I would like to understand the MF look.

[TMARK]

Especially in the reds and blues.  Its all Kodachrome. 

Indeed.

Not sure if it's true or not but I did hear that it was a conscious decision by Leica to model the profiles on the Kodachrome look.

[BJL]

I dunno for you your right for me, not.  I also drop a lot of files into a non linear editor and can usually see a big difference

bcooter,

    to repeat, I am not denying that you see a difference; I am only disagreeing with you claim about what _causes_ that difference.

You seem to keep missing these points:
1) There is a systematic difference in design features such as the color filter arrays between the MF backs (plus the Leica M9) on one hand and the 35mm format cameras on the other. This is related for one thing to the different makers (Kodak and Dalsa for MF, Sony and Canon for the other) and the priorities of their different target markets.
2) This difference in color filtering and the way it effects subsequent processing needs is far more likely to be the cause of the differences that you see than differences in the electronic details of the photo-sites themselves.


Take this tip from a professional scientist: do not change two factors between two groups of experiments and then try to attribute the change in results to one of those changes while ignoring the other.


Geeky aside: Most CCDs are CMOS devices these ways; the difference is how those different CMOS chips then handle the electric charges after those charges have been gathered in the photo-sites:
CCDs move the charges around;
active pixel CMOS sensors use voltage-based signal transfers and charge amplification.

[jerome_m]

bcooter,

    to repeat, I am not denying that you see a difference; I am only disagreeing with you claim about what _causes_ that difference.

If you read the following posts, bcooter saw a difference with files that proved later to come from the same camera.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I guess that it could happen to any of us. Personally, I find it very hard to tell MF and DSLR images apart, unless I am looking for a well known clue.

I posted some comparison shots here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/RealWorld/ and the hit rate was around 50%.

The answers are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/RealWorld/Answers.html

Best regards
Erik

If you read the following posts, bcooter saw a difference with files that proved later to come from the same camera.

[OliverM]

When I was a student, I failed to recognize white wine from red wine in a blind test (after 2 or 3 glasses).
Since then, I know there is no difference.

MF and DSLR is a different story, the following picture demonstrates the difference.
These guys with dslr were focused on technology while I was trying to manually focus my contax 120mm on the truly artistic but moving subject of the day ...

[Isaac]

So, members on this forum failed to recognize the "MF look" when presented with your 6 pictures. I think that sums up the utility of this thread.

We might learn some lesson from that failure, and that might be useful.

[Isaac]

Is inconsequential the right word (English not being my native language).

Probably not -- maybe you're thinking of incongruous or incoherent.

[OliverM]

Same event, 3 years, 3 cameras : Canon 5D2, Contax/Sinar 54, Nikon D3x
Possibly models don't shine so well with MF ...

[bcooter]

Probably not -- maybe you're thinking of incongruous or incoherent.

Let's go with incoherent.

Honestly, I can't tell what other people use.  To much goes on, the lighting the way I don't light, the processing the way I don't process, the moment they push the button.

S--t I've seen a cell phone image for a Jaguar outdoor board that was amazing.  The AD shot it while the photographer set up.

A 50cent image backed up with $18,000 in post........but it looked good.

Even being incoherent I know what I see in my work, really can't judge what anyone else sees. 


IMO

BC

[hjulenissen]

When I was a student, I failed to recognize white wine from red wine in a blind test (after 2 or 3 glasses).
Since then, I know there is no difference.

I assume that this is a humorous stab at blind tests?

No scientific effort can prove that wine taste the same. Nor that homeopathy is a hoax.

H

[bcooter]

If you read the following posts, bcooter saw a difference with files that proved later to come from the same camera.

Yes, that is because I have extrasensory vision.   I can see past the display, past the processing, through the lens, into the mind of the photographer who I know was thinking "c--p I should have shot this with a medium format camera".

BC

[Isaac]

Honestly, I can't tell what other people use. ... I know what I see in my work, really can't judge what anyone else sees.

Your experience is infinitely greater and your judgements will be better, so that's a little lesson for me.

[OliverM]

I assume that this is a humorous stab at blind tests?

No scientific effort can prove that wine taste the same. Nor that homeopathy is a hoax.

