewire cable gets disconnected in the middle of a non-stop burst of frames being captured....
...what happens to the half dozen or so frames still in the back's buffer queue when the cable is re-connected?
Do they not miss a beat and stream in, or are they lost?
Billy
-
Nick,
Let's say the firewire cable gets disconnected in the middle of a non-stop burst of frames being captured....
...what happens to the half dozen or so frames still in the back's buffer queue when the cable is re-connected?
Do they not miss a beat and stream in, or are they lost?
Billy
Billy good question! Truth is I don't know I've never had it happen to me. I don't actually know how many images get held in the buffer.. I did a quick test the other day burst of 70 something images and the red light on the back stopped flashing after about 2 secs of the last image being shot so I guess there were only one or two images on the camera...
To try to answer your question my guess would be that you would lose whatever images were buffered but I'd have to test.
-
If I decide to by an hd40 or whatever it's called, and sell off my 4 contax's and 2 phase backs, a p31+ and a p21+ WILL I SEE A DIFFERENCE IN THE FINAL FILE? Not a pixel peeping put a loupe on a 30" monitor difference but are the skin tones better, the color response prettier and not so Phase blotchy exact?
BC
If you always shoot in the studio, and you do not need to make many post adjustments, and you do not need truefocus... maybe not, but if you do much outdoor work Phocus will make the difference, even if the camera does not.
They are working on the "Phase blotchy" 60 chip.
-
Nick,
Let's say the firewire cable gets disconnected in the middle of a non-stop burst of frames being captured....
...what happens to the half dozen or so frames still in the back's buffer queue when the cable is re-connected?
Do they not miss a beat and stream in, or are they lost?
Billy
I have had that happen to me several times. I tend to step on my cable quite regularly. Basically you are screwed, most of the times Phocus will hang at that moment as well and you have to restart the program. The images are lost. I cannot recall a time that the images did come through after reconnecting but than again you tend to only remember the bad stuff don't you?
-
If you always shoot in the studio, and you do not need to make many post adjustments, and you do not need truefocus... maybe not, but if you do much outdoor work Phocus will make the difference, even if the camera does not.
I believe that if I study hard and continue to learn about photography I will one day be able to understand what Dick just said.
-
For work flow defaults, I think a checklist works better than a video...
and the (default) adjustments menu (in Phocus and Photoshop) serves a a check list with what you need to do in order from top to bottom.
... but pros do not just use the default settings - like I used the standard daylight WB setting for my pictures posted here, when adjusting to 6000K to get rid of the blue cast made so much difference. (and I am one of the few people that used mired filters for blue casts on film).
-
BTW. I do step on the cable pretty often. In most cases I curse when the cable gets yanked out. Put it back in wait for the back to reconnect (within seconds) and continue. Rarely it is in the middle of a burst, you should not make a habit out of yanking out the cable.
To give an example of the reliability. I just got home after 3 days of shooting. I shot 2500single shots and over 400 multishots (which are also 2000shots) over 3 days without one single failure (besides problems of software startup but that had other reasons). At the end of each day I closed the laptop, put out the lights and went home. Next day, open up the laptop, lights on and continue..
Yes there have been days it did not go so well
-
If you always shoot in the studio, and you do not need to make many post adjustments, and you do not need truefocus... maybe not, but if you do much outdoor work Phocus will make the difference, even if the camera does not.
I believe that if I study hard and continue to learn about photography I will one day be able to understand what Dick just said.
Hi, Nick.
Sorry if I confused you.
In the studio (or in studio-like controlled conditions outside, with flash-fill, reflectors, etc.) it should be easy to "get it right in camera", with any camera, even with the reduced DR of transparencies, without much or any post adjustment.
If you are doing outdoor stuff in a semi-journalistic mode, or you are doing landscapes or townscapes (and you do not have full control over the lighting) then you are more likely to benefit from the extended DR that Phocus 2.1 gives (with raw fill and recovery), and phocus features like the clarity slider.
-
There is virtually no software that is working 100% trouble-free.
Consequently every workflow that involves the use of software is per se not trouble-free.
Asking for a 100% stable software misses the point… the trick is to know the bugs and the scenarios when it crashes and to work around.
Many of you love to produce video these days. What about the stability of Avid? E.g. when working in projects with different formats. Or - as an comparable example to the disconnected digiback - when you cut the connection from the computer to the Avid hardware. Now, this reboot can take 15 to 45 minutes!
