Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 11   Go Down

Author Topic: Canon vs Phase  (Read 70715 times)

ronno

  • Guest
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #120 on: September 23, 2007, 12:25:52 pm »

Quote
I do wonder sometimes, with the established guys, who've gotten their look down, with their film, if they are now getting pressured to shoot tethered, by clients.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141413\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It seems that for the most part, ADs are not comfortable asking someone, especially those they consider to be masters (say, Steven Klein or Craig McDean-- both of whom I hear still use film...) to change his/her tools just so they can see what's happening on a monitor.

As for me, now and then I consider pulling out an RZ, because I like the look of 6x7 FILM, but then I can't wrap my mind around going through an entire shoot without my beloved tethered monitor, and without knowing if I have the shot until "the film comes back." And then there's the scanning, and dusting, and....zzzzzz....

-ron
« Last Edit: September 23, 2007, 12:28:01 pm by ronno »
Logged

jonstewart

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 435
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #121 on: September 23, 2007, 12:36:51 pm »

Saw Ron Purdy's polaroids... very amusing.

Interested in your other comments as well! Thanks
« Last Edit: September 23, 2007, 12:38:25 pm by jonstewart »
Logged
Jon Stewart
 If only life were so simple.

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #122 on: September 23, 2007, 12:39:46 pm »

Quote
The body of Mark Tucker's work (stunning btw) is for the most part well suited to shooting with a DSLR.  While I'm sure Mark would make good use of a larger viewfinder, shorter/selective planes of focus and correction provided by medium format/technical cameras, I just don't see it as being an advantage for 90% of his work.
.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141411\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Interesting.

I would think 'soft lifestyle' is exactly where the bigger chip /smoother focus drop of MF shines !


---------

Incedentally on the filesize thing I was filling up at shell station today.

They had an image of a deisel le mans racer

By the pumps they had it cropped to a really thin upright

Also it was a a big landscape billboard (with less sky than the upright version)

So the upright used 1/5 of the frame and the L/S 2/3 thirds of it

I think that head to head at most resses the two formats can be faily equal but in a multiuse situation such as this a DSLR would be pushed

Whether it is bit depth filesize lack of filter or what the MF files seem to be able to take a virtually infinite battering in a way that current DSLR files cant - I dont think the III will change that

S
The image was of course probably shot on a canon rebel (!)
Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #123 on: September 23, 2007, 01:09:44 pm »

Quote
The only bias against digital cameras I have come across (working with art directors who have worked with Bergdorf Goodman, Vogue, etc., etc.) is that IT'S EITHER DIGITAL OR IT'S NOT. And for the one's who show bias for equipment, ANY digital is cutting corners. They do not give brownie points for the p45 or whatever. If you are shooting digital and you get good results, they are somewhat surprised -- because they have all seen some poor results in the past from digital. (Of course they have also seen poor results from film, but that's another story...)

Then they just don't know what they are talking about, but I agree it makes business sense to follow your client's prejudices. Fortunately I have not had a single client ask for film - there is only one drum scanning facility left in the whole country, and its days are numbered.

Quote
To them, FILM RULES -- even if it's low resolution and fuzzy like these polaroids I shot recently at the end of a digital shoot with a $40 Spectra camera - and which caused the art directors to drool with delight.

They are nice images, but you can always replicate this look from a digital original, and a million other looks you can't achieve with film. I guess they just don't get it, but my comment above stands. Some people never will get it, but they still have money to spend so you have to do what you have to do...
Logged

Kirk Gittings

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1561
    • http://www.KirkGittings.com
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #124 on: September 23, 2007, 01:14:16 pm »

Quote
I do wonder sometimes, with the established guys, who've gotten their look down, with their film, if they are now getting pressured to shoot tethered, by clients. Just because you can see it as you're shooting it.

Absolutely, but mainly from art directors at ad agencies. I actually encourage it. As shooting tethered in some ways is superior to Polaroids. Shooting interiors with a strobe/ daylight mix oftentimes ends up with a long ambient light exposure in conjunction with the flash. The long exposure reciprocity issues of color Polaroid throw the color way off to a bluish cyan. You can correct the color of the Polaroid, but why bother, as the film responds completely differently. That color shift in Polaroids confuses clients as they think the film will look the same way. We don't have this issue shooting tethered digital. So with film I quite shooing color Polaroid in favor of B&W. Deleting the color gives clients confidence in their eyes and what I tell them it will look like on film or .......shoot digital.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2007, 01:25:29 pm by Kirk Gittings »
Logged
Thanks,
Kirk Gittings

Craig Lamson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2422
    • Craig Lamson Photo Homepage
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #125 on: September 23, 2007, 02:33:49 pm »

Quote
Absolutely, but mainly from art directors at ad agencies. I actually encourage it. As shooting tethered in some ways is superior to Polaroids. Shooting interiors with a strobe/ daylight mix oftentimes ends up with a long ambient light exposure in conjunction with the flash. The long exposure reciprocity issues of color Polaroid throw the color way off to a bluish cyan. You can correct the color of the Polaroid, but why bother, as the film responds completely differently. That color shift in Polaroids confuses clients as they think the film will look the same way. We don't have this issue shooting tethered digital. So with film I quite shooing color Polaroid in favor of B&W. Deleting the color gives clients confidence in their eyes and what I tell them it will look like on film or .......shoot digital.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141425\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Forget art directors, I would not give up a monitor and go back to polariods for anything.  Remember how hard it was to check focus on a piece of 4x5 b/w polariod film?  No thanks.

