Michael's review of H5d60

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Thanks for making that clear. I don't shoot studio portraits. Regarding sunrise/sunset I have few images to compare as I usually shoot with either camera, but I am equally happy with both. So it may explain a part of the difference in experience.

Another point is that I shoot P45+ using a Kodak sensor and yourself are shooting a Leaf which is using DALSA. Doug says most of his customers prefer DALSA's colour rendition over Kodak. The camera I shoot with is Sony. There are suggestions made by knowledgeable persons who say Sony has better colours than say Nikon.

Best regards
Erik


 

It is indeed rather hard to see "Dramatic" color differences in mid day, flat light shots of unexceptional scenes.
They would be a lot more apparent in strobe lit portraiture or sunrise/ sunset scenes.

[EricWHiss]

And color differences are not the same thing as color tonality or texture - so I really think of this as two topics.  The first is easy to handle with the color editor in C1 or the hue sliders in LR or whatever tool you like to make the red really the red you wanted, but the second - color tonality, texture, micro detail or whatever you want to call it can't be fixed in post or not easily anyhow - its either there in the capture or not.   Some cameras make a mush of fine color texture or subtle color changes like on an apple for example or a peach, or a persons skin - none of which is really uniform.  Some sensors do a great job with this and some don't, and its mostly the CCD sensors on MFDB that do.

[Dustbak]

Edmund,
I've gotten perfect scores on the munsel 100 color tests in the past.  I have astigmatism and am nearsighted, but am thankful at least my color vision is perfect.
edit - just took the X-rite test and got another perfect score.

Hmmm.... apparently either my monitor is not that well calibrated/good or my color distinction capabilities leave something to desire. I got a score of 8 on my Eizo, admittedly I did kind of do it quickly and without much conviction.

[Manoli]

Well, here's a simple solution. Get your own back, get your own 35mm DSLR, rent a studio, hire a model, set your own lights, shoot something and prove me wrong. Forgive me for not paying much heed for anything less than that.

It is indeed rather hard to see "Dramatic" color differences in mid day, flat light shots of unexceptional scenes.
They would be a lot more apparent in strobe lit portraiture or sunrise/ sunset scenes.

Well, a bit dated but still relevant,  here you go …
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets/72157614936120567/

PhaseOne645AF:P65+
Hasselblad H3DⅡ50
Hasselblad H3DⅡ39
Hasselblad H2:CF22
Canon EOS5DⅡ
Nikon D3X
Nikon D700
Nikon D90
Fuji FinePix S

[synn]

Well, a bit dated but still relevant,  here you go …
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets/72157614936120567/

PhaseOne645AF:P65+
Hasselblad H3DⅡ50
Hasselblad H3DⅡ39
Hasselblad H2:CF22
Canon EOS5DⅡ
Nikon D3X
Nikon D700
Nikon D90
Fuji FinePix S

Thanks for that and yes, it's a rather nice example.
To the uninitiated, everything might look more or less the same, but a detailed look will show how much more texture and "Undertones" the MF files carry. It's something test charts can't show.

[Manoli]

To the uninitiated, everything might look more or less the same, but a detailed look will show how much more texture and "Undertones" the MF files carry. It's something test charts can't show.

That's why it's quite a good example - those 'undertones' are evident when you look at the 'full scale versions', particularly the P65+.  Undertones, micro-contrast, resolution all factor in.  There is a difference, but perhaps not as great a some would like to make out.

But I do agree with you that, in studio based portraiture, you will see a difference.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have printed the HD50 image and the D3X image in A2, a couple of years ago. As far as I can recall there was not a lot of difference. I also discussed the images with a couple of friends, one was working at one of the leading pro labs here in Sweden and the other one is a professional photographer, I don't think they saw a lot of difference either.

Erik

That's why it's quite a good example - those 'undertones' are evident when you look at the 'full scale versions', particularly the P65+.  Undertones, micro-contrast, resolution all factor in.  There is a difference, but perhaps not as great a some would like to make out.

