New to site and DMF... Just in time with H5D ! Help Please.

[FredBGG]

You could have saved us 7 pages of (mostly) pointless debating...

You may try to dismiss all the discussion as pointless debating, but it isn't.

The OP for one found it very interesting and helped Nicky make a decision.

The truth of the matter is that it does not take much today with the products available to
show someone that they don't necessarily need MFD and that the investment is no longer necessary.
One just has to put the pictures side by side. What makes these discussions so effective
is that a picture is worth a 1,000 words.
A side by side comparison puts straight all the marketing and the BS that goes with it.

While the worlds biggest companies pay very close attention to blogs, forums and discussion
you prefer to just call it pointless discussion...... that is not an indication of being with the times.

[FredBGG]

......

The fourth reason is, we've seen a huge uptick in post production requirements, with additional layers, backgrounds and effects.  In my opinion the mfd files just hold up better and work deeper.  Many here will argue that point but though I can respect their opinion, all I have to go on is my personal experience.

......

You bring up and interesting point. I shot for many years with Canon's and you are right that MFD files from phase and Hasselblad were more robust.
However the D800 sensor is a game changer. The files are far different to what I get out of my Canons. Regarding post work I am getting better green screen stills for example.

I would not go as far to say that D800 could replace your Contax/MFDB combo, but you would get more of what you get out of that combo in your 35mm DSLR work where you decide to use 35mm DSLR or mobility and speed. That said I worked on some Canon 1DX files and they were a notch above other Canon files. Significantly better high midtone to shadow transitions on skin.

[TMARK]

This is only partially relevant to the discussion, but, here goes.  I am having a hard time with the D800 color, especially in mixed light, with caucasian skin.  It can usually be fixed in PS with a few layers.  However, each image, under almost identical natural light, requires different adjustments.  When shooting objects outside, the color is OK, needs some separation and desat in the yellows and reds, but really an easy fix in C1.

I went back through the Drobos and pulled a bunch of old files from various backs.  Pushed through C1, the D800e files are on par with the Aptus 75s, 54s, P30+, when shooting under natural light.  The backs look better color wise with Caucasian skin.  This is of course without much post after its a TIFF.  I suspect this is down to the profiles.

So, you D800 guys and gals, what profiles and raw converters are you using?  The C1 profile is not working for me.  Creating my own profile wasn't working for me either.  I tried TIFF Neutral and DNG Neutral and frankly, its a much better starting place that the Digital Elf consumer colors from the D800 Generic Profile.  Now that I think about it, when DS2 came out, it was awful.  Later profiles were much better, much less time in post.

I've had some very good results, like scanned negative film, from this camera, but not of people, and not without extensive post.  In fact, the time I spend on a D800 file of a caucasian isn't much less than I would spend scanning film.  Any suggestions are welcome and please no holy war.

[FredBGG]

This is only partially relevant to the discussion, but, here goes.  I am having a hard time with the D800 color, especially in mixed light, with caucasian skin.  It can usually be fixed in PS with a few layers.  However, each image, under almost identical natural light, requires different adjustments.  When shooting objects outside, the color is OK, needs some separation and desat in the yellows and reds, but really an easy fix in C1.

I went back through the Drobos and pulled a bunch of old files from various backs.  Pushed through C1, the D800e files are on par with the Aptus 75s, 54s, P30+, when shooting under natural light.  The backs look better color wise with Caucasian skin.  This is of course without much post after its a TIFF.  I suspect this is down to the profiles.

So, you D800 guys and gals, what profiles and raw converters are you using?  The C1 profile is not working for me.  Creating my own profile wasn't working for me either.  I tried TIFF Neutral and DNG Neutral and frankly, its a much better starting place that the Digital Elf consumer colors from the D800 Generic Profile.  Now that I think about it, when DS2 came out, it was awful.  Later profiles were much better, much less time in post.

I've had some very good results, like scanned negative film, from this camera, but not of people, and not without extensive post.  In fact, the time I spend on a D800 file of a caucasian isn't much less than I would spend scanning film.  Any suggestions are welcome and please no holy war.

Have you tried using a UV/IR block filter.
I find it improves skin rendition when shooting with hot lights and hot lights/strobe.
However I found that this helps with digital backs too.
I also find that it helps make skin makeup look more like it does to the naked eye.

Hot lights and flash can do really weird stuff to makup, even very light makeup.
I've seen some strange results on red carpets and runway.
Video looks perfect... stills show strange effects on powder at times.

Can you post and example showing the problem you have. Skin tones are very subjective. Better to see what you mean.
I always use camera neutral profiles.