What about Final Cut Pro? What about Quantel? … … …
Man, compared to those softwares - daily used for professional production worldwide - a software like Capture One is 300% stable. Absolutely super rock solid. I assume it's the same with Phocus.
IMO...
-
This is most likely OTP, but I think still applicable to the H4D-40 and perhaps useful for Phocus users out there...
The "recipe" for developing RAW files is stored inside the Hasselblad 3F file (which is a TIFF/EP v.6, but more on that later...) and this makes the transfer of images from one directory or external drive a snap, no worries about directory structure to maintain edits, etc.
A recent client wanted to have Phocus loaded on both laptop (on location) and also on the retouch desktop station; but not just the application - the same tool-sets, import naming sequence, output naming sequence, and the same workpspace window arrangement. In other words, the same setup on both machines, no fumbling, all the same, just get on with it...
These two Phocus settings are stored in:
(tool-sets) ~/Library/Application Support/Phocus (including subfolders)
(naming-sequences for tethered shooting and import from CF card, layout) ~/Library/Preferences/dk.hasselblad.phocus.plist (file)
So he copied these files from one computer to the other and has identical workflows on two machines to make it easy for quick field edits and selects back in the shop.
It was a simple, fast way to get productive and wanted to share. On the youtube list that is growing like Saturday chores...
John
-
Nick,
Let's say the firewire cable gets disconnected in the middle of a non-stop burst of frames being captured....
...what happens to the half dozen or so frames still in the back's buffer queue when the cable is re-connected?
Do they not miss a beat and stream in, or are they lost?
Billy
It depends on the camera.
On some, if you a CF card loaded while you shoot tethered, if the cable disconnects or lose connection for some reason, they write to the card directly.
but it does not work 100% of the times.
-
3. When the cord disconnects (all cords eventually get stepped on or disconnect) how long does it take to restart the process, does it require a complete computer restart, or does it just connect when you plug it back in?
BC
Hasselblads have a very deep firewire socket... and I think this protects the socket connections, so that if the wire gets pulled out accidentally, it does not permanently wreck the digiback socket.
-
I went to FotoCare yesterday, in Manhattan. Nice guys there. I went there curious about several possibilities:
1. H4D-40: I did not shoot it and process a file, but the LCD is pretty nice. It's large, and somewhat OK quality. Quality seems maybe somewhere in between the Leaf LCD and maybe a Canon 1ds. The 3 inch size really helps a lot. Would it be fine if I was shooting HMI or available light? Absolutely. If I was trying to use it untethered to judge adding fill? I'm not sure. Did not really try out the TrueFocus thing, but I get the idea, and it seems well designed. But the camera still seems to "lunge" in my hands; I know they've got the Mirror Delay, but still, in my hand, if I was shooting available light at say, 1/60th, I'm not sure I'd ever be comfortable with that camera. Also, I realized, since the back is made WITH the body, you'd be forced to buy two of them, one for backup, so that doubles the price tag. I'm sure the camera will be successful probably, but I simply do not like that camera in my hand, actually shooting it. Not sure why. Maybe in the studio, on a tripod, shooting stuff that you don't care about, for money, it would be fine. Still, I feel like Hasselblad is "getting it", and they are close to finding that sweet spot. For a wealthy amateur, it's probably already there, in this version. But I left there underwhelmed.
2. Putting a CFV on my 203FE: This is a possibility. I guess the back would be a 39MP Hassie back. Not sure the exact number. Send your body off, have it modified in Jersey, and then stick a back on it. Not sure if cable is needed, to sync post. Small LCD. Not sure about usability of ASA 800. Affordable. Seems risky though, for actual use. Kinda Fred Sanford.
3. 39MP: 39MP Hassie back on a 555 V body. I think no cords needed. Small LCD. Not sure about ASA 800. But affordable.
4. P65+ on a V 555: This interests me because I think the P65+ is easily rotatable, from vertical to horizontal. Horrible LCD, and big big money.
5. Screw it all, keep shooting film: No way. Film is dying more and more each and every day. This won't affect me, but I do wonder about guys who built their career on shooting LF, and whether they can keep that look when they switch over.
