Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: gigdagefg on January 13, 2014, 09:01:34 am
-
I enjoyed reading his review and agree with most if not all of his viewpoints. The one area that he did not touch on is the superiority of the Hasselblad focusing system which I personally found as the biggest reason that I stayed with Hasselblad over Phase One.
Stanley
-
I enjoyed the review too. I am a Mamiyaleaf owner, but that was a really well written review and I agree with almost all of his assessments.
I really hope Blad improves the screen on the back with the next generation. That was one of the main things that pushed me to the other camp. As someone who mostly does on location portraiture, it's very important to me.
-
I enjoyed reading his review and agree with most if not all of his viewpoints. The one area that he did not touch on is the superiority of the Hasselblad focusing system which I personally found as the biggest reason that I stayed with Hasselblad over Phase One.
Stanley
Really? Can't see that I see any superiority. It's the same old slow single point system that all MF systems have.
Michael
-
Michael I was wondering the same thing when I read it - about the lack of commentary on the "True Focus" system. As someone who has only used the H1 and H2, I was just more curious than anything.
-
That and, apparently, the "true focus" system has been improved. Now it directly brings you to the point where you did the focus when you zoom in the picture.
I have not had a H5D (or even a H4D) in my hands, but I understand that their focus works in the following manner:
-you point the element which you want to have in focus (e.g., the model's eye)
-your recompose and take the picture
-when you review the picture and zoom in, that part will be directly presented on screen.
I may be a small thing but I think it is quite useful in practice. Who has not been hunting around a small camera screen when checking focus?
-
I enjoyed reading his review and agree with most if not all of his viewpoints. The one area that he did not touch on is the superiority of the Hasselblad focusing system which I personally found as the biggest reason that I stayed with Hasselblad over Phase One.
Stanley
Link to the review?
-
Go to the LL Homepage and click on What's New---Review is there. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/whatsnew/
Well-written review.
ken
-
If I recall correctly there are 12 leaf shutter lenses instead of 9 as mentioned in the review: 10 primes and 2 zooms.
I enjoyed reading this.
-
10 primes and 2 zooms.
Indeed: 24, 28, 35, 50, 80, 100, 120 macro, 150, 210, 300, 50-110 and 35-90. Furthermore, the 50, 120 macro and 150 exist in 2 different versions.
-
nice review!
I only know Hasselblad files from the internet and from some random RAW files I've loaded now and then.
But every time I do see the high ISO files I think Hasselblad does a really, really great job in providing very nice and clean looking files "out of the box".
Much more pleasing than the high ISO files of the respective Phase and Leaf counterparts.
IMHO ...
-
Thank you for the review indeed.
I use both Phase and Hasselblad, and would like to add:
1- True Focus is a very big asset for anyone shooting people or fashion.
2- Phocus is now really holding back the system, I really think Hasselblad needs to update and improve, instead of using LR as a crutch. This is from the view point of someone who shoots tethered 95% of the time!
Not that there is anything wrong with using LR, I think that ability is fantastic, but I would like Phocus to be more C1 level.
I know this is not easy… but as mentioned these camera's should really be looked at as systems and Software is an integral part of that system.
Also wondering if rumours of a Sony built CMOS sensor for Hasselbald will come to play this Fotokina… (just thinking out loud :)
-
[/quote]Michael I was wondering the same thing when I read it - about the lack of commentary on the "True Focus" system. As someone who has only used the H1 and H2, I was just more curious than anything.
I own the H1 but have tested the True Focus system on the D4. It does what it says it does. Wide open, the H4 would be sharper on the eyes than the H1. Once you stopped down though, differences weren't noticeable. If you do a lot of wide open shooting, the True Focus system is definitely the better system. I usually do my portraits at f8 or f11 so it's not a big deal for me.
John
-
Hassy's much vaunted True Focus shines on "focus and recompose" portrait images at medium distance with a short tele where it substitutes for extra focus points.
I believe Michael's uses are mainly landscape and sometimes street, and he writes about what he does.
I guess if you just use wide angles or do landscape, TrueFocus does not matter; to Michael it is an irrelevant feature.
Maybe some other practitioners -fashion, architecture, macro- can now give use their impressions of Hassy vs Phase, the aspects relevant to their specialty.
Edmund
-
Hassy's much vaunted True Focus shines on "focus and recompose" portrait images at medium distance with a short tele where it substitutes for extra focus points.
I believe Michael's uses are mainly landscape and sometimes street, and he writes about what he does.
I guess if you just use wide angles or do landscape, TrueFocus does not matter; to Michael it is an irrelevant feature.
Maybe some other practitioners -fashion, architecture, macro- can now give use their impressions of Hassy vs Phase, the aspects relevant to their specialty.
Edmund
When I made the choice to go Phamiya, I was indeed concerned about the focus accuracy. But so far, I find the single focus point (Yeah, there are 3, but in reality, you'll only be using one) of the DF+ to be extremely accurate and moderately fast. Like someone said about, it's highly unlikely that one would be shooting wide open while using strobes. Personally, I don't often go for the "One eye in focus, everything else is blurred" look much, if ever.
As for the other advantage (Focusing 100% on the focus point), with the Leaf back, one can double tap on the eye to go to 100% straight. If you shoot the next shot while the image is magnified, the next shot will also be displayed at 100% at the same point. This is quite useful, IMO.
So yeah, for my usage case, it does seem like Truefocus does not offer any significant advantage. That said, it certainly does not hurt the proceedings and is always a good thing to have in one's arsenal.
-
Just read the review. Though the history lesson was informative, the review itself was probably the most pointless one I've ever read.
John
-
Just read the review. Though the history lesson was informative, the review itself was probably the most pointless one I've ever read.
John
Yeah, it is not really a review per se but rather a hands-on / first impression article. Enjoyed reading the history of it all. Michael has been part of the medium format digital era for a while.
-
One of the real positives of the H system is the viewfinder,it is better than the P1 viewfinder,it can be removed and replaced with a WLVF which is really useful,and true focus is very useful for fashion or portraits.
-
Perhaps I'll do an addendum to Michael's review at some point as I, coincidentally, have been working with an H4D-60 over the last month and a half. But these are the Coles notes thus far:
-- UI is a struggle at first for someone not familiar with the "H" ethos. But it's getting less-so fairly rapidly. That is, the UI is growing on me. There's actually a lot of fairly powerful functionality hidden in these cameras, and I suspect that the H5 has even more. It's just a question of figuring it all out. This is a camera that has had me in the manual a lot.
The back UI blows. But it, too, can be made pretty functional with not a huge amount of practice. One really nice feature is the instant focus confirmation, which allows any of a number of buttons to be programmed to provide a 100% zoom-to of the point of focus during initial review. This works well, despite the piddly screen resolution.
The screen is a joke, but the nice long histogram and luscious OVF make up for that. If I cared about the screen I'd shoot tethered. Which, let me say, is a pleasure. I especially like the iPad app for tethering, which is very practical (though you still need a main computer to tether-to).
The H4D-60 is specifically made for tech camera use as well, and has things like a sync-socket built right in. I haven't tried this yet, but hope to give it a go on a Fuji GX680 to see whether that might make a nice field system.
And the files. Wow. MF finally looks the way I've always hoped MF files to look but have never quite achieved with either my Pentax 645 or D800e. The files have 'depth' to them. You can bend them into pretzles and they hold. Two stops under at ISO 200? No problem, it all comes happily back in post. Want to go hard on the sky with a Clarity brush? No problem, nothing gets crunchy. And the skin tones.......yup.
You get what you pay for, is the short answer. The 60MP back is, imho, the total MF sweet spot. Beats 35mm by miles, has surprisingly good middle ISO performance, only burns 260MBs per TIFF ;D
Happy shooting.
- N.
-
Congrats, Nick. Glad to see that you are enjoying your new purchase. Hope to see some wonderful landscapes with it soon.
I really do love the look from the Hassy 100mm lens. it's a real gem and I hope it's on your shortlist.
-
I wonder what the difference is between the 50 and the 60.
