Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: PMA round up  (Read 41667 times)

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10321
PMA round up
« Reply #60 on: February 14, 2008, 09:51:40 am »

Quote
Ray, really, what is in this for me? I'm starting to feel sorry for you, you've never even shot a digital back. I have shot both on a regular basis, I work for and have worked for most of the major magazines between New York and London, I'm represented by a major Chelsea gallery. I keep myself anonymous because a google search on my name would otherwise come up with every technical problem I've ever had, not exactly what you want a client to see.

Really, it takes a good eye to tell the difference, if you can't tell the difference then I have to question how good of an eye you have. If you see the difference and decide that you prefer a DSLR for whatever reason that may be then that is fine, I totally understand. But to not see the difference is quite telling. (Unfortunately the difference is more a question of tonality and feel rather than a simple pixel peeping phenomenon  so you do need a good eye to see it).
I'm done trying to educate you from a position of experience, maybe trying to was foolish of me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174814\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm truly amazed by this attitude. My mind boggles at such irrationality. Not only does it take a good eye to discern any subtle difference between two images, whether it's a difference of resolution, tonality or hue, but most important of all, by far, it takes the presence of two images that contain such differences in order for the differences to be seen.

Where are the images? All the images I've seen so far purporting to show such differences are in my view, and the view of others, flawed examples; shots that have not been taken with due regard for FoV matching, DoF and appropriate processing of both images.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10321
PMA round up
« Reply #61 on: February 14, 2008, 10:03:05 am »

Quote
Ray, really, what is in this for me?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174814\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Woof75,
I really don't think there's anything in it for you. You're stuck with what's increasingly appearing to me to be a myth.
Logged

woof75

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 581
PMA round up
« Reply #62 on: February 14, 2008, 10:39:01 am »

Quote
Woof75,
I really don't think there's anything in it for you. You're stuck with what's increasingly appearing to me to be a myth.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174828\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What a dim view of humanity you must have Ray. I pity you.
Logged

Christopher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1499
    • http://www.hauser-photoart.com
PMA round up
« Reply #63 on: February 14, 2008, 10:49:22 am »

Quote
What a dim view of humanity you must have Ray. I pity you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174842\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You can talk as much as you want, but none of you have packed up your claims with an fair review between a P21 and a 1DsMk3. All these compared shots wich in your eyes should show the difference, were just bad one. Here I have to go with Ray has he said:

"All the images I've seen so far purporting to show such differences are in my view, and the view of others, flawed examples; shots that have not been taken with due regard for FoV matching, DoF and appropriate processing of both images."

And before you start flaming again, yes I have used a P30 and yes it is quite better, BUT nobody is talking about a P30 or 45 we are talking about a P21.... So where are all these benefites ?
Logged
Christopher Hauser
[email=chris@hauser-p

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10321
PMA round up
« Reply #64 on: February 14, 2008, 11:00:55 am »

Well, thanks Christopher. It's good to know there are other rational people around  
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10321
PMA round up
« Reply #65 on: February 14, 2008, 11:06:01 am »

Quote
What a dim view of humanity you must have Ray. I pity you.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Woof75,
This has certainly been an interesting thread for me. Thanks at least for providing such a good example of an ad hominem attack. It would be a shame if such a long thread as this had no educational value.

[a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem[/url]
Logged

samuel_js

  • Guest
PMA round up
« Reply #66 on: February 14, 2008, 11:57:47 am »

Quote
And before you start flaming again, yes I have used a P30 and yes it is quite better, BUT nobody is talking about a P30 or 45 we are talking about a P21.... So where are all these benefites ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174844\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is a clear proof of inexperience in MFDB. The only reason someone choose a p30 over a p21 is the final print size, cropping choices, etc... Image quality, color, DR, etc... is equally superior to any 35mm.
You are still not getting it, and you won't, because you don't work with these tools.
Logged

Christopher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1499
    • http://www.hauser-photoart.com
PMA round up
« Reply #67 on: February 14, 2008, 12:40:25 pm »