6. Keep shooting Canon: Snooze.
----
In short, I walked out of there just shaking my head. Walked into a pro camera store an hour later, on 17th St, to buy some 220, and I see Leica, Hasselblad, Nikon, Canon banners, and when I asked for film, they said, "Sorry, we stopped selling all film. Go to Calumet." My jaw dropped.
One really frustrating thing about all this search: It's often very difficult to really see, in your hands, what you want to buy. And if you've ever written the large check for one of these cameras, and then discovered something large and irritating later, you are NOT wild about repeating the mistake. Again, I'm amazed that these companies don't post up a million little YouTube videos for potential customers to get their heads around a possible solution. Nobody wants to get burned for twenty grand.
-
Unless permanently tethered, possible - even probable - focussing issues on all three options. see this link (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=42821)
I started a Thread here on that similar topic over a year ago, and everyone laughed at me. Maybe no one was ready to admit it, a year ago. I swear to God, it's like it's some ghost from the dead, that jinxes digital in that way -- I can manual focus my 203FE all day long with film, and nail most every frame. Manual focus. But as soon as I pick up a digital camera, the fight for focus ensues. Maybe it's so Dummies101 embarrassing that it took this long for people to admit the problem. Film says, "Hey, come on, let's go for a ride and make some cool images", and Digital says, "Screw you; I just dare you to try to nail focus"; kicking and dragging its feet the whole way.
-
I went to FotoCare yesterday, in Manhattan. Nice guys there. I went there curious about several possibilities:
5. Screw it all, keep shooting film: No way. Film is dying more and more each and every day. This won't affect me, but I do wonder about guys who built their career on shooting LF, and whether they can keep that look when they switch over.
Currently I favour a D3x and scanned LF neg (though when a client wants it I rent a P65 and put it on an H-body or the back of my Arca M-Line or Toyo VX125). I shoot a lot of different stuff including fashion and architecture but very little in the studio.
I don't need to talk about the D3x. Everyone knows they are great by now. ditto 1ds MkIII and 5D MkII.
For LF I shoot Portra NC in 160 and 400 flavours. I process everything normal unless the subject is exceptionally flat or contrasty in which case I will push or pull up to 1/2 stop to correct contrast.
I get 'contact' scans done through the Print File sleeves to keep the negatives pristine. I edit from these.
I bought an IQsmart 3 scanner a few months ago and now get an assistant to do 16-bit 'raw' linear scans from the picks. There is no interpretation involved so the process is simple and purely mechanical. Anyone can learn how to do it in a few minutes. Quality is very high.
The 'raw' scans are brought into Photoshop and filtered through ColorPerfect which gives a very good neg. inversion and correction.
Further edits are done as needed within Photoshop. The scanned 'raw' files essentially function in a similar way to digital raw files.
In pure sharpness terms this process yields a file from a 5"x4" that is comparable to a P45+ file and a tad inferior to a P65+ file. (Using top-end lenses in both cases). Colour is better with a digital back but the neg. yields a nice look. There are no issues with moire or neon. Dynamic range is far superior with the scanned neg. Grain is, of course, more prevalent but under most circumstances it looks kind of nice. Composition and working process is also much better. Fujiroids are used on set to check overall look, groundglass for composition. No focus issues for architectural work. Much less to go wrong in remote locations (except for film and X-Ray machines). A 10"x8" yields way more detail than a P65+.
For all instances where, pre-digital, I would have used an RZ or a film Nikon, I now use the D3x. But given the cost and inadequacies of MF digital I think the scanned LF film route is still absolutely viable for certain niches and worth trying. I have no axe to grind and if digital backs didn't have all the problems they do I might even buy one and enjoy using it but for now, no, rental only, client pays.
-
I went to FotoCare yesterday, in Manhattan.
You've been this route before (well not with a Leaf) but here's your answer;
http://www.peartreephotoshop.co.uk/product-p/u-068.htm (http://www.peartreephotoshop.co.uk/product-p/u-068.htm)
Obviously it's in pound sterling, not dollars which I think the current exchange rate makes if $400,532. (actually just kidding I think the asking price with exchange is about $22,000.
Now I know you don't like the tiny view of a Contax, but with a waste level finder it looks damn big and Leaf makes a film like file, whatever that means and Lc11 is kind of a stripped down tethering option and there is always C-1 to tether with.
The real upside to this is you get to torture Yair, which is well worth the $22,000. Actually You know and I know that Yair will take care of you. I know I drove him completely out of his mind and he still gave me first class service.