You get what you pay for, is the short answer. The 60MP back is, imho, the total MF sweet spot. Beats 35mm by miles, has surprisingly good middle ISO performance, only burns 260MBs per TIFF ;D
Happy shooting.
- N.
-
Really? Can't see that I see any superiority. It's the same old slow single point system that all MF systems have.
Michael
Michael,
5 years ago the blad focus wouldn't have bothered you a bit, because even full frame 35mm didn't cover that much territory.
But now I get it. You've been shooting with the olympus which covers 85% of the frame with dead on, light speed accuracy and all of a sudden having to focus and then move a camera seems strange.
IMO
BC
-
Perhaps I'll do an addendum to Michael's review at some point as I, coincidentally, have been working with an H4D-60 over the last month and a half. But these are the Coles notes thus far:
I use an H3D-II 50 and I more or less agree with your review.
-- UI is a struggle at first for someone not familiar with the "H" ethos. But it's getting less-so fairly rapidly. That is, the UI is growing on me. There's actually a lot of fairly powerful functionality hidden in these cameras, and I suspect that the H5 has even more. It's just a question of figuring it all out. This is a camera that has had me in the manual a lot.
The camera controls are indeed reasonably well set out and do what a photographer needs. The manual is well written and explains modes which I do not use but could be useful (for example, the meter can be set up to display zone system units, etc...) and the buttons can be reconfigured. There is a memory for personal configurations.
What I don't like is the small buttons in the slot between the grip and the camera and the fact that the remote cord plugs there.
The back UI blows. But it, too, can be made pretty functional with not a huge amount of practice. One really nice feature is the instant focus confirmation, which allows any of a number of buttons to be programmed to provide a 100% zoom-to of the point of focus during initial review. This works well, despite the piddly screen resolution.
The screen of the older H3D-II is worse and the even older H3D even more so.
Apparently, the back electronics are a major difference between the H4D and H5D and are much faster. I would have liked to see this point addressed in the review.
And the files. Wow. MF finally looks the way I've always hoped MF files to look but have never quite achieved with either my Pentax 645 or D800e. The files have 'depth' to them. You can bend them into pretzles and they hold. Two spots under at ISO 200? No problem, it all comes happily back in post. Want to go hard on the sky with a Clarity brush? No problem, nothing gets crunchy. And the skin tones.......yup.
The files are impressive and Phocus is a surprisingly good application once one gets to know it. But I would not say that there is so much difference with the D800 as to sensor performance (except higher resolution). The D800 files can be heavily manipulated as well. When I tried the two cameras on the same scene, the differences in sensor appeared to be tiny and mainly due to the post-processing application used.
Where there is a clear difference is, obviously, resolution and base sensitivity.
Where there is another big difference is the lenses. Hasselblad lenses are extremely good. Nikon lenses have been, to me, rather a disappointment (personal taste rather than objective performance).
-
But I would not say that there is so much difference with the D800 as to sensor performance (except higher resolution). The D800 files can be heavily manipulated as well.
It's very important to mention the genre of photography you're talking about when making statements like this, IMO.
Perhaps for landscapes, but the D800 files are no match for my Credo 40 when it comes to tonality for portraiture, as I showed with several examples. In my experience, they are not even a match for night time cityscaping.
I would imagine the case is the same, maybe even more so with the 60MP Hassy back.
-
Let us not turn this thread into another D800 - MF comparison, please. We have had enough of these already and the fact that they are still running and fail to come to a definitive conclusion should be an indication that the differences are small enough that showing them is difficult.
If it can be of comfort to you: I prefer by far working with my H3D than with my D800.
-
Let us not turn this thread into another D800 - MF comparison, please. We have had enough of these already and the fact that they are still running and fail to come to a definitive conclusion should be an indication that the differences are small enough that showing them is difficult.
If it can be of comfort to you: I prefer by far working with my H3D than with my D800.
It's not about getting consolation/ comfort whatever. I own and use both. I said what I have seen for my style of shooting and I posted the evidence. There are no wars going on; just some facts.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1521273_10151942916528196_800461168_n.jpg)
The differences are clearly visible here and they have always been. Nick's post above says the same.
The discussions never die off because some folks refuse to look at images and rather debate numbers, charts and graphs.
-
I am sorry, but when I look at the two images of this lovely young Asian lady, I see essentially differences in post processing. The D800 image is visibly more yellow, and not only on skin tones.
-
I am sorry, but when I look at the two images of this lovely young Asian lady, I see essentially differences in post processing. The D800 image is visibly more yellow, and not only on skin tones.
Which is the whole point. This is something BC has mentioned a thousand times, but people still don't get it.
in these CMOS DSLR files, color is more "Global". Subtle changes in tonality are lost and everything is quite plasticky. If you see that image at a higher magnification, the differences in skin tonality is even more apparent. Changing the skintones in the D800 file for example, affects the dress as well. Is it possible for the D800 file to be brought closer to the Credo file? Yes. But that requires quite some work including local brushes.
The "Yellowness" that you mention is a Nikon thing, right from the start of their CMOS dates. Nikon skintones are yellower, canon ones are redder. That's how it is. I usually use a color checker to fix this.
The credo file is as it was out of the box.
Ergo; for a portrait shooter, there's no comparison. They are not even on the same planet.
If skintones aren't your thing, here's another example.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1/1477572_10151954839039209_338595565_n.jpg)
This image was debated for a few pages in this forum too.
-
The two night images are obviously different in their colours, but I have no idea why as you did not say how they were processed (or pointed to the thread with the explanations, I feel that we should not turn this thread into another MF versus D800 debate).
-
Hi,
Two factors that come to mind are white balance and IR filtering.
I guess many of us shooting MF are landscape photographers and a lot of people shoot architecture, too.
Best regards
Erik
I am sorry, but when I look at the two images of this lovely young Asian lady, I see essentially differences in post processing. The D800 image is visibly more yellow, and not only on skin tones.
-
The two night images are obviously different in their colours, but I have no idea why as you did not say how they were processed (or pointed to the thread with the explanations, I feel that we should not turn this thread into another MF versus D800 debate).
I have discussed it all in the previous thread and do not have the energy to regurgitate it again. Please feel free to do a search on my posts.
-
I wonder what the difference is between the 50 and the 60.
The 60 is a living testament to my moral, artistic, intellectual and sexual superiority, whereas the 50 is a pedestrian tool for those pretenders of poor taste who seek to ride the coat tails of real MF shooters.
Kind of like the difference between a yellow Lambo valet-parked at Ivy, and a Ferrari on a meter around back.
- N.
-
I have a Nikonsystem (D4 and 600) with many lenses and I have also a H5D-50 with some lenses. I the meantime I use the Nikon only for shootings where I need speed or the light is bad (high ISO). All the other work I do with the H5D and I must say that I love this cam, and especially the files to work with (had a H4D-40 and H4D-50 before). For me, its day and night. About the high ISO I'm stunning about the sample pictures from Michael. I now, high ISO with the H5D50 ist not bad, but in the pictures from Michael, I see nearly no difference in the noise. And, the 800 ISO pic is looking sharper... What was the Postprocessing on this picture? Yes, I know, the 60er is a Dalsa, not Kodak...).
Rem
-
:-)
Erik
The 60 is a living testament to my moral, artistic, intellectual and sexual superiority, whereas the 50 is a pedestrian tool for those pretenders of poor taste who seek to ride the coat tails of real MF shooters.
Kind of like the difference between a yellow Lambo valet-parked at Ivy, and a Ferrari on a meter around back.
- N.
-
If you'll buy two lunars and put them on the dash, the ivy will valet your car, even if it's a rental Kia.
Actually LA is goofy and everyplace has a pecking order, even in valet. Obviously tipping well changes everything, but some restaurants would put an AMC Pacer, or flat grey rusted rat rod in front before they did a lambo.
I have this rodded impala, that looks stock, except when you start it dogs bark, babies cry and glass shatters. That car is always out front, but I think it's because nobody can stand to drive it more than two blocks.
BC
-
If you'll buy two lunars and put them on the dash, the ivy will valet your car, even if it's a rental Kia.