I'm pretty lucky.  Thess days the art directors pretty much just let me do my thing.  They give me a layout to show size and shape and I fill it. What I find so great about working with a tethered camera is the ability to make small prop or lighting changes quickly...and to see the actual results...not some fuzzy polariod.  Downside...I make far more changes and as my wife/stylist says, after a certain point I'm not really making the image better, just different.  I quit much sooner when I was shooting film.
Logged
Craig Lamson Photo 

Kirk Gittings

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1561
    • http://www.KirkGittings.com
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #126 on: September 23, 2007, 03:12:15 pm »

Quote
I make far more changes and as my wife/stylist says..............

Dude, I love my wife, but.......I value my sanity.
Logged
Thanks,
Kirk Gittings

pss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 960
    • http://www.schefz.com
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #127 on: September 23, 2007, 03:54:15 pm »

Quote
Eric,

If you're shooting landscapes, why mess around with that sissy little, low-rez, P45+?

If you're any man at all, and all you care about is resolution, get out the Deardorff and get to work. You want tonal gradations? Shoot 8x10.

Follow the "continue" links on the page below. Three pages of 8x10. Your girly little P45+ can't hold a candle to this.

http://www.afterimagegallery.com/falke1.htm
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

...wow..those are some of the better landscapes i have seen lately...impressive....
and of course nothing beats 8x10.....i just want to shoot 8x10 for the polaroids.....
Logged

Craig Lamson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2422
    • Craig Lamson Photo Homepage
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #128 on: September 23, 2007, 05:01:40 pm »

Quote
Dude, I love my wife, but.......I value my sanity.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141444\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

LOL! We have been 24/7 for years.  I would not have it any other way.
Logged
Craig Lamson Photo 

nicolaasdb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 213
    • http://
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #129 on: September 23, 2007, 05:51:28 pm »

I hate my wife...but my photography would suck without her. Try to find a hair/makeup artist that can also styles your shoots. I don't have to pay her!! (big +) she works for food, shelter and a couple of babies!!! Okay and a nice car and jewelry etc.....snif I wish I could find someone as good as her....then I would maybe love her more and get my sanity back!! YES it sucks working with your wife!!! Unless she would be deaf and mute and would not have an opinion! BUT Always tell you you are great! you are the best....kind of like the 20 people assisting team of Karl Lagerfeld...he doesn't touch anything but the "trigger" in the end and everybody is applauding!!
« Last Edit: September 23, 2007, 05:54:46 pm by nicolaasdb »
Logged

marcmccalmont

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1780
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #130 on: September 23, 2007, 07:19:07 pm »

As an expert in loudspeaker design and room acoustics,

http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/194mach/

Johnathan is more right than wrong, his analogy is correct! When noise and distortion from the environment exceed the noise floor and distortion of your system what's the point? I've seen $80K systems in a $24K pickup = P45+ for a birthday party?

Marc McCalmont
MACH 1 Acoustics

PS I've learned more from Johnathans posts than most others, thanks.
Logged
Marc McCalmont

rainer_v

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1194
    • http://www.tangential.de
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #131 on: September 23, 2007, 07:29:48 pm »

Quote
Interested, and largely agree with the rest of what you said, but I think that you raise another issue about the quality of the L lenses, when put on a 1Ds III. I haven't read great reports about the 24TS lens for instance.

I'm waiting on some stuff coming, including a Mamiya-Canon shift adapter, and can't wait to try the Hartblei Super-rotator (45) and the Mam 45 shift and 50 shift on the 5D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141399\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes with the 45+90tse you can do this stitching stuff, not so, or not very usefull with the 24tse, cause so heavy distortion and also unsharp if shifted. that to an extent that you get bigger files but so bad resolution at the edges that its no fun.
i was doing long time what kirk is doing and you get very skilled if you work in this way. i shot for longer times also, mostly on the light source depending, digital 35mm or 4x5". i learned a lot and i cannot say that these works would not hold up any standard. shift and wa enses have been a big hassle with 35mm and i ended up with some specials, as a complete line of pentax 645 lenses from 35mm up with a zoerkendorf adapter,- these can be shifted with sharp results about 20mm in every direction. also i found the olympus 24mm pc lens the only one which is sharp if shifted and does not distort so much that it frightened me. found a more or less sharp sigma 12-24 .... and so on ( but i bought and sold nearly all WA and shift stuff which exists, including adapters for canon mount ). a good 35mm setup is ok to work for architecture also, if you learn to do it,- but it has its limits and one of these is that i would advice urgently to accompany this nice 35mm setup with 4x5" in case you need it, and you will need it probably or at least i did.