Quote
This is a clear proof of inexperience in MFDB. The only reason someone choose a p30 over a p21 is the final print size, cropping choices, etc... Image quality, color, DR, etc... is equally superior to any 35mm.
You are still not getting it, and you won't, because you don't work with these tools.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174857\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And you still haven't given me one single example to prove your point.
Logged
Christopher Hauser
[email=chris@hauser-p

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
PMA round up
« Reply #68 on: February 14, 2008, 12:52:15 pm »

Quote
This is a clear proof of inexperience in MFDB. The only reason someone choose a p30 over a p21 is the final print size, cropping choices, etc... Image quality, color, DR, etc... is equally superior to any 35mm.
You are still not getting it, and you won't, because you don't work with these tools.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174857\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I thought they weren't getting it, and won't, because no one has actually shown proof that it is better?  Ray is asking for proof.  If you aren't going to produce said proof then you probably don't want to feed this thread.  (Ignoring whether or not you could produce it if you had the time and inclination.)

I do applaud your effort in this regard (and it shows enough for me personally) but it was clearly too flawed to really be proof.

All that said.   What proof is Ray actually looking for?  Printed proof?  400% differences?  And what is the standard for the differences?  I don't see any significant difference between FF and crop but Ray does.  (I clearly print much smaller than Ray.)  I can see a difference between FF and MFDB but Ray doesn't consider them significant.  So...  ???
Logged

woof75

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 581
PMA round up
« Reply #69 on: February 14, 2008, 12:52:26 pm »

Quote
And you still haven't given me one single example to prove your point.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174865\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Christopher are you saying that there is a difference between a P30 and a P21 except resolution?
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
PMA round up
« Reply #70 on: February 14, 2008, 01:43:30 pm »

Quote
Ray, really, what is in this for me? I'm starting to feel sorry for you, you've never even shot a digital back. I have shot both on a regular basis, I work for and have worked for most of the major magazines between New York and London, I'm represented by a major Chelsea gallery. I keep myself anonymous because a google search on my name would otherwise come up with every technical problem I've ever had, not exactly what you want a client to see.

Really, it takes a good eye to tell the difference, if you can't tell the difference then I have to question how good of an eye you have. If you see the difference and decide that you prefer a DSLR for whatever reason that may be then that is fine, I totally understand. But to not see the difference is quite telling. (Unfortunately the difference is more a question of tonality and feel rather than a simple pixel peeping phenomenon  so you do need a good eye to see it).
I'm done trying to educate you from a position of experience, maybe trying to was foolish of me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174814\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Woof75

I have never owned nor even tried an MF back and at my stage of the game it is very unlikely that I ever will. Like Ray, retirement is a way of life - not necessarily a particularly welcome one,  but that┤s how photography goes; when you┤re hot you┤re hot and when you┤re not you┤re not. There is not a lot in photography to encourage one to work at lower levels than one has experienced in the past, so a fond farewell is often the best way of getting out with some dignity...

But the point is this: when I was working my ass off I did change from Hasselblad to Bronica 67 and that was a disaster induced by stock considerations. Having ditched that Bronica nightmare I went back to a totally Nikon armoury for a few years and then made the error of allowing myself to think 67 again to the extent that I bought into Pentax 67. You guessed: another mistake. In effect, none of those 67 systems was as convenient as was the 66 nor were the results better.

And that┤s one big point that Ray was making: whether you throw away film acreage or dump pixels, the result is the same in that your original starting point has been savaged and the assumptions based on original size become flawed.

But, if you work with either 35mm film or, for that matter, 35mm-based digital slr cameras, you do develop a style very much based on using the full frame, in which case, using the full small format does equate with cropping a larger sensor, as you will have to do, to suit most page shapes.

Now, you say you have worked with a great number of publications between NY and London - (the Atlantis Sunday Times, perhaps - just a joke, no offence), and you will probably admit from that experience that few publications run square pics very often, so the oblong comes into its own. You also say you have gallery representation. Fine, but from what I have personally seen, that is no guarantee of photographic ability, usually it turns out to be something very different that gets photographers onto gallery walls, but we need not get into that pile of manure right now. But, if we must talk gallery, then the square Hasselblad does have its place if only for the cute little V-cuts on the left-hand margin of the printed rebate which seem to be part of the magic potion that opens doors.