H

Even if half of chardonnay production tastes about the same whatever the country (probably because this is the taste consumers want), I see some differences between a Bordeaux and a Burgundy, between a Chassagne Montrachet and a Corton Charlemagne, between the Corton of Louis Jadot and the one from Bonneau du Martray, between the Bonneau 2008 and the 2009 ...
So yes, that was just a kind of syllogism ...

What is best, a chateau Cheval Blanc 1982 or a chateau Maucaillou 2009 ?
The first has an incredible complexity and costs 50 times more than the very good but more industrial & simple second.
With a hamburger, you won't see much difference and would prefer either a beer or a coke ...

... MF & DSLR, you end up with an iphone ...

[Sheldon N]

Yes, that is because I have extrasensory vision.   I can see past the display, past the processing, through the lens, into the mind of the photographer who I know was thinking "c--p I should have shot this with a medium format camera".

BC

 

I love your take on the world. You cut to the heart of the matter better than anyone else.

[MrSmith]

Most (not all) of the images I post in the recent works thread are shot on a DSLR but nobody complains :-)  and I expect they couldn't tell the difference on screen or on the final image wherever it ends up.
I put them there because I feel they belong there, the ones shot on MFD are approached in exactly the same way just with a few more joules thrown at them.

[hjulenissen]

Even if half of chardonnay production tastes about the same whatever the country (probably because this is the taste consumers want), I see some differences between a Bordeaux and a Burgundy, between a Chassagne Montrachet and a Corton Charlemagne, between the Corton of Louis Jadot and the one from Bonneau du Martray, between the Bonneau 2008 and the 2009 ...
So yes, that was just a kind of syllogism ...

What is best, a chateau Cheval Blanc 1982 or a chateau Maucaillou 2009 ?
The first has an incredible complexity and costs 50 times more than the very good but more industrial & simple second.
With a hamburger, you won't see much difference and would prefer either a beer or a coke ...

Simple blinded testing can be used to confirm (with some certainty) that an individual can taste the difference between two given wines. Once that is confirmed, the rest is about preference. I have a cold at the moment, left with very little sense of smelling, and I can confirm that wine taste really bad in this state.

... MF & DSLR, you end up with an iphone …

Not sure what you are saying here. Certainly, there are differences between the (typical) image capabilities of MF, DSLRs and iPhones that are relatively easy to measure or see in a well-designed test. As to the importance of those differences for a particular photographer, for a particular viewing condition etc, that seems a lot harder.

-h

[jerome_m]

So, members on this forum failed to recognize the "MF look" when presented with your 6 pictures. I think that sums up the utility of this thread.

What I meant here was not to criticize one particular person for thinking one picture was MF when it was not (while I conveniently avoided to risk an opinion myself). What I meant was that the difference in color rendition between cameras are not a reliable indication of the type of camera, contrary to the ongoing discussion yesterday.

There are some differences between MF cameras and 24x36 cameras. For example, I notice some difference with lenses (and I have posted to explain what optical phenomena explain them), some differences in highlights rendition (which, I think, mainly come from differences in exposure settings) and some differences in color rendition out of the box. These differences are small, which should not be a surprise because the sensor size difference is not huge either. They can be so small as to become invisible in some cases (careful choice of lenses and aperture, choice of light and exposure, color correction).

[Rob C]

This location was tough.  It was dark, had very little ambient light and to top it off, there was white dog (I assume dog) hair everywhere and I mean everywhere.  It looked like a snow storm when you walked through.

I shot this unplanned as we were breaking for lunch, I saw the subject across the room reading and saw the light on the chairs and said come here, shot it in about 10 frames.

Then everyone ate (obviously outside)

IMO

BC

Reminds me of Mario Testino...

Rob C

[bcooter]

Reminds me of Mario Testino...

Rob C

The photo or the dog hair?

There is a difference.

Thanks

BC

[Rob C]

When I was a student, I failed to recognize white wine from red wine in a blind test (after 2 or 3 glasses).
Since then, I know there is no difference.

MF and DSLR is a different story, the following picture demonstrates the difference.
These guys with dslr were focused on technology while I was trying to manually focus my contax 120mm on the truly artistic but moving subject of the day ...

Tell that to my three cardiologists - so far.

I love well-chilled white and have to drink red, my second choice, because of their orders, based, apparently, on the benefits of the deoxidants in the red. As with cameras, formats, sensors, so with wines. I often break the general rule and chill the red; improves it no end.

;-(

Rob C