Actually LA is goofy and everyplace has a pecking order, even in valet. Obviously tipping well changes everything, but some restaurants would put an AMC Pacer, or flat grey rusted rat rod in front before they did a lambo.
I have this rodded impala, that looks stock, except when you start it dogs bark, babies cry and glass shatters. That car is always out front, but I think it's because nobody can stand to drive it more than two blocks.
BC
Oh well, we've always suffered for our art.
;-)
Rob C
-
As a H4D-50 owner, I'd love to see some side by side raw images between the H4 and H5 at matching megapixels. Questions like does the H5D-40 have the same microlenses as the H4D-40 has (as I understand it) should be asked. In general, is the H5 weather sealing worth just for upgrading on the body side, their 'paired' logic be damned?
I REALLLY hate the hasselblad/hasselbladusa.com sites, you have to pull down a pdf way too often, and a complete lack of information. I would like to see them try to do some technical camera shots, I mean, that's part of why some folks just look to Phase at this point, as Hasselblad hasn't done a good job of communicating what they can do. I love the images from my H4, and 50mp is what I needed to have a unique product to sell.
-
As a H4D-50 owner, I'd love to see some side by side raw images between the H4 and H5 at matching megapixels. Questions like does the H5D-40 have the same microlenses as the H4D-40 has (as I understand it) should be asked.
I think that the two backs use the same sensor and filter array, so the results should be identical. Please consider that, in opposition to what is done with smaller sensor cameras, the backs do not process the pictures. The processing takes place in Phocus. Phocus is regularly updated, which means that even old backs benefits from improvements in processing. I tried to compare an old H3D-31 back to a D800 on this forum some time ago and it gave very good results indeed, even in low light. I suppose it would have been much worse in its early times, but it benefited from improvements in the Phocus software.
If you want to know if a back has microlenses, check its base ISO. Backs with microlenses have a base ISO of 100, versus 50 for backs without microlenses.
-
Hi,
Personally I prefer a small SUV and parking in the Tetons… But that is just me!
Best regards
Erik
If you'll buy two lunars and put them on the dash, the ivy will valet your car, even if it's a rental Kia.
Actually LA is goofy and everyplace has a pecking order, even in valet. Obviously tipping well changes everything, but some restaurants would put an AMC Pacer, or flat grey rusted rat rod in front before they did a lambo.
I have this rodded impala, that looks stock, except when you start it dogs bark, babies cry and glass shatters. That car is always out front, but I think it's because nobody can stand to drive it more than two blocks.
BC
-
If you'll buy two lunars and put them on the dash, the ivy will valet your car, even if it's a rental Kia.
Actually LA is goofy and everyplace has a pecking order, even in valet. Obviously tipping well changes everything, but some restaurants would put an AMC Pacer, or flat grey rusted rat rod in front before they did a lambo.
I have this rodded impala, that looks stock, except when you start it dogs bark, babies cry and glass shatters. That car is always out front, but I think it's because nobody can stand to drive it more than two blocks.
BC
I thought LA Ferraris came with a dash-mounted $100 bill dispenser, for rewarding valets and "inflight entertainers".
Edmund
-
I am sorry, but when I look at the two images of this lovely young Asian lady, I see essentially differences in post processing. The D800 image is visibly more yellow, and not only on skin tones.
Wait, you can't see that in one there is depth and the other is flat? How is that related to post processing?
-
Oops sorry I missed that the thread moved on to vehicles. With kids I've sold all my fancy cars ... my '59 190sl hurt and *sniff* the Ducati's. I have nothing to add, except cars with child seats get parked around the block, if you can get a sitter that is. But then in San Francisco, no one takes cars anyhow, they go in Uber.
-
It's all so sad ...
-
I think its just color and tonality.
Wait, you can't see that in one there is depth and the other is flat? How is that related to post processing?
-
There's also blown skin in both, so another vote for film, then.
;-)
Rob C
-
It's all so sad ...
I agree; I should have put my X1/9 into storage the day I bought her, kept her there well-aired and dry, and today, thirty-five or more years later, I'd have a brand new mini-Ferrari exactly of the type that would fit my current life perfectly.
It's not only the lost Hasselblads that waft sad winds my way. That Golden Age is more brilliant the deeper down the mine that I dig.
Rob C
-
I think its just color and tonality.
Indeed. I tried to use photoshop to adjust the colours of the right-hand picture to the one of the left-hand pictures and then the images are impossible to tell apart.
-
Rob, careful what you wish for.
There again it's never been cheaper to buy those lost Hasselblads, which let's face it has got to be better than living in a permanent state of sadness and regret. Why not sell all that digital detritus, buy a Blad, shoot transparency and view on a lightbox?
BTW, I had three of those X19s and I reckon by today's standards they would be classed as a crock of shite that you wouldn't want to be seen dead in.
Back to topic.
I got out my Hassys the other day. I like to exercise them from time to time, but hadn't done so in probably more than a year.
It turns out that apparently I look at the old days through rose colored glasses. Took me quite some time to remember the entire process and sequence for changing film. I'd sort of forgotten how much easier modern digital equipment is to live with.
I got to thinking, what if my film magazines develop light leaks? The repair cost for that alone would probably be a significant percentage of the cost of a new DSLR lens.
Still, there is something very satisfying about looking through a huge Hassy finder, clicking the mechanical exposure controls, etc.
-
I got to thinking, what if my film magazines develop light leaks? The repair cost for that alone would probably be a significant percentage of the cost of a new DSLR lens.
Having changed the foam light seals on RB 67 backs, I can tell you that it is neither expensive not difficult.
-
Having changed the foam light seals on RB 67 backs, I can tell you that it is neither expensive not difficult.
Yes, I believe all my current magazines have seals that I installed myself. But at some point, will it be hard to get replacements? And if my skills eventually prove to be insufficient, then what? I remember doing the seals in my RB-67 myself also, and they were simpler to handle than the Hassy ones (naturally), thought they required more foam.
My memory is fuzzy on another point too. Did Hasselblad officially stop supporting the type of shutters in the original generation of T* lenses some years ago? I'm pretty sure they did. No doubt there will always be someone to fix them, but it's up to each of us to decide when that difficulty and expense becomes too much to justify to keep using the cameras.
I have a 1948 Cessna 140, for which I paid much less than the price of a new H5d60. Oddly enough, it's still cheaper to keep flying than just about anything else out there, regardless of age. Runs fine on unleaded auto fuel, and doesn't even use very much of it. Would that antique cars were that way...
-
Indeed. I tried to use photoshop to adjust the colours of the right-hand picture to the one of the left-hand pictures and then the images are impossible to tell apart.
It's good that your standards are pretty low.
Look at the high quality credo picture on my site and you'll see that it's not just "Color and tonality".
http://www.sandeepmurali.com/p879687852/h1669a012#h1669a012
If you wanna spend 30 minutes on the D800 image trying to get it to 80% of that, feel free.
Did that for 1.5 years. I can live without that.
p.s. Outside this forum, a dozen or so photographers, (i.e. people who shoot portraits and not aperture series and brickwalls) saw both images and could instantly see the difference.
-
There's also blown skin in both, so another vote for film, then.
;-)
Rob C
My histogram says you're wrong.
Perhaps you should calibrate your monitor.
-
My histogram says you're wrong.
Perhaps you should calibrate your monitor.
Synn,
You may be right. Or not. Next time, could we have similar pix please? Once a model has moved into different light, comparisons are off, and in the pix you showed, the reflections off the dress carried into the environment, changing that too. As for 3d, I instinctivey award that prize to the cup nearest my eyes :)
Edmund
-
Like I said, she was a model at a studio opening doing random poses. There were like, 12 clueless guys trying to shoot her with everything from an iPhone and a Nex 5 with an onboard flash to 1DX and D800s. I was there visiting and to wish him luck and just snapped 4-5 images when the machine gun gang eased off, lol.
I am planning a beauty shoot in 2 weeks time and will try to get similar shots.
-
Hi,
Histogram doesn't say everything, I have downloaded the image you posted here and checked in Chromix Color sync and indeed there is clipping in both red and possibly skin tones. There is less clipping in Adobe RGB but there still some.
