Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Fat Pixels  (Read 4614 times)

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1482
  • me
    • working
Re: Fat Pixels
« Reply #20 on: February 02, 2018, 05:37:46 PM »

I was rather hoping for some of those BC M8 images  ;D, mine is back at Leica for a service, they did say they would upgrade it forever, let's see. It still has lovely colour and B/W, use it within its limitations and all is good. There's a reason they still sell at £1,000.
Fat pixel backs are a bargain now for their output. IMHO  8)

Chris,

I agree.

Last night went to the Leica store on Beverly to pick up some batteries.

Leica stores are like the tiffanyís for people that love jewelry, except there is always a gallery and images of all sorts, usually gritty rock and roll, or street portraits, or historic images . . . everything.

The sales rep asked if I like the M-8 I was buying the batteries for and I said yea I love it.  He said a lot of people say that and a few hours before me the great DP Roger Deakins was in store picking up his M-8 after a cleaning.

He asked if I had tried the cmos versions and I said uh, no but I donít really think of the m8 as a 14 stop digital camera, more like an 8 stop film camera and shoot it as such.

I said I know in the world of digital ccd is considered ancient, but I love the look so what the heck.   I never think about the crop factor, or either the size of the file.   In fact only a few times have I ever taken the 24mm off of it and all the photos below are with the 24 which I think equates to a 35 or somewhere around that.

Never thought Iíd own a leica, but when the m-8 came out I bought it on site.  Same with the S-2.

But this is a very latest and greatest, high iso, a trillion megapixel forum (for the most part) so Iím sure a lot of people would disagree.

In fact one thing the m-8 does amazingly well in colour with profoto studio flash.  When they came out with firmware updates, I never updated it because I was afraid it would do something to the colour. 

Anyway, some m-8 images






IMO

BC

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 11380
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Fat Pixels
« Reply #21 on: February 02, 2018, 09:09:45 PM »

Love the first one BC. Do you remember what lens is was shot with?

Cheers,
Bernard

Chris Livsey

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 804
Re: Fat Pixels
« Reply #22 on: February 03, 2018, 05:30:02 AM »

Thanks BC, still flying the M8 flag, and banging that drum.

Take care with the M8 batteries, I ordered a new one from a Leica shop I use and the on-line said "not suitable for M8" on enquiry they state "the battery will work in your M8, but they changed the spec so while you will be able to use it, it won't register on the meter, so you won't know how much power you'll have left." so they added the warning, I bought two.

Leica, Wetzlar, are repairing my M8 for a reasonable amount, thankfully not "upgrading" it, now I can only hope they pull a technician off the M9 sensor line to do it, they need the break!!

On Roger Deakins: "I usually use an M8. The 35mm is my main lens but I do carry a 28mm. I change shutter speeds and aperture depending on the content of the shot."

https://www.rogerdeakins.com/still-photography/still-photography-as-practice/
« Last Edit: February 03, 2018, 05:34:33 AM by Chris Livsey »
Logged

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1482
  • me
    • working
Re: Fat Pixels
« Reply #23 on: February 03, 2018, 06:49:14 PM »

Thanks BC, still flying the M8 flag, and banging that drum.

Take care with the M8 batteries, I ordered a new one from a Leica shop I use and the on-line said "not suitable for M8" on enquiry they state "the battery will work in your M8, but they changed the spec so while you will be able to use it, it won't register on the meter, so you won't know how much power you'll have left." so they added the warning, I bought two.

Leica, Wetzlar, are repairing my M8 for a reasonable amount, thankfully not "upgrading" it, now I can only hope they pull a technician off the M9 sensor line to do it, they need the break!!

On Roger Deakins: "I usually use an M8. The 35mm is my main lens but I do carry a 28mm. I change shutter speeds and aperture depending on the content of the shot."

https://www.rogerdeakins.com/still-photography/still-photography-as-practice/



Don't leave home without it:


Bernard,

It's a 28mm, though I really thought it was a 24 as I said I rarely remove the lens.  I have a 35mm, 90mm (non useable due to the small viewfinder framing) but just shoot everything with that 24 which I guess with an pasha sensor is somewhere around 35mm.

Chris,

It makes sense that Mr. Deakins shoots stills with a 28 or 35mm because 35mm on a super 35mm movie frame is the most used lens in the history of cinematography and even if the crop is different, your brain thinks 35mm so you grab a 35mm.

I don't know why we all like certain things.   A manual focus rangefinder isn't the easiest camera to work, but then again easy doesn't always mean good or as fun.

It also doesn't draw a lot of attention, so if your blocking a shot, or scouting, you won't have security tapping you on the shoulder (usually).

It's a camera that I take about everywhere, whether I plan to use it or not.   This was from a gig, shooting sponsored olympians, the M8 was sitting on the ground by me as I was using a 300mm 2.8 on a Canon but I saw it so I shot it with the Leica.


This gig is a few years ago, I just decided to use the M8 on the first shot and continued on


Once again I know it's ccd I know it doesn't smooth in real low light, but I like the look and the only camera that has that look (that is small) is the first olympus em-5 which is another camera I bought, but didn't actually need.   In ways it's much like the Leica in build and size and though it uses a Sony cmos sensor it produces a look (to me) identical to the Leica.  In fact I liked it so I bought an em-1 and it didn't have the same look because the em1 uses  a panasonic sensor and different processing.