I love the Contax (sorry I keep repeating myself) and honestly like the look of the file better than the Phase files, the only issue then for me was LC10 was a real work in progress and the workarounds drove me nuts.
Now with lightroom, C-1, etc. the workflow will be greatly improved.
The upside to the Aptus is you can set the back lcd to black and white, which is big fun. The downside with the older Aptus is when you tether to a powerbook you gotta have a lot of power and the lcd on the camera goes blank.
The real upside to Leaf, regardless of the changes in ownership is I do believe they are a photographers photographers company. I look back on my old Aptus files and they are the closest to film I've ever seen from digital.
The final upside is you get to go to Jolly Ol' England, hang out with the Queen and buy a camera all at once.
Can't beat that.
Or if I'm sure the fotocare people will fix you up.
Just a thought.
BC
P.S. There are only two digital cameras that have touched me the way film did and that is the Contax (with the Leaf back) and the Leica M8.
Maybe cause both are so damn hard to work in comparison to a Canon or Nikon, but both are real cameras with f stop rings and shutter dials.
You can't smell the fixer when you shoot them, but sometimes you think you can.
None of the digital backs work as easy as the new dslrs. Nothing close and probably never will, but sometimes I think we expect too much of them.
Sure the previews are rough, (think polaroid), the iso is limited (think film), the frames rates are somewhat slow (think everything but a 35mm, but there is just something kind of nice shooting a real camera and even though client demands have moved to major quanity with huge pressure, maybe there is just nothing wrong with saying "wait a minute".
-
I started a Thread here on that similar topic over a year ago, and everyone laughed at me. Maybe no one was ready to admit it, a year ago. I swear to God, it's like it's some ghost from the dead, that jinxes digital in that way -- I can manual focus my 203FE all day long with film, and nail most every frame. Manual focus. But as soon as I pick up a digital camera, the fight for focus ensues. Maybe it's so Dummies101 embarrassing that it took this long for people to admit the problem. Film says, "Hey, come on, let's go for a ride and make some cool images", and Digital says, "Screw you; I just dare you to try to nail focus"; kicking and dragging its feet the whole way.
It's an exquisite paradox: shoot blind with freedom (and fear) knowing that focus at least will be nailed or have a man with a computer connected to you telling you whether you got it or not.
-
http://www.peartreephotoshop.co.uk/product-p/u-068.htm (http://www.peartreephotoshop.co.uk/product-p/u-068.htm)
GW, ask first if this is Aptus 75S...you'd want the quicker capture speed.
I look back on my old Aptus files and they are the closest to film I've ever seen from digital.
Agree, I also like files from Sinarback eMotion75LV and eVolution75H
-
This is similar to my workflow and my thinking. The backs aren't there yet, for me. Almost: the S2 and H4d40 are just about there but neither are worth the cash, TO ME.
I shoot 67 and 4x5, B&W and C41. I get contact sheets made, edit from there, then get a print made or a flat scan (that includes a raw) that I PP and send to the client. This is mainly editorial portraits or jobs that do not require large numbers of images. Everything else is shot with a ds3. That beiing said, I mainly work in motion and my stills jobs are not the main thrust of my business anymore.
Currently I favour a D3x and scanned LF neg (though when a client wants it I rent a P65 and put it on an H-body or the back of my Arca M-Line or Toyo VX125). I shoot a lot of different stuff including fashion and architecture but very little in the studio.
I don't need to talk about the D3x. Everyone knows they are great by now. ditto 1ds MkIII and 5D MkII.
For LF I shoot Portra NC in 160 and 400 flavours. I process everything normal unless the subject is exceptionally flat or contrasty in which case I will push or pull up to 1/2 stop to correct contrast.
I get 'contact' scans done through the Print File sleeves to keep the negatives pristine. I edit from these.
I bought an IQsmart 3 scanner a few months ago and now get an assistant to do 16-bit 'raw' linear scans from the picks. There is no interpretation involved so the process is simple and purely mechanical. Anyone can learn how to do it in a few minutes. Quality is very high.
The 'raw' scans are brought into Photoshop and filtered through ColorPerfect which gives a very good neg. inversion and correction.
Further edits are done as needed within Photoshop. The scanned 'raw' files essentially function in a similar way to digital raw files.