So I guess Rob is right, I guess the guy knows about skin tones.
Best regards
Erik
My histogram says you're wrong.
Perhaps you should calibrate your monitor.
-
Hi Jerome,
I don't know. The two images have a quite different look.
I am a landscape shooter and I don't feel that the differences between my P45+ and my Sonys blow of my socks. When I compare images from different systems I try to find the same white balance, shooting a grey card in the same light is a good starting point, even if I almost always forget.
Another small point, both you and me use Kodak sensors but the Aptus that Synn uses is has a DALSA sensor, the colour grid arrays are different between Kodak and DALSA.
I checked the image 'Synn' has posted here using ColorThink and there is some clipping in both reds and skin tones that may falsify a comparison.
Best regards
Erik
Indeed. I tried to use photoshop to adjust the colours of the right-hand picture to the one of the left-hand pictures and then the images are impossible to tell apart.
-
Remind me not to post images in the analysis paralysis section again.
I'll do a bar graph next time, I promise.
-
Hi,
Good point. Live view and good camera software can help a lot, that is if the camera works for you. I understand the Panasonic works for you.
Best regards
Erik
Michael,
5 years ago the blad focus wouldn't have bothered you a bit, because even full frame 35mm didn't cover that much territory.
But now I get it. You've been shooting with the olympus which covers 85% of the frame with dead on, light speed accuracy and all of a sudden having to focus and then move a camera seems strange.
IMO
BC
-
It's good that your standards are pretty low.
There is no need to be insulting. You presented two pictures with different white balance. That is not sufficient to prove that the two sensors have different qualities, it just proves that one camera's white balance is better calibrated than the other.
-
There is no need to be insulting. You presented two pictures with different white balance. That is not sufficient to prove that the two sensors have different qualities, it just proves that one camera's white balance is better calibrated than the other.
It has nothing to do with white balance.
They were both white balanced on the same spot in post (while shot under the same conditions as well).
What actually matters and what you are seeing is that the Nikon's color fidelity is dogshite compared to the Leaf's. Both files are more or less as imported, except for white balance setting and minor tweaks. You spend time editing the Nikon file to bring it close to the Leaf's. What you don't remember is that the Leaf file looked that way on import. It looked "Right". What if I have to shoot another gig with the Nikon? Shoot a reference image with the Leaf and then edit the Nikon to look like it?
Even in your edited file, the Nikon is flatter and the Leaf has dimensionality, BTW.
Furthermore, if you see the images in full quality, at proper resolution, you'll see a LOT more tonal variations in the leaf file that are simply lost in the Nikon file. I've spent enough time and shot enough files with both to know that this is real and not placebo.
And don't forget, you're making your remarks based on what was originally a 207MB TIFF, that was downsampled to 2MB PNG that Facebook eventually murdered into a 200kb-something JPG. If you see a "Blown highlight", call Mark Zuckerberg. My Histogram is just fine.
It's all-too-common for someone to post a comparison on the net, only for 15 different "Well informed" opinions to come out of nowhere about how this should have been done this way and that should have been done that way. Well, here's a simple solution. Get your own back, get your own 35mm DSLR, rent a studio, hire a model, set your own lights, shoot something and prove me wrong. Forgive me for not paying much heed for anything less than that.
I won't even go into the spectrum analysis-paralysis whatever part.
-
Synn, you are far too sensitive for this world.
You post images attempting to prove one thing, and when it backfires and you clearly prove the reverse, you blame everyone but yourself, and indulge in childish name-calling... If 'paralysis' is indeed the state in which you truly perceive this part of LuLa to be, whatever induced you to participate?
Or did your opinion change just after your assertion bombed?
We've had far better snappers than you here, attempting to prove one point of view over another; the end result - inevitably - was nobody believed anything they didn't want to believe, that conflicted with their own investments in time and money, and that one fairly accomplished poster was sent packing. Why not simply be happy with what you have and do, and allow the rest of the world to follow its own path?
Post all the images of which you are proud, and I'm sure we'll probably all enjoy looking. That's the best anyone can hope to achieve.
Rob C
-
I stopped reading at "Backfired".
But thanks for playing.
-
Rob, careful what you wish for.
There again it's never been cheaper to buy those lost Hasselblads, which let's face it has got to be better than living in a permanent state of sadness and regret. Why not sell all that digital detritus, buy a Blad, shoot transparency and view on a lightbox?
BTW, I had three of those X19s and I reckon by today's standards they would be classed as a crock of shite that you wouldn't want to be seen dead in.
Back to topic.
Hi Keith,
I know you've had a run of bad luck with X1/9 cars; I had bad luck too: the exhaust blew on a trip from Glasgow during a run down to a printer's in England, and nobody in Leeds could replace the pipe; the rubber mat in the rear trunk melted due to the heat generated on the drive back north.
The car wasn't even two years old when I discovered corrosion on the alloys where the factory had clamped balance weights onto them instead of sticking them on and, as with a boat in the seat, cathodic damage. I went to the garage where I bought it - the car had actually featured on their stand at the then Glasgow Motor Show with my name as buyer featured within - to be told that had I come earlier, I'd have had four new alloys for free, with love from Fiat. And that dealership belonged to friends!
But all that apart, the car, here, would have been perfect. Especially the Targa top! I remember driving around in the Scottish winter, top off (the car's - don't get excited) and the heater on, as snug and warm as I could wish. Not a ruffled hair - and I still had plenty then.
I've never had a car so pretty either before or after. I was far more hard then, and traded her away at once. Now, I'd forgive pretty ladies for a lot more than a little corrosion trouble: I do own mirrors, so I have softened considerably in my demands. ;-)
Rob C
-
Synn, it seems that we do not understand each other. I am not saying that one camera is better than the other or not, I am saying that your pictures are insufficient to prove that whatever difference there is comes from differences in the sensor only.
I actually own a MF back (an H3DII-50, as I have written) and a Nikon D800. I have pointed both at young ladies with fair skin. I will be the first to acknowledge that Phocus with the Hasselblad gives me more pleasing skin tones out of the box. I have even written in this forum that this alone would be sufficient to buy the camera for a portrait photographer.
But what I am not writing is that the difference comes from the sensors. The D800 or H3D colours can be very different, depending on the software used. Even worse: the D800 internal jpeg engine can be set up to give you about any kind of look you want, in-camera (you can upload colour parameters in the camera). That makes a comparison of the camera colours rather pointless and an analysis of the cameras sensors almost impossible without writing demosaicing software myself. Which I am not prepared to do.
See: we are talking about very different things. We don't even disagree. If you were saying that "the complete solution (camera and software) from Hasselblad or Phase One give better skin tones out of the box", I would readily agree. Of course they do: you are paying big money for that feature alone. But you are not saying that, you are saying that the difference comes from the sensor while you have no way to actually find out.
BTW: I can insure you that Kodak, Dalsa, Nikon, Hasselblad and Phase One engineers have run a spectrum analyser on a large amount or people to insure that their camera produce the skin tone they want. The problem is not with the technology or with the analysis method.
-
I stopped reading at "Backfired".
But thanks for playing.
No problem!
Rob C
-
Synn, you are far too sensitive for this world.
You post images attempting to prove one thing, and when it backfires and you clearly prove the reverse, you blame everyone but yourself, and indulge in childish name-calling... If 'paralysis' is indeed the state in which you truly perceive this part of LuLa to be, whatever induced you to participate?
Or did your opinion change just after your assertion bombed?
We've had far better snappers than you here, attempting to prove one point of view over another; the end result - inevitably - was nobody believed anything they didn't want to believe, that conflicted with their own investments in time and money, and that one fairly accomplished poster was sent packing. Why not simply be happy with what you have and do, and allow the rest of the world to follow its own path?
Post all the images of which you are proud, and I'm sure we'll probably all enjoy looking. That's the best anyone can hope to achieve.
Rob C
I appreciate that you are trying to calm down the situation. Thank you.
-
Synn, it seems that we do not understand each other. I am not saying that one camera is better than the other or not, I am saying that your pictures are insufficient to prove that whatever difference there is comes from differences in the sensor only.