But I do agree with you that, in studio based portraiture, you will see a difference.

[synn]

That's why it's quite a good example - those 'undertones' are evident when you look at the 'full scale versions', particularly the P65+.  Undertones, micro-contrast, resolution all factor in.  There is a difference, but perhaps not as great a some would like to make out.

But I do agree with you that, in studio based portraiture, you will see a difference.

Indeed.

In the 35mm files, the skin is one surface. In the MF files, it is a multi layered entity with texture on the top translucent layer and further pigmentation in the underlying layer.
Sure, the files will be color graded and retouched later, but the underlying dimensionality of the MF files always come through.

I have personally preferred Leaf's rendering of skin over Phase's, but it's nice to see how good the Hassys have rendered skin too, especially the 50MP.

Of course, not everyone will see it. I have seen people not being able to tell the difference between a 128kbps MP3 and a FLAC file too.

[Manoli]

I have printed the HD50 image and the D3X image in A2, a couple of years ago. As far as I can recall there was not a lot of difference. I also discussed the images with a couple of friends, one was working at one of the leading pro labs here in Sweden and the other one is a professional photographer, I don't think they saw a lot of difference either.

I think that is the point, Eric. Across the gamut of cameras tested there is a difference, but NOT a lot of difference. On the P65 v D700 it's marginally noticeable on lips and in the eyes - if you look closely. But stand back and look at a distance and you do, as Synn notes, see a degree of 3-dimensionality. A degree , it's not night and day, and it's also debatable how much this difference could be narrowed in post.

Whether or not, the difference is worth the extra cost and the limitations imposed by MF depends on each individuals requirements. But if you want to be sure of BEST POSSIBLE capture in STUDIO BASED portraiture, still life, home economics (food) - I would choose MF. Having said that I'm 35mm FF - nuff said ?

[Ken R]

Indeed.

In the 35mm files, the skin is one surface. In the MF files, it is a multi layered entity with texture on the top translucent layer and further pigmentation in the underlying layer.
Sure, the files will be color graded and retouched later, but the underlying dimensionality of the MF files always come through.

I have personally preferred Leaf's rendering of skin over Phase's, but it's nice to see how good the Hassys have rendered skin too, especially the 50MP.

Of course, not everyone will see it. I have seen people not being able to tell the difference between a 128kbps MP3 and a FLAC file too.

Also, let's not forget about the tethered workflow.

Working with the Phase/Leaf backs tethered to C1P and using CapturePilot on iPad(s) with Client(s) is just awesome. Communication between the workstation and the iPad is very very fast and a two way street. When the client rates an image you see that rating on the workstation also if you make changes to an image or images on the workstation the client will see the changes almost immediately on the iPad. I know a lot of you here work by yourselves but this is just a HUGE ASSET when working with other people on a shoot. 

Regarding the image quality a lot has been said but web jpgs do not do MF Digital files justice and most importantly do not show the increased depth of the files which give you more processing options when working with the in post production. Yes, a good post production artist can make almost any file look like another but there will always be some differences. Always.

[jerome_m]

Well, a bit dated but still relevant,  here you go …
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets/72157614936120567/

PhaseOne645AF:P65+
Hasselblad H3DⅡ50
Hasselblad H3DⅡ39
Hasselblad H2:CF22
Canon EOS5DⅡ
Nikon D3X
Nikon D700
Nikon D90
Fuji FinePix S

Thank you for the test. On the images as they are, I find interesting that the 3 Hasselblad camera have closely matched colors and indeed the MF give the most pleasant skin tones out of the box (although I find the P65+ a bit too magenta for my taste).

Did you adjust white balance manually or did you leave the cameras do it automatically?

[eronald]

Actually, this test shows how good all current cameras are - differences in rendering can easily be drowned out by differences in lighting and post.

Except maybe for the way the hair changes. I think this where we really see the CFA differences in these examples. Maybe there are some spectral spikes in the hair coloring/tint that was used by the girl, and so the hue changes completely when photographed.