In pure sharpness terms this process yields a file from a 5"x4" that is comparable to a P45+ file and a tad inferior to a P65+ file. (Using top-end lenses in both cases). Colour is better with a digital back but the neg. yields a nice look. There are no issues with moire or neon. Dynamic range is far superior with the scanned neg. Grain is, of course, more prevalent but under most circumstances it looks kind of nice. Composition and working process is also much better. Fujiroids are used on set to check overall look, groundglass for composition. No focus issues for architectural work. Much less to go wrong in remote locations (except for film and X-Ray machines). A 10"x8" yields way more detail than a P65+.
For all instances where, pre-digital, I would have used an RZ or a film Nikon, I now use the D3x. But given the cost and inadequacies of MF digital I think the scanned LF film route is still absolutely viable for certain niches and worth trying. I have no axe to grind and if digital backs didn't have all the problems they do I might even buy one and enjoy using it but for now, no, rental only, client pays.
-
The real upside to Leaf, regardless of the changes in ownership is I do believe they are a photographers photographers company. I look back on my old Aptus files and they are the closest to film I've ever seen from digital.
This is why I cannot bring myself to sell my Aptus 54s. I haven't used it seriously in 8 months. It sits there like a pile of money, looking at me, like the cash in those annoying GEICO commercials. But then I think of how nice it is on the RZ, how it has the sharpness of chromes and the color of neg film, not TOO sharp with the RZ lenses. And so it stays, and everytime I want to shoot with it, the batteries aren't charged, or there isn't enough light on set so I use a Canon or even an M8, or Portra 800.
-
I started a Thread here on that similar topic over a year ago, and everyone laughed at me. Maybe no one was ready to admit it, a year ago. I swear to God, it's like it's some ghost from the dead, that jinxes digital in that way -- I can manual focus my 203FE all day long with film, and nail most every frame. Manual focus. But as soon as I pick up a digital camera, the fight for focus ensues. Maybe it's so Dummies101 embarrassing that it took this long for people to admit the problem. Film says, "Hey, come on, let's go for a ride and make some cool images", and Digital says, "Screw you; I just dare you to try to nail focus"; kicking and dragging its feet the whole way.
Here's an educational exercise (I'm 110% I've written this before, on more than one occasion):
Take 10 frames shot on transparency film, have them cropped and scanned @ 300dpi to 24"X18" (115MB, roughly what a 40MP back gives) and then put them on a screen at 100% magnification next to similar 10 frames that were shot digitally and check focus.
We'll patiently await your report, It'd be interesting to see your nailing rate. I think we can all agree that digital is less forgiving, per frame that is, but otherwise I think you'll be amazed at how similar the rate will be.
IMO
Yair
-
We'll patiently await your report, It'd be interesting to see your nailing rate. I think we can all agree that digital is less forgiving, per frame that is, but otherwise I think you'll be amazed at how similar the rate will be.
You might be right, Yair. I hope you're right, (or do I?).
The weird thing: Now that I've been aware of it for the past year, sometimes I just do tests, and I sit there with my assistant, tethered, the day before a big job, and in my constant paranoia, we test and test, on a tripod. We use both Manual Focus and AutoFocus, (on a 5D2, not Hasselblad). (But I've heard identical reports with Hasselblad from trusted friends). You're sitting there, going very slowly, and you're locking down focus on something contrasty, not moving, and you shoot, and it's soft. You shoot again, and it's sharp. You shoot again, (nothing has moved), and it's slightly soft again. And we're talking f4 here, not wide open.
I don't like to test too much, because the more I test this issue, the more paranoid I become. I prefer Ignorance is Bliss sometimes. Or maybe more accurately: If you Ignore it, Maybe It'll Go Away.
It's very unsettling, almost as if the Sensor is moving around inside the camera, or that there are tiny little autofocus gears that are in increments that are too large to be critically accurate.
Gotta go -- gotta go put my head back in the sand.
-
Here's an educational exercise (I'm 110% I've written this before, on more than one occasion):
Take 10 frames shot on transparency film, have them cropped and scanned @ 300dpi to 24"X18" (115MB, roughly what a 40MP back gives) and then put them on a screen at 100% magnification next to similar 10 frames that were shot digitally and check focus.
We'll patiently await your report, It'd be interesting to see your nailing rate. I think we can all agree that digital is less forgiving, per frame that is, but otherwise I think you'll be amazed at how similar the rate will be.