I actually own a MF back (an H3DII-50, as I have written) and a Nikon D800. I have pointed both at young ladies with fair skin. I will be the first to acknowledge that Phocus with the Hasselblad gives me more pleasing skin tones out of the box. I have even written in this forum that this alone would be sufficient to buy the camera for a portrait photographer.
But what I am not writing is that the difference comes from the sensors. The D800 or H3D colours can be very different, depending on the software used. Even worse: the D800 internal jpeg engine can be set up to give you about any kind of look you want, in-camera (you can upload colour parameters in the camera). That makes a comparison of the camera colours rather pointless and an analysis of the cameras sensors almost impossible without writing demosaicing software myself. Which I am not prepared to do.
See: we are talking about very different things. We don't even disagree. If you were saying that "the complete solution (camera and software) from Hasselblad or Phase One give better skin tones out of the box", I would readily agree. Of course they do: you are paying big money for that feature alone. But you are not saying that, you are saying that the difference comes from the sensor while you have no way to actually find out.
BTW: I can insure you that Kodak, Dalsa, Nikon, Hasselblad and Phase One engineers have run a spectrum analyser on a large amount or people to insure that their camera produce the skin tone they want. The problem is not with the technology or with the analysis method.
This is a far more reasonable response.
The first thing I want to address is, I have indeed tried every processing solution out there including the "Official Nikon" one(Except Irridient. I don't use a Mac), used color checkers, custom profiles... you name it. But no, the D800 files come nowhere close to that of that of the medium format. Even when both are processed using the same software (C1Pro, for instance). So yeah, my belief is that what comes out of the camera is inferior to begin with and no amount of spit polishing can make it equal or superior. So no, it's not the complete solution that makes it better, the difference starts from the moment the data is captured.
I also don't have any interest in doing lab tests with everything equalized. If I check on ebay, I might be able to find one of them chairs that photographers used back in the day whereby the subject's head was held in place tight. Set the same lights, same exposure, same everything... and shoot a human brick wall.
I have no interest in doing any of that. I like to test things in real life, in real usage scenarios. And in those scenarios, one is clearly better than another.
BTW: I can insure you that Kodak, Dalsa, Nikon, Hasselblad and Phase One engineers have run a spectrum analyser on a large amount or people to insure that their camera produce the skin tone they want. The problem is not with the technology or with the analysis method.
I know they do. And they do it so that people like me can worry about making pictures and nothing else.
But to see every picture ever posted on the forum turned into metrics rather than having qualitative discussions? Eh, not my thing.
I joined this forum to get advise on my medium format purchase as there aren't too many places on the internet that discuss this topic. But as the days do by, it is becoming clear to me that while there are talented people shooting great images here, there are also a lot of voices that would rather make every discussion about numbers and metrics rather than about the image itself. And one of these categories is far, far more vocal than the other.
-
Thanks Synn for your comment. I agree with you.
Please keep posting here. I really like to read more your comment.
kitty
-
I use MFD and FF. Sure I can see the differences, hell, my wife can, but each format has advantages. I'm really not interested in demonstrating those differences or for that matter discussing them, but I love taking advantage of them.
The only think that I would find interesting is to find out why there are difference and what exact part of the system is responsible for them. First because I like to understand how the device I use as an intellectual exercise, but also because it may allow me to get more consistent colours across cameras. But for the moment all I do is simply use the camera which gives the best results for a given situation and often enough it is the Hasselblad.
There is lots of magical thinking amongst photographers but there is no magic at all in cameras, film or digital. There are reasons why we observe the effects we do and these reasons are usually both relatively simple and quite interesting. But each time we assign arbitrary explanations to the effects we observe without actually checking whether these explanations actually explain what we observe, we make it more difficult for ourselves to find the real reason behind the facts. Yes, we do observe differences between MF and 24x36 cameras, just as we do observe differences between 24x36 cameras and smaller sensor cameras. But explaining these differences by special properties of "fat pixels", "CCD versus CMOS" or "better bokeh" is akin to magical thinking in the sense that it empowers the camera with some sort of intrinsic property that cannot be explained. But there is no magic in cameras, a pixel is a pixel, they are designed by men just like you and me and the way they work internally is based on perfectly defined principles. The only think we don't really know is how the manufacturer sets the system up. But even that can be found out, just usually with a little more effort than the average internet ludite is ready to invest.
-
The first thing I want to address is, I have indeed tried every processing solution out there including the "Official Nikon" one(Except Irridient. I don't use a Mac), used color checkers, custom profiles... you name it. But no, the D800 files come nowhere close to that of that of the medium format. Even when both are processed using the same software (C1Pro, for instance). So yeah, my belief is that what comes out of the camera is inferior to begin with and no amount of spit polishing can make it equal or superior. So no, it's not the complete solution that makes it better, the difference starts from the moment the data is captured.
That is possible. My experience is rather that the D800 files can come pretty close when processed correctly, but that the number of software parameters is to high for me to come to a conclusion. In other words: all I know is that I don't know.
But to see every picture ever posted on the forum turned into metrics rather than having qualitative discussions? Eh, not my thing.
We have complete threads devoted to pictures, where no picture is turned into metrics. Only the pictures presented as metrics will be dissected as such...
I joined this forum to get advise on my medium format purchase as there aren't too many places on the internet that discuss this topic.
Which you got, if I remember correctly.
-
Life is just too short. I prefer to listen to the music rather than the sound system.
But without the people who listened to the sound system, we would still have gramophones. ;)
-
Synn,
Similar images of the sort of stuff *you* usually want to photograph are the only interesting ones.
Don't take it hard - just post 2 similar images next time. These were simply too far apart.
I've done such comparisons a bunch of times for my own purposes.
It's hard to get images similar enough to compare, but when you do finally get them it *does* tell you something. Otherwise you have to just rely on the subjective impression you get over a period of use.
By the way, it's impossible to overstate how important software postprocessing can be. If I run my Canon images through Canon's own free software it's like getting a new camera for free.
Edmund
-
Indeed. I tried to use photoshop to adjust the colours of the right-hand picture to the one of the left-hand pictures and then the images are impossible to tell apart.
Except for the appearance of depth you mean. The one the left still looks a lot more real to me.
-
There is a match colors directive in Photoshop.
Edmund
-
To Synn:
+1 (to what KL said)
But don't get sucked down the rabbit hole by the trolls....you have no idea how many posts I've written and deleted before posting. ;)
- N.
-
Well,
I would suggest that Michaels article makes the camera justice. Personally, I don't see a dramatic difference in colour rendition between my Sony Alpha 99 and my P45+, but the megapixel advantage of the P45+ over the 24MP Sony is obvious.
Best regards
Erik
+1
But don't get sucked down the rabbit hole....you have no idea how many posts I've written and deleted before posting. ;)
- N.
-
Color rendition is really subjective. There is so much difference between individual color perception and its a fact that men over 40 years have less acute color perception plus a lot of men are partially color blind anyhow. So Erik while you may not notice much difference it does not mean there isn't any.
-
Color rendition is really subjective. There is so much difference between individual color perception and its a fact that men over 40 years have less acute color perception plus a lot of men are partially color blind anyhow. So Erik while you may not notice much difference it does not mean there isn't any.
Eric,
Here is the Xrite online color challenge (http://www.xrite.com/online-color-test-challenge) which allows you to see how well you can distinguish color shades when presented on *your* monitor. If I use my Eizo I get a perfect score, on my laptop I get a score of 8.
Edmund
-
Edmund,
I've gotten perfect scores on the munsel 100 color tests in the past. I have astigmatism and am nearsighted, but am thankful at least my color vision is perfect.
edit - just took the X-rite test and got another perfect score.
-
Hi Erik,
Interesting question.
I don't know if I have perfect colour vision, but even with reduced colour vision you can see differences.
Anyway what I was saying is that I did not see dramatic differences. I of course have run Imatest Colorcheck on my P45+ and on my SLT-99 and the SLT is considerably more accurate. The colour error on the P45+ is about twice, compared with the SLT-99. The best Delta E (mean) I got on the Alpha 99 was 3.65 and on the P45+ it was 5.65. Capture One on the P45+ gave 7.45. That is of course far from the full truth, but it is at least measurable.