since 1,5 year i work now with mf with a ( in parts ) custom made camera and 22+33mp sensors.  this setup works great now,- and i have forgotten film and one of its advantages is that i can work digital only now,- still not with one set because the canon still is sometimes very usefull.
but if someone asks me if he should change to digital i am very carefull to advice him to go immediatelly to mf. i think the step of learning to use 35mm digitals at their limit will teach so much, that its not bad to do it before. there is no "must", and i cant repeat it often enough- i.m.o. the price of your equipment does not reflect the quality of the work and even less the quality of the photographic skills. much hype in this,- crazy times, crazy habbits.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2007, 07:43:57 pm by rainer_v »
Logged
rainer viertlböck
architecture photograp

rainer_v

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1194
    • http://www.tangential.de
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #132 on: September 23, 2007, 07:34:14 pm »

Quote
The higher resolution the sensor, the shallower the DOF and the more critical focus becomes (especially when viewing at 100%). Shooting tethered is a must in these situations, if you want to leave the location knowing you have the shot in the bag. Carry a laptop is really a small price for such an assurance.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141402\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
no problem with AP and focus check on the LCD, at least not with the sinar backs. no laptop required for this... really not. as eric i dont f*** up my jobs with un-focussed images. 100% check on the LCD ,thats all.
Logged
rainer viertlböck
architecture photograp

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #133 on: September 23, 2007, 08:39:27 pm »

Quote
in terms of the two systems I still think many miss the basic points - a canon wont go on a view camera, doesnt have 800th synch, has a bit less DR and has more DOF (at given apertureFOV etc) which can be seen as an advantage or not, anyone not pushed into MF by one of these factors should go canon
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140249\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I used a canon today with flash at 1/1600th of a sec. Seemed to work fine.    So one less advantage to MF.

But someone beat me to the post with the hammer/saw analogy. Simply use the most appropriate tool for the job in hand. No one camera is best at everything. A Canon will be better in some situations and a H3 will be better in others. Different cameras have different qualities, some people will see one camera's better feature as a design problem - less D.of F. in larger formats for instance.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2007, 09:23:11 pm by jjj »
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

jpjespersen

  • Guest
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #134 on: September 23, 2007, 09:38:22 pm »

Quote
I used a canon today with flash at 1/1600th of a sec. Seemed to work fine.    So one less advantage to MF.

But someone beat me to the post with the hammer/saw analogy. Simply use the most appropriate tool for the job in hand. No one camera is best at everything. A Canon will be better in some situations and a H3 will be better in others. Different cameras have different qualities, some people will see one camera's better feature as a design problem - less D.of F. in larger formats for instance.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141480\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The rollei Hy6 will have 1/500th flash sync ive been told.  So I guess it is a 1/3stop disadvantage to canon.  I agree with everything else you said.
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #135 on: September 23, 2007, 11:05:43 pm »

Quote
The rollei Hy6 will have 1/500th flash sync ive been told.  So I guess it is a 1/3stop disadvantage to canon.  I agree with everything else you said.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That was 1/1600th I shot at, not 1/600th of a second. So a bit more than a 1/3rd stop difference!  
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

jpjespersen

  • Guest
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #136 on: September 23, 2007, 11:17:24 pm »

Quote
That was 1/1600th I shot at, not 1/600th of a second. So a bit more than a 1/3rd stop difference! 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141495\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oh!  My mistake
Logged

thsinar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2066
    • http://www.sinarcameras.com
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #137 on: September 23, 2007, 11:31:49 pm »

NO, the Sinar Hy6 will sync at a 1/1000th

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote
The rollei Hy6 will have 1/500th flash sync ive been told.  So I guess it is a 1/3stop disadvantage to canon.  I agree with everything else you said.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #138 on: September 24, 2007, 01:07:20 am »

Quote
I used a canon today with flash at 1/1600th of a sec. Seemed to work fine.  [{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

How? what flashes

I thought it was.. 1/250

( [a href=\"http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos1dsmarkiii/page2.asp]http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos1...rkiii/page2.asp[/url] )

------

Another thought(s) . Cost.

My canon buddy when he gets the III will have spent how much? he has bought a 5d 1DS2 and 1DS3 in the time I have owned my sinar/H1 - about the same money as me - he does have redundancy/trade in power to be fair

(Touch wood) all his stuff has broken in this time too - mine has not

Redundancy. (having a spare)

Assuming 90% of failure is mechanical not electronic I can back up my H1 for £2000 - cost of a back up 1ds3=£6000

So a system with 90% redundncy  

MF £14000
Canon £12000
(+/-)

S
« Last Edit: September 24, 2007, 01:07:40 am by Morgan_Moore »
Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK

Dustbak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2430
    • Pepperanddust
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #139 on: September 24, 2007, 01:58:17 am »

Thas is FP sync speed (at least that is what Nikon calls it). It is a bit different than sync speed. This only works with the system flashes (not even all of them). It does not work with other (bigger) strobes of other brands. So its use it very limited.

Well, you can get something to work like that with a bit of tweaking but essentially it only works with the dedicated flash.

I agree with some here that learning to get the most from 35mm is very helpful and 35mm will get you very far. Further than most people probably realise and take it.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2007, 01:59:16 am by Dustbak »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 11   Go Up