[yaya]

a picture is worth a 1,000 words

+1

While the worlds biggest companies pay very close attention to blogs, forums and discussion
you prefer to just call it pointless discussion...... that is not an indication of being with the times.

Not seen any big camera companies here lately...

You bring up and interesting point. I shot for many years with Canon's and you are right that MFD files from phase and Hasselblad were more robust.

Just 10 posts earlier you called it "Typical marketing BS"...

[TMARK]

I'll post some samples.  I have do kid stuff this afternoon.

T

[EricWHiss]

Thirdly, as I've mentioned we have found ways to shoot up to 800 iso on our backs, kill noise and still keep detail.

Bcooter, I'm really interested in this - could you share a little on the shooting MFDB at higher ISO?  Is that a lighting/exposure technique or some kind of post work or noise software?

I am having a hard time with the D800 color, especially in mixed light, with caucasian skin. 

TMARK,  That's my experience too.  One of the biggest differences between Aptus 12 and D800E that I saw was color.  Different colors but also flatter or more homogenous on the D800E.  I also used C1 and they only have the one color profile.  We shot in studio with profoto strobes.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

One aspect does not preclude another, IMHO ;-)

Erik

Pretty much par for the course. A preoccupation with image qualities rather than quality images.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Let's put it this way, I try to be a polite person, so I refrain to comment on some images I see. I wouldn't say that my images are worthwhile, I hope some are but I'm not the person to judge.

I certainly don't produce images like BC, I'm much impressed by the samples he shows.

As a side note, I actually don't think that equipment matters that much. My view is simply that most equipment is good enough.Sure enough, better equipment in knowledgeable hands can make for superior results. Most folks have limited amount to spend, so buying decent stuff at reasonable price may be important.

I'm most thankful for your contributions to these forums. They used to be good ones served with a slice of humor.

Best regards
Erik

Agreed, but on reading these threads one could be forgiven for thinking it does ;-)

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

It seems that TMARK found out that it is a profile issue in C1. The problem goes away in LR 4.2, but the results are bit flat.

There are some indications that the problem may be caused by a weak IR filter on the Nikon. Marc McCalmont has some indications about that.

You recall we discussed the test shots by Alex Koskolov? I checked out his color checker shots and found that the Hassy shot was significantly more saturated. Kicking up saturation about 7 units in LR 4.2 may make look the images more similar as far as I can recall.

Just to point out, with LR 4.2 default rendering both images were over saturated, but the Hasselblad image was more oversaturated.

Best regards
Erik

TMARK,  That's my experience too.  One of the biggest differences between Aptus 12 and D800E that I saw was color.  Different colors but also flatter or more homogenous on the D800E.  I also used C1 and they only have the one color profile.  We shot in studio with profoto strobes.

[Anders_HK]

In fact we edited our own video of the process from production stills, as I thought it was more stylized and showed a more positive view than the Phase One video.  

http://spotsinthebox.com/paris_prod2.mov/

Both are great videos, the P1 speaks more of the back...

Likewise good to take a refresher look on your website, much very respectful work, as I recall from a few years back.  

Respectfully, here are a few friendly questions then:

- why claim that the Cambo + Aptus 22 will offer a completely different aesthetic than the D800 + T/S lens when you have not shot with either of them?
- more generally speaking, why comment on DSLR image quality when you have not shot any since the Nikon D200... announced 7 years ago?
- why compared the cost of a MF system with one lens to that of a DSLR with several lenses?
- why claim that DSLRs have a shorter life span than MFDB when yourself have been using 3 different backs in the last 6 years (if my memory serves me well Mamiya ZD, Leaf 65 and now 12)?
- why call a D800 bulky when it is 1 full kg lighter and overall has the same size as the Afi you shoot with (but lenses are more compact)?

Leaf Afi: 2,180 kg (including standard lens), 157 x 112 x 78 without lens
http://www.cameracollection.net/leafafi-iispecification

Nikon D800: 1,185 kg (including standard lens), 146 x 123 x 81.5 without lens
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/spec.htm

Puh! See no point in being asked like this to defend my experience, learnings and suggestions... I made a suggestion, either you like it or not.

You are comparing a Rolleiflex Schneider Xenotar 80/2.8 PQS to a 50mm Nikon lens??? FWIW I had both 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 during my SLR days and found them unimpressive. The 80/2.8 Xenotar on other hand is sharp wide open and with a wonderful character, and is flat the best lens I have ever owned. So you compare your Toyota to my BMW... Also weight wise you hold the cameras different and D800 may also include MB and a heavy zoom lens. Albeit if we compare D800 + 24 tilt/shift, the Cambo RS400 is the likely the lesser weight... And your point? Mine: MFDB is not as heavy as most people think.