DxO publishes a figure related to colour accuracy called SMI, and that is 85 for the Sony SLT 99 and 72 for the P45+. A perfect score is 100 and phone cameras are around 40. The SMI is an ISO standard, and it is based on the ColorChecker colours.
I can also see a significant difference between different profiles I used. A lot is depending on processing, and foremost on the white balance.
But I don't think it is a dramatic difference. Nothing like 'Synn' has shown.
Here is a small write up: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/79-p45-colour-rendition
The P45+ has Kodak sensor closely related to the one on the H5D60, so this discussion is slightly relevant to the original posting.
Best regards
Erik
Color rendition is really subjective. There is so much difference between individual color perception and its a fact that men over 40 years have less acute color perception plus a lot of men are partially color blind anyhow. So Erik while you may not notice much difference it does not mean there isn't any.
-
It is indeed rather hard to see "Dramatic" color differences in mid day, flat light shots of unexceptional scenes.
They would be a lot more apparent in strobe lit portraiture or sunrise/ sunset scenes.
-
Hi,
Thanks for making that clear. I don't shoot studio portraits. Regarding sunrise/sunset I have few images to compare as I usually shoot with either camera, but I am equally happy with both. So it may explain a part of the difference in experience.
Another point is that I shoot P45+ using a Kodak sensor and yourself are shooting a Leaf which is using DALSA. Doug says most of his customers prefer DALSA's colour rendition over Kodak. The camera I shoot with is Sony. There are suggestions made by knowledgeable persons who say Sony has better colours than say Nikon.
Best regards
Erik
It is indeed rather hard to see "Dramatic" color differences in mid day, flat light shots of unexceptional scenes.
They would be a lot more apparent in strobe lit portraiture or sunrise/ sunset scenes.
-
And color differences are not the same thing as color tonality or texture - so I really think of this as two topics. The first is easy to handle with the color editor in C1 or the hue sliders in LR or whatever tool you like to make the red really the red you wanted, but the second - color tonality, texture, micro detail or whatever you want to call it can't be fixed in post or not easily anyhow - its either there in the capture or not. Some cameras make a mush of fine color texture or subtle color changes like on an apple for example or a peach, or a persons skin - none of which is really uniform. Some sensors do a great job with this and some don't, and its mostly the CCD sensors on MFDB that do.
-
Edmund,
I've gotten perfect scores on the munsel 100 color tests in the past. I have astigmatism and am nearsighted, but am thankful at least my color vision is perfect.
edit - just took the X-rite test and got another perfect score.
Hmmm.... apparently either my monitor is not that well calibrated/good or my color distinction capabilities leave something to desire. I got a score of 8 on my Eizo, admittedly I did kind of do it quickly and without much conviction.
-
Well, here's a simple solution. Get your own back, get your own 35mm DSLR, rent a studio, hire a model, set your own lights, shoot something and prove me wrong. Forgive me for not paying much heed for anything less than that.
It is indeed rather hard to see "Dramatic" color differences in mid day, flat light shots of unexceptional scenes.
They would be a lot more apparent in strobe lit portraiture or sunrise/ sunset scenes.
Well, a bit dated but still relevant, here you go …
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets/72157614936120567/
PhaseOne645AF:P65+
Hasselblad H3DⅡ50
Hasselblad H3DⅡ39
Hasselblad H2:CF22
Canon EOS5DⅡ
Nikon D3X
Nikon D700
Nikon D90
Fuji FinePix S
-
Well, a bit dated but still relevant, here you go …
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets/72157614936120567/
PhaseOne645AF:P65+
Hasselblad H3DⅡ50
Hasselblad H3DⅡ39
Hasselblad H2:CF22
Canon EOS5DⅡ
Nikon D3X
Nikon D700
Nikon D90
Fuji FinePix S
Thanks for that and yes, it's a rather nice example.
To the uninitiated, everything might look more or less the same, but a detailed look will show how much more texture and "Undertones" the MF files carry. It's something test charts can't show.
-
To the uninitiated, everything might look more or less the same, but a detailed look will show how much more texture and "Undertones" the MF files carry. It's something test charts can't show.
That's why it's quite a good example - those 'undertones' are evident when you look at the 'full scale versions', particularly the P65+. Undertones, micro-contrast, resolution all factor in. There is a difference, but perhaps not as great a some would like to make out.
But I do agree with you that, in studio based portraiture, you will see a difference.
-
Hi,
I have printed the HD50 image and the D3X image in A2, a couple of years ago. As far as I can recall there was not a lot of difference. I also discussed the images with a couple of friends, one was working at one of the leading pro labs here in Sweden and the other one is a professional photographer, I don't think they saw a lot of difference either.
Erik
That's why it's quite a good example - those 'undertones' are evident when you look at the 'full scale versions', particularly the P65+. Undertones, micro-contrast, resolution all factor in. There is a difference, but perhaps not as great a some would like to make out.
But I do agree with you that, in studio based portraiture, you will see a difference.
-
That's why it's quite a good example - those 'undertones' are evident when you look at the 'full scale versions', particularly the P65+. Undertones, micro-contrast, resolution all factor in. There is a difference, but perhaps not as great a some would like to make out.
But I do agree with you that, in studio based portraiture, you will see a difference.
Indeed.
In the 35mm files, the skin is one surface. In the MF files, it is a multi layered entity with texture on the top translucent layer and further pigmentation in the underlying layer.
Sure, the files will be color graded and retouched later, but the underlying dimensionality of the MF files always come through.
I have personally preferred Leaf's rendering of skin over Phase's, but it's nice to see how good the Hassys have rendered skin too, especially the 50MP.
Of course, not everyone will see it. I have seen people not being able to tell the difference between a 128kbps MP3 and a FLAC file too.
-
I have printed the HD50 image and the D3X image in A2, a couple of years ago. As far as I can recall there was not a lot of difference. I also discussed the images with a couple of friends, one was working at one of the leading pro labs here in Sweden and the other one is a professional photographer, I don't think they saw a lot of difference either.
I think that is the point, Eric. Across the gamut of cameras tested there is a difference, but NOT a lot of difference. On the P65 v D700 it's marginally noticeable on lips and in the eyes - if you look closely. But stand back and look at a distance and you do, as Synn notes, see a degree of 3-dimensionality. A degree , it's not night and day, and it's also debatable how much this difference could be narrowed in post.
Whether or not, the difference is worth the extra cost and the limitations imposed by MF depends on each individuals requirements. But if you want to be sure of BEST POSSIBLE capture in STUDIO BASED portraiture, still life, home economics (food) - I would choose MF. Having said that I'm 35mm FF - nuff said ?
-
Indeed.
In the 35mm files, the skin is one surface. In the MF files, it is a multi layered entity with texture on the top translucent layer and further pigmentation in the underlying layer.
Sure, the files will be color graded and retouched later, but the underlying dimensionality of the MF files always come through.
I have personally preferred Leaf's rendering of skin over Phase's, but it's nice to see how good the Hassys have rendered skin too, especially the 50MP.
Of course, not everyone will see it. I have seen people not being able to tell the difference between a 128kbps MP3 and a FLAC file too.
Also, let's not forget about the tethered workflow.
Working with the Phase/Leaf backs tethered to C1P and using CapturePilot on iPad(s) with Client(s) is just awesome. Communication between the workstation and the iPad is very very fast and a two way street. When the client rates an image you see that rating on the workstation also if you make changes to an image or images on the workstation the client will see the changes almost immediately on the iPad. I know a lot of you here work by yourselves but this is just a HUGE ASSET when working with other people on a shoot.
Regarding the image quality a lot has been said but web jpgs do not do MF Digital files justice and most importantly do not show the increased depth of the files which give you more processing options when working with the in post production. Yes, a good post production artist can make almost any file look like another but there will always be some differences. Always.