IMO
Yair
Done it. Shot for 20 years on view cameras. More than 10 years with neg. printed 16" x20" by me. Shot in all conditions, all round the world. I have filing cabinets full of negs. Just about none have missed focus.
On the other hand, give me a P65 on a view camera or an H and I have to have an operator check on a screen or I have to zoom in myself on the crappy LCD. If I don't I lose images because of focus.
This is not principally a matter of judging digital to a different standard because we are looking on screens at 100% it is simply much harder to hit focus with digital.
-
Here's an educational exercise (I'm 110% I've written this before, on more than one occasion):
Yair,
Here's another educational exercise I'd like to do: I'd like to take a MF body, any brand, and set it to any particular fstop, say, f5.6. And then, shoot a frame with a digital back on it, and then shoot another frame with a film back on it, and then check the relative depth of field at that same fstop.
I know, in theory, you'd think that the depth of field would carry the same with both the digital back and the film back, but everything in me says there's somehow less depth of field with a digital back than with film.
And that, somehow, this factor plays into this giant mystery about focus issues with digital, in general.
This is all pure speculation on my part, (but based on lots and lots of jobs shot, both with MF film, and MF Digital). Just a gut feeling.
I remember those tests I did, years ago with digital, and I'd set up a shot in the studio, on tripod, with nothing moving or changing, and I'd set the fstop to say f8, and then I'd press the Depth Of Field Preview button down, on the camera body, to somewhat previsualize how much focus would carry at that f8. But then, I'd shoot the digital file, tethered, and I'd check it on the monitor, and there would always be radically less depth in focus in the actual digital file than what was shown in the Depth Of Field Preview button.
I'm not a Scientist; I never knew why. You'd think, in theory, they would match.
-
Yair,
Here's another educational exercise I'd like to do: I'd like to take a MF body, any brand, and set it to any particular fstop, say, f5.6. And then, shoot a frame with a digital back on it, and then shoot another frame with a film back on it, and then check the relative depth of field at that same fstop.
I know, in theory, you'd think that the depth of field would carry the same with both the digital back and the film back, but everything in me says there's somehow less depth of field with a digital back than with film.
And that, somehow, this factor plays into this giant mystery about focus issues with digital, in general.
This is all pure speculation on my part, (but based on lots and lots of jobs shot, both with MF film, and MF Digital). Just a gut feeling.
I remember those tests I did, years ago with digital, and I'd set up a shot in the studio, on tripod, with nothing moving or changing, and I'd set the fstop to say f8, and then I'd press the Depth Of Field Preview button down, on the camera body, to somewhat previsualize how much focus would carry at that f8. But then, I'd shoot the digital file, tethered, and I'd check it on the monitor, and there would always be radically less depth in focus in the actual digital file than what was shown in the Depth Of Field Preview button.
I'm not a Scientist; I never knew why. You'd think, in theory, they would match.
Sofar I have heard 2 explanations for this phenomena, which indeed I agree with you having experienced the same thing;
1) There is no DoF, it doesn't exist. There is just 1 point sharp within the focal plane, the rest is acceptable sharpness. With digital we now look at 100% on our monitors and we have redefined what we feel is acceptable sharpness.
2) Film has more depth than a sensor and thus is more forgiving and shows more DoF or more acceptable sharpness so you will.
Not sure which is it if any of the 2.
-
Yair,
I know, in theory, you'd think that the depth of field would carry the same with both the digital back and the film back, but everything in me says there's somehow less depth of field with a digital back than with film.
There are several very good reasons why focus seems more critical with digital:
We are over concerned about diffraction, so we tend to use f8 for digital, when f11 or f16 might be optimal... and we would have used f16 or f22 on film.
We like to think that digital gives us higher res, and if you set higher standards for ¿what is sharp? you get less DOF.
We like to try to enlarge more from digital, making focus more critical.
With digital it is very easy to (instantly) check focus.
With digital more of us rely more on autofocus... and before the H4D that was a problem.
-
Done it. Shot for 20 years on view cameras. More than 10 years with neg. printed 16" x20" by me. Shot in all conditions, all round the world. I have filing cabinets full of negs. Just about none have missed focus.
On the other hand, give me a P65 on a view camera or an H and I have to have an operator check on a screen or I have to zoom in myself on the crappy LCD. If I don't I lose images because of focus.