Regards to my change of MFDBs. Is this relevant??? Here;
1. ZD had faulty design and was a clear no go.
2. Aptus 65 was stellar, 3.5+ years
3. AFi-II 12 was much change of camera system when selling off nearly all of five systems and stepping from a low end to a high end back (financed by selling gear). In combo with changing mount due I was fed up with issues with Mamiya AFDIII system.
James Russel still uses his P30+. Why should I as amateur not be content with the 80MP for at least 6 years when I find it as capable as I do in regards to colors and fine gradation of tones and more?

Now I have replied a number of your questions which I frank did not find worthwhile. Can we politely be content and leave it at that?



Allow me also point out regarding above image, that - at least to my eyes - I do not like the colors and there is something in the character of the image quality I find lacking compared to what MFDB is capable. That is per my experience from ZD, Aptus 65 and AFi-II 12. Yes, your image have shallow DOF, but there is something that makes it still look DSLR like to my eye. It is nothing wrong with it, simply I personally value the file quality in pictures from larger formats. Part are the Dalsa sensors of MFDBs - which I like, parts also the different formats etc. Like BC says you can also really push MFDB files, and that is even more true for the latest backs. You may not agree, which is alright since I understand you are happy with your tool.  .

@ Fred,

Nice try  , SLR contain single lens + mirror + prism. My Hy6 have WLF, no prism.  

The truth of the matter is that it does not take much today with the products available to
show someone that they don't necessarily need MFD and that the investment is no longer necessary.
One just has to put the pictures side by side.

Perhaps you do not value the differences, which is fine. Let me put it in another way, you value your Fuji. What is wrong then with letting talented photographers in digital step into MFDB then? They too may wish to use a tool they find equally more impressive in digital.

Notably my experience is that there is plain no marketing BS from any MFDB companies, compared to for DSLRs. Heck general public appear of mind that Nikon and Canon equals that you have a camera that can take good pictures, per marketing BS. In contrast in all my dealings with MFDB I really do not feel I have felt sold anything more than informed correctly. Instead I have been given chance to demo and use equipment to see with my own eyes if it was for me and worthwhile for me. Politely speaking what you constant write against MFDB makes no whatsoever sense, is wrong and is very misleading to many people.


Best regards,
Anders

[EricWHiss]

Hi,

It seems that TMARK found out that it is a profile issue in C1. The problem goes away in LR 4.2, but the results are bit flat.

There are some indications that the problem may be caused by a weak IR filter on the Nikon. Marc McCalmont has some indications about that.

You recall we discussed the test shots by Alex Koskolov? I checked out his color checker shots and found that the Hassy shot was significantly more saturated. Kicking up saturation about 7 units in LR 4.2 may make look the images more similar as far as I can recall.

Just to point out, with LR 4.2 default rendering both images were over saturated, but the Hasselblad image was more oversaturated.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,
With all respect my comment and TMARK's had to do with skin color and not a color checker which is an entirely different thing.  

[ErikKaffehr]

Nice try Anders but you happen to be wrong. SLR means Single Lens Reflex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera#History

Admittedly most SLRs now days use pentaprism.

Best regards
Erik

Nice try  , SLR contain single lens + mirror + prism. My Hy6 have WLF, no prism.  

[TMARK]

It was the profile in C1. Using a DNG standard profile in C1 results in a neutral, somewhat desat file. LR 4.2, either Adobe Standard or Camera Neutral works well.  Why the D800 profile in C1 is so bad is beyond me. Maybe it is corrupt, because I don't remember it being SO off.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Eric,

Yes I am aware of that. But analyzing color rendition with the tools of the trade may help understanding some of the issues. I'm very much aware that human vision system can recognize several million colors and the color checker has just 24, but if you cannot reproduce those 24 you won't be able to reproduce the remaining million colors either.

I'd also say that the CC tells us how much each raw converter oversaturates on each camera.

The over saturation is intentional. Correct reproduction of color is boring. So it is quite normal that both saturation and midtones are pushed a bit when rendering raw files. I'm a bit surprised that color saturation differs between Hasselblad and Nikon so much in LR, I would expected saturation to be the same.

As far as I understand you are doing a lot repro work, and I presume that keeping colors correct is important for your work. I assume that you use different saturation settings on repro and landscape?