-
Well, a bit dated but still relevant, here you go …
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets/72157614936120567/
PhaseOne645AF:P65+
Hasselblad H3DⅡ50
Hasselblad H3DⅡ39
Hasselblad H2:CF22
Canon EOS5DⅡ
Nikon D3X
Nikon D700
Nikon D90
Fuji FinePix S
Thank you for the test. On the images as they are, I find interesting that the 3 Hasselblad camera have closely matched colors and indeed the MF give the most pleasant skin tones out of the box (although I find the P65+ a bit too magenta for my taste).
Did you adjust white balance manually or did you leave the cameras do it automatically?
-
Actually, this test shows how good all current cameras are - differences in rendering can easily be drowned out by differences in lighting and post.
Except maybe for the way the hair changes. I think this where we really see the CFA differences in these examples. Maybe there are some spectral spikes in the hair coloring/tint that was used by the girl, and so the hue changes completely when photographed.
Edmund
-
Except maybe for the way the hair changes. I think this where we really see the CFA differences in these examples. Maybe there are some spectral spikes in the hair coloring/tint that was used by the girl, and so the hue changes completely when photographed.
I think that the reason for the colour changes is that the hairs change hues depending on their orientation towards the light.
-
Did you adjust white balance manually or did you leave the cameras do it automatically?
Jerome,
I can't answer that - the test isn't mine. It was posted on Flickr some time ago.
-
Also, let's not forget about the tethered workflow.
Ken,
Is it really advisable to complicate this discussion any further ? (Smiley)
But if we want to add another tangent, there is a tethering suite on Lightroom for the sony A7 together with iPad extensions ...
Perhaps for another thread ?
-
I think that the reason for the colour changes is that the hairs change hues depending on their orientation towards the light.
With all due respect, I do not share your point of view here. I think we are seeing a very real difference between cameras.
Once you have artificial or natural sharp spectral peaks entering an image, eg. hair tint or flowers, fish scales, any difference between CFAs will be exacerbated. With one interesting addition to the game: some LED screens with RGB backlighting which can have such sharp peaks that even spectrophotometers will measure different colors.
Edmund
-
Hi,
I have checked out my old A2 prints I made from the Hasselblad D50 and the D3X. What I see is that lady has dark grey hair on the D50 and dark brown with red tint on the D3X. I cannot really judge skin tones. The D3X seems to have slightly higher contrast.
The red sensivity curve on most CGA-s is very steep around 550 nm, so a colour spike at 530 nm would be rendered very differently from one at 570 nm.
Sensor sensivity curves are very different from human vision, see enclosed figure from wikipedia.
Best regards
Erik
Actually, this test shows how good all current cameras are - differences in rendering can easily be drowned out by differences in lighting and post.
Except maybe for the way the hair changes. I think this where we really see the CFA differences in these examples. Maybe there are some spectral spikes in the hair coloring/tint that was used by the girl, and so the hue changes completely when photographed.
Edmund
-
With all due respect, I do not share your point of view here. I think we are seeing a very real difference between cameras.
Once you have artificial or natural sharp spectral peaks entering an image, eg. hair tint or flowers, fish scales, any difference between CFAs will be exacerbated.
That is quite possible, I don't deny that. However, the observation was about the hair only and I know for a fact that hairs change hues depending on their orientation towards the light and I would even add that this effect is often enhanced with died hair, as is the case here.
-
With all due respect, I do not share your point of view here. I think we are seeing a very real difference between cameras.
I agree with this 100%.
I see a huge difference, maybe because I've done so much of this type of hair and beauty photography.
The p65 then the hasselblad's show real color detail within the hair. Not as pretty out of camera because they pick up every tone and color, but when your working in fine detail, it's much easier to distinguish and match color if the information is there vs. the cameras like the d3x and that has a global warm color.
The camera I find interesting is the D90. I still own one, never really use it, but bought it as it was the first dslr that shot video. I was working in Korea with mixed light and had fits with the color with all of my cameras. For the heck of it I shot the d90 and the skintones were beautiful golden natural in the scenes I was working.
The only issue was in full length horizontals that little d90 didn't hold detail that well.
But to me this test was excellent and I did see a great deal of difference in color response, though people should keep in mind that most digital capture, regardless of sensor size of pixel count produce a lot of detail this close up. Once you pull back you see a difference.
The other thing to keep in mind is this subject had rich olive colored skin, which is the easiest to photograph. The hardest is very light caucasian skin with that light epidermal layer that allows red to bounce back through, (think pasty white politicians).
IMO
BC
-
Of course, a camera that has weird CFAs is going to go crazy if used to image a box of cosmetics ....
I think I could easily make up an anti-target designed to break the renderings :)
And one could use the original stuff as a hard reference.
Edmund
-
The other thing to keep in mind is this subject had rich olive colored skin, which is the easiest to photograph. The hardest is very light caucasian skin with that light epidermal layer that allows red to bounce back through, (think pasty white politicians).
I certainly agree on that. Fair skin, especially on young ladies or even babies/children, is the kind of colour where MF shines out of the box. I am still not sure whether another camera can be tweaked to produce the same colour or not (*), but I certainly agree that MF does a very convincing job by default.
(*) I am not sure means I do not know. I am not saying it can, I am not saying it cannot.
-
Of course, a camera that has weird CFAs is going to go crazy if used to image a box of cosmetics ....
I think I could easily make up an anti-target designed to break the renderings :)
And one could use the original stuff as a hard reference.
Now, that is a pretty good idea.
-
J,
Hope you caught up with sleep and are feeling better to some degree.
This set of images reminds me of Leaf's tests which I could never really get to terms with, precisely because of the olive skin of the models. I find it very hard to infer the real world color of the models from their images.
Canon always have at least one woman with fair skin in their official camera test shots (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eos1dm3/downloads/portrait.jpg). And one can usually see how much "plastic skin" one will get from that image.
I think you're right, one learns to be more discriminating on these images after doing a lot of them, partly because the clients themselves show you what they are looking for, and when it is hair or lipstick colors the women are very very picky.
Edmund
I see a huge difference, maybe because I've done so much of this type of hair and beauty photography.
The p65 then the hasselblad's show real color detail within the hair. Not as pretty out of camera because they pick up every tone and color, but when your working in fine detail, it's much easier to distinguish and match color if the information is there vs. the cameras like the d3x and that has a global warm color.
The camera I find interesting is the D90. I still own one, never really use it, but bought it as it was the first dslr that shot video. I was working in Korea with mixed light and had fits with the color with all of my cameras. For the heck of it I shot the d90 and the skintones were beautiful golden natural in the scenes I was working.
The only issue was in full length horizontals that little d90 didn't hold detail that well.
But to me this test was excellent and I did see a great deal of difference in color response, though people should keep in mind that most digital capture, regardless of sensor size of pixel count produce a lot of detail this close up. Once you pull back you see a difference.
The other thing to keep in mind is this subject had rich olive colored skin, which is the easiest to photograph. The hardest is very light caucasian skin with that light epidermal layer that allows red to bounce back through, (think pasty white politicians).
IMO
BC
-
Hi,
I have checked out my old A2 prints I made from the Hasselblad D50 and the D3X. What I see is that lady has dark grey hair on the D50 and dark brown with red tint on the D3X. I cannot really judge skin tones. The D3X seems to have slightly higher contrast.
The red sensivity curve on most CGA-s is very steep around 550 nm, so a colour spike at 530 nm would be rendered very differently from one at 570 nm.
Sensor sensivity curves are very different from human vision, see enclosed figure from wikipedia.
Best regards
Erik
This is getting into comically bad territory and someone has to break the news to the emperor that he has no clothes.
Dear Erik, has it ever occurred to you to just LOOK at the images for a second as a work of art rather than think of the next possible way you can micro-analyze them ?
Do you also rank Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple based on what frequency spectra they have recorded in?
You mentioned in the other thread that you haven't seen the magic in MF. Maybe; just maybe if you'd spend a fraction of the time you spend analyzing on careful compositions and understanding good light, you'd have seen it. Instead, you're taking test shot after test shot in unremarkable light with unremarkable compositions.
The majority of this guy's work is with the same back you have: http://bulbexposures.com/ . DO you see anything different there?