I'd give anything if Olympus had gone with an APS H rather than a 4/3 sensor.  I like the ability to change the ratio in camera, the autofocus doesn't track very well, but it is instant fast on single auto focus. so fast if someone is running you can hit focus and fire and it will usually be sharp, but 4/3 is just a little small especially for wide shots and though I usually don't think about sensor size, I still think APSH is almost the perfect format frame, especially if a camera is used for some c cam motion. 

In fact when the first Sony a7s came out I tested and tested it against the em-5 and thought the em-5 looked better.   When the a7siI came out I bought it site unseen though have only used it in production twice.  I guess I should sell the Sony because it's just not the camera for me.

So that's my thought process and I know my brains is a little broken, but  . . .

IMO

BC

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 11380
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Fat Pixels
« Reply #24 on: February 03, 2018, 09:37:41 PM »

Thanks.

Donít know whether youíve given the D850 a try but it has very Leica like colors IMHO. Obviously the shooting experience is very different though.

Cheers,
Bernard

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1482
  • me
    • working
Re: Fat Pixels
« Reply #25 on: February 04, 2018, 04:57:04 PM »

Thanks.

Donít know whether youíve given the D850 a try but it has very Leica like colors IMHO. Obviously the shooting experience is very different though.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard,

Got close to buying an 8 series Nikon, but had just bought 1dx1's and they focused as well as the D3 and D700 (I think that was the camera).   The issue with the Nikons I owned I had fits with skintone color in controlled lighting.   High iso, mixed lighting I loved them and the focus then was amazing.

I've always owned Nikons, my first digital camera was the F5 based Kodak dcs 760 and I loved the F5 in film and digital.    Removable viewfinder, you could manually focus with regularity and though the dcs 760 was far from a low light camera it needed 6 to 10 more mpx, but what a great camera.



Anyway, I rarely sell anything and had a lot of the new Nikon glass, but just wasn't using it so I sold the glass and bodies.   Kind of wish I hadn't but was covered with what I was using.

If I had to do it again, I might have gone another direction, or if Nikon had produced a digital F5 I never would have owned Canons.

But that was a long time ago, though I'll never understand why Nikon took so long to offer a 1.3 crop or full frame.   The Nikon 200mm F2 is probably the finest medium long lens I've ever owned and the Canon version just doesn't match the look.

This multimedia video was shot with an F3, mostly the 200 F2 at a high still frame rate, mixed with 5d2 footage.   I think this video got us more work than anything we ever produced.



IMO

BC

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 11380
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Fat Pixels
« Reply #26 on: February 04, 2018, 09:19:19 PM »

Thanks for your feedbacks BC.

My post was not a generic plug in favor of Nikon. :)

I was just trying to point out the fact that, with the D850, Nikon took a major turn in terms of colors. They are very different, and in my view better, than their previous bodies. And it is not a small change by any means.

Cheers,
Bernard

Jack Hogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 701
    • Hikes -more than strolls- with my dog
Re: Fat Pixels
« Reply #27 on: February 05, 2018, 05:00:49 AM »

In fact one thing the m-8 does amazingly well in colour with profoto studio flash.  When they came out with firmware updates, I never updated it because I was afraid it would do something to the colour. 

Anyway, some m-8 images

Love the pictures BC, the composition, the artistic color casts.  On this last point I couldn't help noticing that none of the images show 'real' colors (for example the whites are not white) and they all seem to have been shot with a color filter, producing beautiful results.  Of course this could be ascribed to just the processing were it also not known that the M8 produces some of the least accurate color in town, call it the camera's signature.  I guess folks love it for the same reason some used to love tube amplifiers: distorted - but melodiously distorted - output.  Just don't expect accurate skin tones out of it, I thought. 

Then I saw your comment above.  Would you happen to have a raw file with a ColorChecker or similar target in it, shot as you suggest?  It's quite possible that the M8 was lousy in daylight because they optimized it for the studio.  It'd be fun to check that idea out.

Jack
Logged

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1482
  • me
    • working
Re: Fat Pixels
« Reply #28 on: February 05, 2018, 06:47:30 PM »

Love the pictures BC, the composition, the artistic color casts.  On this last point I couldn't help noticing that none of the images show 'real' colors (for example the whites are not white) and they all seem to have been shot with a color filter, producing beautiful results.  Of course this could be ascribed to just the processing were it also not known that the M8 produces some of the least accurate color in town, call it the camera's signature.  I guess folks love it for the same reason some used to love tube amplifiers: distorted - but melodiously distorted - output.  Just don't expect accurate skin tones out of it, I thought. 

Then I saw your comment above.  Would you happen to have a raw file with a ColorChecker or similar target in it, shot as you suggest?  It's quite possible that the M8 was lousy in daylight because they optimized it for the studio.  It'd be fun to check that idea out.


Jack

Thank you Jack.