This is not principally a matter of judging digital to a different standard because we are looking on screens at 100% it is simply much harder to hit focus with digital.
I agree that on a view camera, focusing a 645 sensor area on the GG is more difficult than a 4X5 sheet film area, given an equivalent focal length. On a 645 camera there is no difference in focusing in my experience.
My suggestion was to run that test side-by-side; same framing/ light/ aperture etc. and if possible, scan and view at the same magnification.
Yair
-
I agree that on a view camera, focusing a 645 sensor area on the GG is more difficult than a 4X5 sheet film area, given an equivalent focal length. On a 645 camera there is no difference in focusing in my experience.
My suggestion was to run that test side-by-side; same framing/ light/ aperture etc. and if possible, scan and view at the same magnification.
Yair
This all may be true. I don't think so, but I haven't shot film in a long time.
What I do know is how different the optical viewfinder is from the final results and not just in focusing on the desired subject, but the way it throws focus.
Yair, do this with your aptus.
Walk around London and shoot some out of focus back ground plates. Focus using the groundglass (plastic) and try to throw the background street signs just slightly out of focus.
Then shoot and look at the lcd. What was slightly readable as a sign that says MG motorworks, becomes a big blur of non recognizable background.
I've shot hundreds of background plates for windows, car reflections, and have done it with all sorts of cameras and they all look very different in the optical viewfinder than the lcd, or the computer.
Did film do this? I don't remember, but I do know digital cameras do.
The only exception is the live view cameras. You pretty much see what your going to get.
BC
-
Hi,
In my view both.
Film has a certain thickness and has some curvature. Both factors affect and reduce maximum achieveable sharpness.
Some articles I have on these issues:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.ph...vs-mfdb-vs-film (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/25-dslr-vs-mfdb-vs-film)
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.ph...ng-the-dof-trap (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/29-handling-the-dof-trap)
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.ph...-sony-alpha-900 (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900)
Best regards
Erik
Sofar I have heard 2 explanations for this phenomena, which indeed I agree with you having experienced the same thing;
1) There is no DoF, it doesn't exist. There is just 1 point sharp within the focal plane, the rest is acceptable sharpness. With digital we now look at 100% on our monitors and we have redefined what we feel is acceptable sharpness.
2) Film has more depth than a sensor and thus is more forgiving and shows more DoF or more acceptable sharpness so you will.
Not sure which is it if any of the 2.
-
Walk around London and shoot some out of focus back ground plates. Focus using the groundglass (plastic) and try to throw the background street signs just slightly out of focus.
Then shoot and look at the lcd. What was slightly readable as a sign that says MG motorworks, becomes a big blur of non recognizable background.
I've shot hundreds of background plates for windows, car reflections, and have done it with all sorts of cameras and they all look very different in the optical viewfinder than the lcd, or the computer.
BC
That's 100% true but that's because on the LCD you're looking at a MUCH greater magnification of the scene/ subject compared to what you see through the finder.
On the LCD (the ones that actually show 100%, most don't) you're looking at small part of an image which can be 3 foot wide whereas in the finder it's less than 3 inches...
If you could have a loupe that magnifies at the same scale I think that you'll see the same blur (or sharpness).
Which is why I would recommend doing any focusing tests on short distances, so to increase the chance that what you see as sharp through the finder is actually sharp...
Yair
-
Sofar I have heard 2 explanations for this phenomena, which indeed I agree with you having experienced the same thing;
1) There is no DoF, it doesn't exist. There is just 1 point sharp within the focal plane, the rest is acceptable sharpness. With digital we now look at 100% on our monitors and we have redefined what we feel is acceptable sharpness.
I have always felt this way, and this whole term of "carrying focus by stopping down" is just a loose term, (and to me, a misnomer/fallacy). Yes, you might get a few more things recognizable in the background by stopping down, but just setting your lens to f16 is not going to pull things into focus, if they aren't on the focus plane. You know how, for years, you see those diagrams printed right on every lens you've ever bought, some kind of Depth of Field scale. It's just completely untrue, what they would lead you to believe. There is only ONE thing in focus, and that's the thing that just accidentally happens to be dead on where your lens is focused, and everything in front of that, and behind that, will sorta/kinda come into recognizability, they sure aren't going to "come into focus" by stopping down.