You're in a very picturesque part of the world. An unbelievably beautiful country. For once, please take this good natured advice; leave your test charts at home, go out with your gear and work hard for getting one killer shot in great light. You'll see the magic. Trust me. If not, please sell off your MF gear as your Sonys are everything you'd ever want from an imaging device.
Please don't take this as an insult or an attack. It just pains me to see such great gear going to waste.
-
This is getting into comically bad territory and someone has to break the news to the emperor that he has no clothes.
Dear Erik, has it ever occurred to you to just LOOK at the images for a second as a work of art rather than think of the next possible way you can micro-analyze them ?
Please don't take this as an insult or an attack. It just pains me to see such great gear going to waste.
Synn,
We were all looking at this set of images from various cameras (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets/72157614936120567/).
Artistic license only takes you so far - the camera is supposed to show some decent approximation of reality.
FOR SOME IT MATTTERS IF SHE IS A MOUSY BRUNETTE OR A PUNCHY REDHEAD
Take a deep breath. Go there. Look. Come back with your thoughts, we'll be delighted to hear them.
Edmund
-
Hi,
I didn't say REDHEAD, I saw dark brown with some red tint, that red tint was very subtle. I did look at a lot of distances and different light.
The technical part was actually addressed to you. I have noticed the steepness of the red curve on many CGA plots I have seen. I think it is pretty obvious that would cause color shifts with a spiky spectrum in that area. Someone was mentioning spiky spectrum, it thought it was you? I don't know if studio flash spectrum is spiky, I got the impression that greybody radiation dominates over gas spectral lines. I have not found any spectral plot of studio flash light, have you seen any?
I looked at prints I made back in 2009 when I downloaded the original images in full size, I enclose a screen dump below. My prints came out less colorful than the on screen images, need to check in that.
Best regards
Erik
Synn,
We were all looking at this set of images from various cameras (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets/72157614936120567/).
Artistic license only takes you so far - the camera is supposed to show some decent approximation of reality.
FOR SOME IT MATTTERS IF SHE IS A MOUSY BRUNETTE OR A PUNCHY REDHEAD
Take a deep breath. Go there. Look. Come back with your thoughts, we'll be delighted to hear them.
Edmund
-
Synn,
We were all looking at this set of images from various cameras (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets/72157614936120567/).
Artistic license only takes you so far - the camera is supposed to show some decent approximation of reality.
FOR SOME IT MATTTERS IF SHE IS A MOUSY BRUNETTE OR A PUNCHY REDHEAD
Take a deep breath. Go there. Look. Come back with your thoughts, we'll be delighted to hear them.
Edmund
Dude, I posted my thoughts several posts ago and none of it had anything to do with graphs borrowed from Wikipedia.
Is it really possible to turn EVERY conversation into one revolving around numbers and graphs? Seriously...
You can get her hair to look like whatever in post, but the undertones captured in the MF files can't be magically recreated in the other files. Why does thy fly right past all the number crunchers?
-
I said redhead to be funny, but the lady next to me has informed me that the word *in french* is "Auburn" :)
I'm gonna try doing some studio flash tests this weekend, this set raises enough questions to make it worthwhile. I believe studio flash is pretty clean, but the hair dye may be fluorescing in a narrow band.
Edmund
Hi,
I didn't say REDHEAD, I saw dark brown with some red tint, that red tint was very subtle. I did look at a lot of distances and different light.
The technical part was actually addressed to you. I have noticed the steepness of the red curve on many CGA plots I have seen. I think it is pretty obvious that would cause color shifts with a spiky spectrum in that area. Someone was mentioning spiky spectrum, it thought it was you? I don't know if studio flash spectrum is spiky, I got the impression that greybody radiation dominates over gas spectral lines. I have not found any spectral plot of studio flash light, have you seen any?
I looked at prints I made back in 2009 when I downloaded the original images in full size, I enclose a screen dump below. My prints came out less colorful than the on screen images, need to check in that.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
I will look a bit more into this, as I see even more questions.
Best regards
Erik
I said redhead to be funny, but the lady next to me has informed me that the word *in french* is "Auburn" :)
I'm gonna try doing some studio flash tests this weekend, this set raises enough questions to make it worthwhile. I believe studio flash is pretty clean, but the hair dye may be fluorescing in a narrow band.
Edmund
-
Synn,
We were all looking at this set of images from various cameras (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets/72157614936120567/).
Artistic license only takes you so far - the camera is supposed to show some decent approximation of reality.
FOR SOME IT MATTTERS IF SHE IS A MOUSY BRUNETTE OR A PUNCHY REDHEAD
Take a deep breath. Go there. Look. Come back with your thoughts, we'll be delighted to hear them.
Edmund
Ha, funny, the only picture I was absolutely sure it was shot with a MF-Back (and not 35mm) was the fat pixel CF22-Picture.
-
Since I am a bit confused about the different white balances of the portraits, I tried to download them and let the computer correct the white balance automatically (using the same patch of skin as a reference). These are the results. Indeed hair colour changes amongst cameras and that cannot be due to light alone. I find that the 3 Hasselblad pictures are the closest, but we should know that manufacturers try to get consistency in their range of cameras. Phase One is close to Canon. I only tried the MF cameras, Canon 5D and Nikon D3X.
-
Hi,
Just to tell. I made a somewhat sobering experience today. I looked at A2 print I had of the Hasselblad D50 and the Nikon D3X images, and found that the lady had greyish hair on the Hassy and brownish with some red tint on the Nikon. Than I checked both the images in Lightroom, and found that the hair on the Hassy image was a lot warmer in the JPEG than in my print. After that I verified with soft prof that colours were shifted with quite a few profiles, including Durst Lambda.
Anyway I decided to make a different test, I asked a lady at office about the colour. She felt that the Nikon image was awful. She felt the Hassy image had credible skin tones and the hair looked as natural hair, while she felt the Nikon D3X had reddsh skin tones and unnatural red tone in the hair, like has it been artificially coloured. "Synn" won that round on KO!
Best regards
Erik
Since I am a bit confused about the different white balances of the portraits, I tried to download them and let the computer correct the white balance automatically (using the same patch of skin as a reference). These are the results. Indeed hair colour changes amongst cameras and that cannot be due to light alone. I find that the 3 Hasselblad pictures are the closest, but we should know that manufacturers try to get consistency in their range of cameras. Phase One is close to Canon. I only tried the MF cameras, Canon 5D and Nikon D3X.
-
I need a better monitor ;D
-
She felt the Hassy image had credible skin tones and the hair looked as natural hair, while she felt the Nikon D3X had reddsh skin tones and unnatural red tone in the hair, like has it been artificially coloured.
But if that lady has dyed her hair, which seems probable, the D3X is more accurate, isn't it? ;)
The white balance on the Nikon and Phase One were particularly bad, BTW. I don't think it is reasonable to judge the capacities of MF on that series without correcting the pictures.
-
Yes,
That could be the case. But I asked the lady for her opinion and I got it. She really did not like the Nikon image but that also had to do with the posing of the lady.
I am a landscape shooter, so I know little about skin tones.
Best regards
Erik
But if that lady has dyed her hair, which seems probable, the D3X is more accurate, isn't it? ;)
The white balance on the Nikon and Phase One were particularly bad, BTW. I don't think it is reasonable to judge the capacities of MF on that series without correcting the pictures.
-
Thanks for sharing both thoughts and images!
Erik
Since I am a bit confused about the different white balances of the portraits, I tried to download them and let the computer correct the white balance automatically (using the same patch of skin as a reference). These are the results. Indeed hair colour changes amongst cameras and that cannot be due to light alone. I find that the 3 Hasselblad pictures are the closest, but we should know that manufacturers try to get consistency in their range of cameras. Phase One is close to Canon. I only tried the MF cameras, Canon 5D and Nikon D3X.
-
I am a landscape shooter, so I know little about skin tones.
I suspect that you need to watch young ladies more often, preferably naked.
-
Yes, thanks for good advice ;-)
Best regards
Erik
I suspect that you need to watch young ladies more often, preferably naked.