Color is usually a matter of taste.  Personally, Iíve only shot one or two color charts in my life, because exact color is rarely exact and rarely interesting.

There seems to be thousands of online and in person seminars/instruction classes on still photography and film making.  Some are good, some well . . . but most tell you how to do something but donít tell you why.*

No matter what we shoot, I try to find the story.  One frame, 10,000 frames, I look for the why.   

Color, exposure, are just elements to support the story.  Below is part of a scene of a fictitious modern day Johnny Cash and June Carter in a Hollywood hotel prior to going on stage.

The warm color on the right side was because the room had a tungsten look, so we added arri Fresnels and the glass door on the left that had a blue look so we also accented that.   
We wanted a touch of reality, but also stylized.   In other words it's what I saw, but it needed help.  Whether we succeeded or not is up to the viewer.

Shot with a Leica S2


Working for clients are unique because they all come with a different mindset.  We just finished a series of commercials and videos where the Creative Director came from a still background.    Shot it, edited it and got some pushback on some of the clips.

In talking to the CD it hit me that he was not looking at the video in itís entirety as a story, but was going frame by frame viewing it as singular stills, so I did a second edit with shorter cuts and treated each frame as a still.   The story wasnít as cohesive, but you could click frame by frame and it made good stills.  It flew through approval quickly.  So moral of the story is regardless of our idea, or the creative brief, we work for people with all kinds of different expectations and if you donít meet those, it will never play.

Anyway if color is an issue, there is always one way to handle that, monotone.



IMO

BC


Jack Hogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 701
    • Hikes -more than strolls- with my dog
Re: Fat Pixels
« Reply #29 on: February 06, 2018, 03:48:03 AM »

Love it  :)
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6180
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Fat Pixels
« Reply #30 on: February 06, 2018, 03:53:34 AM »

Consumers don't want "accurate" skin tones, they want their own cultural values, eg. yellow-orange for white caucasians in the US, pale  skin in japan etc.

One can see the consumer colors well in output from low and medium-priced SLRs and of course iPhones, and these produce colors which everybody around the subject usually "likes". And of course there is the printers contribution to standardising skin colors in publications by typing in CMYK numbers regardless of the subject.

On the other hand, people like James are artists, not journeymen, and they get paid to make "edgy" artistic colors which look like nothing else, think of Picasso's skin tones during his blue period or Blade Runner. Maybe I - or you- consider the colors in James' images as "unnatural" but creating them is what he does for a living.

Now regarding the Leica M8, strangely enough, I made a lot of money selling hand-tuned profiles for it. Colorchecker DC shots after profiling were perfectly ok, as they should be. I recall it had a really good Kodak sensor, with good skin texture, but  it was necessary to take on-lens IR filtration into account, but after profiling skin color in C1 would be very nice for caucasians, and eye rendering exceptionally good.  There was a tendency to magenta on caucasian skin in some individuals which I had to hand-edit out of the profiles. Some of the people who bought the profiles were doing event stuff where one does see high-living males with a florid skin tone.

I think the reason no one ever complained about the skin-tone issues of the Kodak sensors is that they are less problematic on smooth sunburnt young faces, especially with makeup, and the drift towards magenta -when it occurs- can be quite endearing on larger expanses of body skin.

Edmund

Love the pictures BC, the composition, the artistic color casts.  On this last point I couldn't help noticing that none of the images show 'real' colors (for example the whites are not white) and they all seem to have been shot with a color filter, producing beautiful results.  Of course this could be ascribed to just the processing were it also not known that the M8 produces some of the least accurate color in town, call it the camera's signature.  I guess folks love it for the same reason some used to love tube amplifiers: distorted - but melodiously distorted - output.  Just don't expect accurate skin tones out of it, I thought. 

Then I saw your comment above.  Would you happen to have a raw file with a ColorChecker or similar target in it, shot as you suggest?  It's quite possible that the M8 was lousy in daylight because they optimized it for the studio.  It'd be fun to check that idea out.

Jack
« Last Edit: February 06, 2018, 07:05:48 AM by eronald »
Logged
My gallery on Instagram: https://instagram.com/edmundronald

yaya

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1235
    • http://yayapro.com
Re: Fat Pixels
« Reply #31 on: February 06, 2018, 10:00:02 AM »

This multimedia video was shot with an F3, mostly the 200 F2 at a high still frame rate, mixed with 5d2 footage.   I think this video got us more work than anything we ever produced.



IMO

BC

Watched this video many times and am liking it more and more every time!!!
Logged
Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Phase One - Cultural Heritage
e: [email protected] | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | yaya's blog

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1482
  • me
    • working
Re: Fat Pixels
« Reply #32 on: February 06, 2018, 10:44:35 PM »

Watched this video many times and am liking it more and more every time!!!

Thanks Yair,

It's interesting that clients love the look and I don't think they know that most of the footage  are stills cut frame motion, though it works best in gritty earthy creative briefs and most want the look in new glass and chrome locations.

I did this before the release of mad max fury road, which most don't know but George Miller spent 5 or 6 years in post production and few takes were over 15fps.   Once again, gritty and earthy.

Edmund,

Thanks for the kind words.

All the best to all.

BC
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up