Edmund

[jerome_m]

Except maybe for the way the hair changes. I think this where we really see the CFA differences in these examples. Maybe there are some spectral spikes in the hair coloring/tint that was used by the girl, and so the hue changes completely when photographed.

I think that the reason for the colour changes is that the hairs change hues depending on their orientation towards the light.

[Manoli]

Did you adjust white balance manually or did you leave the cameras do it automatically?

Jerome,
I can't answer that - the test isn't mine. It was posted on Flickr some time ago.

[Manoli]

Also, let's not forget about the tethered workflow.

Ken,
Is it really advisable to complicate this discussion any further ? (Smiley)
But if we want to add another tangent, there is a tethering suite on Lightroom for the sony A7 together with iPad extensions ...

Perhaps for another thread ?

[eronald]

I think that the reason for the colour changes is that the hairs change hues depending on their orientation towards the light.

With all due respect, I do not share your point of view here. I think we are seeing a very real difference between cameras.
Once you have artificial or natural sharp spectral peaks entering an image, eg. hair tint or flowers, fish scales, any difference between CFAs will be exacerbated. With one interesting addition to the game: some LED screens with RGB backlighting which can have such sharp peaks that even spectrophotometers will measure different colors.

Edmund

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have checked out my old A2 prints I made from the Hasselblad D50 and the D3X. What I see is that lady has dark grey hair on the D50 and dark brown with red tint on the D3X. I cannot really judge skin tones. The D3X seems to have slightly higher contrast.

The red sensivity curve on most CGA-s is very steep around 550 nm, so a colour spike at 530 nm would be rendered very differently from one at 570 nm.

Sensor sensivity curves are very different from human vision, see enclosed figure from wikipedia.

Best regards
Erik

Actually, this test shows how good all current cameras are - differences in rendering can easily be drowned out by differences in lighting and post.

Except maybe for the way the hair changes. I think this where we really see the CFA differences in these examples. Maybe there are some spectral spikes in the hair coloring/tint that was used by the girl, and so the hue changes completely when photographed.


Edmund

[jerome_m]

With all due respect, I do not share your point of view here. I think we are seeing a very real difference between cameras.
Once you have artificial or natural sharp spectral peaks entering an image, eg. hair tint or flowers, fish scales, any difference between CFAs will be exacerbated.

That is quite possible, I don't deny that. However, the observation was about the hair only and I know for a fact that hairs change hues depending on their orientation towards the light and I would even add that this effect is often enhanced with died hair, as is the case here.

[bcooter]

With all due respect, I do not share your point of view here. I think we are seeing a very real difference between cameras.

I agree with this 100%.

I see a huge difference, maybe because I've done so much of this type of hair and beauty photography.

The p65 then the hasselblad's show real color detail within the hair.  Not as pretty out of camera because they pick up every tone and color, but when your working in fine detail, it's much easier to distinguish and match color if the information is there vs. the cameras like the d3x and that has a global warm color.

The camera I find interesting is the D90.   I still own one, never really use it, but bought it as it was the first dslr that shot video.  I was working in Korea with mixed light and had fits with the color with all of my cameras.  For the heck of it I shot the d90 and the skintones  were beautiful golden natural in the scenes I was working.

The only issue was in full length horizontals that little d90 didn't hold detail that well.

But to me this test was excellent and I did see a great deal of difference in color response, though people should keep in mind that most digital capture, regardless of sensor size of pixel count produce a lot of detail this close up.  Once you pull back you see a difference.

The other thing to keep in mind is this subject had rich olive colored skin, which is the easiest to photograph.   The hardest is very light caucasian skin with that light epidermal layer that allows red to bounce back through, (think pasty white politicians).

IMO

BC

[eronald]

Of course, a camera that has weird CFAs is going to go crazy if used to image a box of cosmetics ....

I think I could easily make up an anti-target designed to break the renderings
And one could use the original stuff as a hard reference.

Edmund