Best regards
Erik

Erik,
With all respect my comment and TMARK's had to do with skin color and not a color checker which is an entirely different thing.  

[FredBGG]

@ Fred,

Nice try  , SLR contain single lens + mirror + prism. My Hy6 have WLF, no prism.  


Best regards,
Anders

Before you shoot your mouth off you might want to do some research.

You could start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolleiflex

Rollie made many TLR and SLR cameras. Most without a prism.

You might also want to look here too:

http://www.dhw-fototechnik.de/rolleiflex-slr.html

While you claim your camera is not an SLR, the manufacturer says it is...... 

[FredBGG]

You bring up and interesting point. I shot for many years with Canon's and you are right that MFD files from phase and Hasselblad were more robust.

+1Not seen any big camera companies here lately...Just 10 posts earlier you called it "Typical marketing BS"...

I was referring to the monologue about how the photographer says he does everything to see if he can break a camera and that he could not break
or get a Phase One to freeze or fail. We all know the DF has issues. But for Yaya's sake I'll be more precise in the future.

I'd file that video under Fiction along with quite a few others from Phase One.

Like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91KqEfi23FU&feature=youtu.be

The video shows a Phase One guy shooting moving action with strobe and WIDE OPEN
with fast focus. Yet the very manual of that cameras states that you need to shoot at f8 in order to achieve focus
with fast focus.

From page 99 of the pdf manual.

C-19 AF Priority [AF_2]
Accuracy of auto-focusing priority (default setting) or speed priority can be
decided.
0: Speed
(Aperture to f/ 8 is recommended when using this function.)[/quore]



The claims of faster focusing are somewhat over rated.
buried deep in the manual it states that the faster focusing setting is only accurate enough at f8 or more.
No mention of that in there video plugging their new focusing.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I looked at the video.

It's an obvious advantage of leaf shutters that you can use flash to balance daylight.

Regarding focusing, stopping down doesn't help focus, it just masks defocus.

A you tube video will not demonstrate sharpness, anyway.

Best regards
Erik

I was referring to the monologue about how the photographer says he does everything to see if he can break a camera and that he could not break
or get a Phase One to freeze or fail. We all know the DF has issues. But for Yaya's sake I'll be more precise in the future.

I'd file that video under Fiction along with quite a few others from Phase One.

Like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91KqEfi23FU&feature=youtu.be

The video shows a Phase One guy shooting moving action with strobe and WIDE OPEN
with fast focus. Yet the very manual of that cameras states that you need to shoot at f8 in order to achieve focus
with fast focus.

From page 99 of the pdf manual.

C-19 AF Priority [AF_2]
Accuracy of auto-focusing priority (default setting) or speed priority can be
decided.
0: Speed
(Aperture to f/ 8 is recommended when using this function.)[/quore]



The claims of faster focusing are somewhat over rated.
buried deep in the manual it states that the faster focusing setting is only accurate enough at f8 or more.
No mention of that in there video plugging their new focusing.

[yaya]

I was referring to the monologue about how the photographer says he does everything to see if he can break a camera and that he could not break
or get a Phase One to freeze or fail. We all know the DF has issues. But for Yaya's sake I'll be more precise in the future.

I'd file that video under Fiction along with quite a few others from Phase One.

FWIW BC shoots Contax and in the video he talks about his Phase backs. But as usual you found a way to turn it around...
Where would you file your Tamrac video?

[Anders_HK]

Nice try Anders but you happen to be wrong. SLR means Single Lens Reflex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera#History

Admittedly most SLRs now days use pentaprism.

Best regards
Erik

Before you shoot your mouth off you might want to do some research.

You could start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolleiflex

Rollie made many TLR and SLR cameras. Most without a prism.

You might also want to look here too:

http://www.dhw-fototechnik.de/rolleiflex-slr.html

While you claim your camera is not an SLR, the manufacturer says it is......  

Not quite... better to say "tad muddy waters" ... Admittedly Hy6, Hassy H, Mamiya DF are all SLR type cameras but not quite SLRs...  by same Wikipedia "A single-lens reflex (SLR) camera is a camera that typically uses a mirror and prism system (hence "reflex", from the mirror's reflection) that permits the photographer to view through the lens and hence see exactly what will be captured". By that definition, with WLF gets muddier... but still SLR type... though not an SLR...

More common used the term refers to a mirror prism camera by the 35mm system, and a DSLR refers to such digital version. No idea what then the Sony A99 should accurate be called to confuse  ..., and water gets muddier or clearer with the Leica S and Mamiya ZD camera which are DSLR form factor but larger formats.