However, isn┤t it frustrating that on an A3+ it┤s the 35mm slr type of camera that can produce the bigger untrimmed image!

So where do I stand on all of this? On the side of free choice: use whatever turns you on but please, don┤t let any one of us take it personally enough to get pissed of with fellow scribblers; we are mostly here to share bits of knowledge, experience and even perhaps just to fill in otherwise empty time. Got to say, when I was working, finding time for VAT returns, income tax returns or even sending out invoices was pushing things hard; chat-shows like this one would never have stood a chance!

So stand back, take a deep breath and leave it to the doggies to worry the ends of the same bone!

Ciao - Rob C

samuel_js

  • Guest
PMA round up
« Reply #71 on: February 14, 2008, 01:57:17 pm »

Quote
And you still haven't given me one single example to prove your point.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174865\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You know, we don't need to give you proof or examples of anything. I have thousands off DB and 35mm digital files in my hard drive that it took myself with my own hands. If you think you'll get an idea of what a DB can do looking at some jpgs you're very wrong about how proffs work and how we test and use our stuff.
Don't worry if you don't see any difference. It's nothing wrong with your eyes. It's simply that other people's vision could be better than yours.
Logged

woof75

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 581
PMA round up
« Reply #72 on: February 14, 2008, 02:26:21 pm »

Quote
Woof75

I have never owned nor even tried an MF back and at my stage of the game it is very unlikely that I ever will. Like Ray, retirement is a way of life - not necessarily a particularly welcome one,  but that┤s how photography goes; when you┤re hot you┤re hot and when you┤re not you┤re not. There is not a lot in photography to encourage one to work at lower levels than one has experienced in the past, so a fond farewell is often the best way of getting out with some dignity...

But the point is this: when I was working my ass off I did change from Hasselblad to Bronica 67 and that was a disaster induced by stock considerations. Having ditched that Bronica nightmare I went back to a totally Nikon armoury for a few years and then made the error of allowing myself to think 67 again to the extent that I bought into Pentax 67. You guessed: another mistake. In effect, none of those 67 systems was as convenient as was the 66 nor were the results better.

And that┤s one big point that Ray was making: whether you throw away film acreage or dump pixels, the result is the same in that your original starting point has been savaged and the assumptions based on original size become flawed.

But, if you work with either 35mm film or, for that matter, 35mm-based digital slr cameras, you do develop a style very much based on using the full frame, in which case, using the full small format does equate with cropping a larger sensor, as you will have to do, to suit most page shapes.

Now, you say you have worked with a great number of publications between NY and London - (the Atlantis Sunday Times, perhaps - just a joke, no offence), and you will probably admit from that experience that few publications run square pics very often, so the oblong comes into its own. You also say you have gallery representation. Fine, but from what I have personally seen, that is no guarantee of photographic ability, usually it turns out to be something very different that gets photographers onto gallery walls, but we need not get into that pile of manure right now. But, if we must talk gallery, then the square Hasselblad does have its place if only for the cute little V-cuts on the left-hand margin of the printed rebate which seem to be part of the magic potion that opens doors.

However, isn┤t it frustrating that on an A3+ it┤s the 35mm slr type of camera that can produce the bigger untrimmed image!

So where do I stand on all of this? On the side of free choice: use whatever turns you on but please, don┤t let any one of us take it personally enough to get pissed of with fellow scribblers; we are mostly here to share bits of knowledge, experience and even perhaps just to fill in otherwise empty time. Got to say, when I was working, finding time for VAT returns, income tax returns or even sending out invoices was pushing things hard; chat-shows like this one would never have stood a chance!

So stand back, take a deep breath and leave it to the doggies to worry the ends of the same bone!

Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174885\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Rob, I have no idea what your point is, if it is that all formats have an advantage and a disadvantage then I agree as I have stated before. Also I do take it personally, I am being accused of using something out of some sort of strange self delusion rather than experience and a good eye.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10321
PMA round up
« Reply #73 on: February 14, 2008, 06:04:01 pm »

Quote
Rob, I have no idea what your point is, if it is that all formats have an advantage and a disadvantage then I agree as I have stated before. Also I do take it personally, I am being accused of using something out of some sort of strange self delusion rather than experience and a good eye.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174897\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Why you should take this personally beats me. I don't know you. You don't know me. You've also disguised yourself so your clients don't know you on this forum, probably a wise thing to do because any of your clients coming across this thread  might wonder, as I do, why you are so reluctant to demonstrate the quality differences you see between a 1Ds3 and a P21.

I could be wrong, but I get a sense of a cover-up going on here. Could the reason you can't provide a couple of RAW images demonstrating such differences be due to the fact that you don't have a 1Ds3 and have never done a comparison using a 1Ds3? Or perhaps the reason is, you know such differences are small and are worried that anyone with good photoshop skills would be able to easily impart to the 1Ds3 image those very qualities which you think are inherently imbedded in the P21 file.
Logged

woof75

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 581
PMA round up
« Reply #74 on: February 14, 2008, 06:09:19 pm »

Quote
Why you should take this personally beats me. I don't know you. You don't know me. You've also disguised yourself so your clients don't know you on this forum, probably a wise thing to do because any of your clients coming across this thread  might wonder, as I do, why you are so reluctant to demonstrate the quality differences you see between a 1Ds3 and a P21.

I could be wrong, but I get a sense of a cover-up going on here. Could the reason you can't provide a couple of RAW images demonstrating such differences be due to the fact that you don't have a 1Ds3 and have never done a comparison using a 1Ds3? Or perhaps the reason is, you know such differences are small and are worried that anyone with good photoshop skills would be able to easily impart to the 1Ds3 image those very qualities which you think are inherently imbedded in the P21 file.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174923\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm not spending my valuable time shooting brick walls for you Ray, I ask you again, why do I use it if I can't see a quality difference, why does Mario Testino use one, why does Mert and Marcus use one, these are  some of the best eyes in the industry, any chance they are seeing something that the almighty Ray doesn't see. (or hasen't seen because he doesn't even own one)
Logged

samuel_js

  • Guest
PMA round up
« Reply #75 on: February 14, 2008, 06:19:26 pm »

Quote
Why you should take this personally beats me. I don't know you. You don't know me. You've also disguised yourself so your clients don't know you on this forum, probably a wise thing to do because any of your clients coming across this threadá might wonder, as I do, why you are so reluctant to demonstrate the quality differences you see between a 1Ds3 and a P21.

I could be wrong, but I get a sense of a cover-up going on here. Could the reason you can't provide a couple of RAW images demonstrating such differences be due to the fact that you don't have a 1Ds3 and have never done a comparison using a 1Ds3? Or perhaps the reason is, you know such differences are small and are worried that anyone with good photoshop skills would be able to easily impart to the 1Ds3 image those very qualities which you think are inherently imbedded in the P21 file.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174923\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, If the Canon 1Ds IV was 31 mp. Would you still compare it to a P30? I don't think so. The only thing you guys are looking at here is the pixel count.
If you look at the corners of any of my H2/35mm files compared to any canon file you would cry, I promise. Go and try to fix that in Photoshop.
You guys need a bit of actual real life experience to know how good a system is. There's a lot of factors to measure. But the truth is that real photographers doesn't spend their time with those test. The experience and every day work will show you the best system.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2008, 06:23:14 pm by samuel_js »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10321
PMA round up
« Reply #76 on: February 14, 2008, 06:38:39 pm »

Quote
You know, we don't need to give you proof or examples of anything. I have thousands off DB and 35mm digital files in my hard drive that it took myself with my own hands. If you think you'll get an idea of what a DB can do looking at some jpgs you're very wrong about how proffs work and how we test and use our stuff.
Don't worry if you don't see any difference. It's nothing wrong with your eyes. It's simply that other people's vision could be better than yours.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174889\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's the RAW files we want, Samuel. Even maximum quality jpeg crops would leave too many doubts because such images can be processed for almost any 'look' you want.