Ever experienced this when editing? You're editing away, looking at the frames, and you go "Yeah, that's sharp, and that's sharp", but then, you come to Frame 11 or whatever, and for some reason, it's just OMG in Super Focus? Like all along you were shooting 645, but this one particular frame is so super sharp it looks like you were shooting 8x10? You know that feeling? Why does that happen? I just think there's a lot more going on about this focus thing than we all know, (or admit).
The only other thing affecting Depth of Field, to me, is just the choice of lenses. Default optical focus, by mounting a 24 or 17 or something wide, and having built in depth already, by the optics alone. But even then, even with something wide wide, there's still just one plane of Super Focus, and everything else, in front and rear, is just Acceptable Focus. Even at f11 or so.
I cannot explain it, but i'm trying to describe it.
-
I have always felt this way, and this whole term of "carrying focus by stopping down" is just a loose term, (and to me, a misnomer/fallacy). Yes, you might get a few more things recognizable in the background by stopping down, but just setting your lens to f16 is not going to pull things into focus, if they aren't on the focus plane. You know how, for years, you see those diagrams printed right on every lens you've ever bought, some kind of Depth of Field scale. It's just completely untrue, what they would lead you to believe. There is only ONE thing in focus, and that's the thing that just accidentally happens to be dead on where your lens is focused, and everything in front of that, and behind that, will sorta/kinda come into recognizability, they sure aren't going to "come into focus" by stopping down.
All of this is completely true, and always was true with film as well. Depth of Field scales were worked out on the basis of an acceptable "circle of confusion" IIRC, which was fine in the 1930s when they were defined with the films of the day and relatively small-size standard prints. What I think happens with film (as opposed to digital) is two things -
* The thickness of the emulsion and the backing layer produces a degree of halation which means that film is never as sharp as a digital sensor (comparing like for like, same lens and sensor/film area).
* The grain structure of the film diffuses apparent focus over a broader plane in the image, giving the impression of greater focus depth. Hence very grainy shots on HP5, say, look very crisp even though critical focus may be nothing special.
And of course, if we did print MF to very large sizes back in the day, we expected it to look a bit soft. Now everyone expects pin-sharp detail even if the print is six feet wide.
However, saying as above that there is only one point in the frame which is actually going to be truly in focus, true as it may be, is of no help at all to those of us who do landscape or architectural work where everything must be in focus, or must at least appear to be so. The biggest problem occurs when one has foreground subjects and distant objects in the same shot, as with this one. If I focused for maximum depth of field, according to my old film paradigm, the only part of the shot which would actually be truly in focus in digital would be somewhere out in the middle of the river, where you would never notice it anyway, because the eye is naturally drawn to the foreground or the distant trees.
John
-
All of this is completely true, and always was true with film as well. Depth of Field scales were worked out on the basis of an acceptable "circle of confusion" IIRC, which was fine in the 1930s when they were defined with the films of the day and relatively small-size standard prints.
Indeed, I believe that the standard criterion used for almost all DOF scales on lenses and traditional DOF chart is something like what will not be noticeably out of focus to reasonably sharp eyes when
- printed at 7"x5"
- viewed from 10", which is about the diagonal length of the print.
Since what counts most is the ratio between viewing distance and image size, or to get fancy the angular size of the image, I would summarize this as saying that:
traditional DOF guidelines try to ensure that everything within the stated range of distances will probably appear in focus to most viewers so long as they view from a distance at least as great as the diagonal length of the uncropped (or minimally cropped) image.
Problems arise when images are viewing more closely that that, whether it be close scrutiny of large prints, or by viewing only a crop from the full image size for which the DOF guidelines are computed. The latter happens big time when a small fraction of the image is enlarged to fill a computer's display, or the camera's rear screen. It also happens to a smaller degree with the "sensor crop" of DMF sensors smaller than the film format on which the DOF scale is based, and the related higher enlargement factor needed to get a given size of print.
-
* The thickness of the emulsion and the backing layer produces a degree of halation which means that film is never as sharp as a digital sensor (comparing like for like, same lens and sensor/film area).
However, saying as above that there is only one point in the frame which is actually going to be truly in focus,
John
They used to like to imagine that the three colours got focused on the three colour layers in the emulsion.
There is one plane of sharpest focus, so, with a co-planar subject, you can have it all in focus, and, with a view camera, it is supposedly possible to get three points in perfect focus.