Once again, threads like this have arisen because of the existence of the 21mp 1Ds3 which, when cropped to the same aspect ratio as the P21, has a very similar pixel count. You might have thousands of digital 35mm files on your hard drive, but are any of them from the 1Ds3?

As far as I know, the pixel count of DBs has always been ahead of 35mm sensors. 6mp DBs were available when the maximum for cropped 35mm was 3mp. At the time of the 11mp 1Ds we had 16mp DBs. The argument that it's not about pixel count also seems suspect to me. We all know that a large image file downsampled to a smaller size can result in subtle improvements in image quality such as lower noise and greater accutance.

Of course you don't need to provide any proof substantiating your claims. You don't need to and it looks as though you are not going to. It just seems to me a rather imperious and arrogant attitude to have, but it's your call.
Logged

samuel_js

  • Guest
PMA round up
« Reply #77 on: February 14, 2008, 06:45:09 pm »

Quote
It's the RAW files we want, Samuel. Even maximum quality jpeg crops would leave too many doubts because such images can be processed for almost any 'look' you want.

Once again, threads like this have arisen because of the existence of the 21mp 1Ds3 which, when cropped to the same aspect ratio as the P21, has a very similar pixel count. You might have thousands of digital 35mm files on your hard drive, but are any of them from the 1Ds3?

As far as I know, the pixel count of DBs has always been ahead of 35mm sensors. 6mp DBs were available when the maximum for cropped 35mm was 3mp. At the time of the 11mp 1Ds we had 16mp DBs. The argument that it's not about pixel count also seems suspect to me. We all know that a large image file downsampled to a smaller size can result in subtle improvements in image quality such as lower noise and greater accutance.

Of course you don't need to provide any proof substantiating your claims. You don't need to and it looks as though you are not going to. It just seems to me a rather imperious and arrogant attitude to have, but it's your call.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174930\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Your problem is that you think the 1DS III is better than the MarkII or de mark I or closer to the p21 because of the pixel count. Wrong, the quality is the same but with more resolution. That's all. Again, there's other factors to look at.
I'm done now really. No need for me to continue with this. Just use the better for your needs.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2008, 06:46:45 pm by samuel_js »
Logged

Streetshooter

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 134
PMA round up
« Reply #78 on: February 14, 2008, 06:48:58 pm »

Quote
It's the RAW files we want, Samuel. Even maximum quality jpeg crops would leave too many doubts because such images can be processed for almost any 'look' you want.

Once again, threads like this have arisen because of the existence of the 21mp 1Ds3 which, when cropped to the same aspect ratio as the P21, has a very similar pixel count. You might have thousands of digital 35mm files on your hard drive, but are any of them from the 1Ds3?

As far as I know, the pixel count of DBs has always been ahead of 35mm sensors. 6mp DBs were available when the maximum for cropped 35mm was 3mp. At the time of the 11mp 1Ds we had 16mp DBs. The argument that it's not about pixel count also seems suspect to me. We all know that a large image file downsampled to a smaller size can result in subtle improvements in image quality such as lower noise and greater accutance.

Of course you don't need to provide any proof substantiating your claims. You don't need to and it looks as though you are not going to. It just seems to me a rather imperious and arrogant attitude to have, but it's your call.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174930\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A suggestion Ray.  Instead of disbelieving everybody else on this forum, why don't you hire the gear yourself, do a comparison test to your standard and post it here for all to see.

Now that would be interesting....


Pete
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10321
PMA round up
« Reply #79 on: February 14, 2008, 07:25:11 pm »

Quote
A suggestion Ray.  Instead of disbelieving everybody else on this forum, why don't you hire the gear yourself, do a comparison test to your standard and post it here for all to see.

Now that would be interesting....
Pete
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174933\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It would be interesting but I suspect you know already why I haven't done this. I don't have the equipment and I can't hire the equipment. Photographic hire places in Brisbane don't seem to carry the latest equipment.

What gives you the impression I'm disbelieving everyone on the forum? I'm not the only one who thinks the image quality differences between a 1Ds3 and P21 are likely to be very small and inconsequential.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Up