I would like to know wich camera system offer that nice color

[synn]

We can just skip the stuff we don't wish to read ;-)

We do, which is why none of the working photographers touch the technobabble threads with a 10 foot pole.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I guess you have never compared a Canon processed with Lightroom to a Canon processed with Canon's own DPP ...

I agree with Edmund, the Raw conversion quality from Canon's DPP is pretty good, without the tonal compressions that are typical for Lightroom. LR does offer a more complete workflow solution, but conversion quality is something that needs a lot of work to come close to what's possible.

Cheers,
Bart

[douglevy]

Edmund - that's right. I don't own or shoot Canon, and have always hated the conversions I've gotten from their files (way too red) from LR, but haven't used the Canon software, or C1 on them for that matter.

-D

[Gigi]

Hi,

Something like this (clearly limited to news type photography):

Taken from here: http://hastalosmegapixeles.com/las-camaras-de-los-world-press-photo/

This link also gives some info, but again it is photojurnalism:
http://petapixel.com/2012/12/02/the-most-popular-cameras-and-settings-for-reuters-best-photos-of-the-year-2012/

Cameras:

Zoom lenses (note popularity of the 16-35):



Comments see below:


Best regards
Erik

Thank you for the clarification. Its helps a lot.

[Camdavidson]

This works equally well with the Nikon D4.  I found that there is more highlight detail when I use the C1 version 8; ICC IQ 250 daylight profile. 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

All these statistics I have found were for photojournalism type, but I recall seeing something similar with much more generic subjects like nature and macro a few years ago.

As a side note, I was taking part in a workshop with Hans Kruse in the Dolomites, an excellent workshop. Hans was shooting with both Canon 5DIII and Nikon D800 (with or without E). What he said essentially was what the DxO test shows. With the D800 he could pull a lot more shadow detail, while with the Canon 5DIII he was much more depending on bracketing/ETTR/HDR. With bracketing he has several options.

He was also instructor on some of the Phase Ones PODAS workshops, where he was shooting an IQ 260, I think, he was very positive about the Phase One on the resolution side, but also indicated that the camera has hanged up (three times) under the workshops. Colours, I don't know, he wasn't discussing that stuff at all. He also said that there was no way he could make a business case for the Phase One system.

One point may be, Hans uses Lightroom, Nikon and Canon. All system derided for colour rendition by posters on this thread(s), but he makes great images with those tools, and who cares about the rest.

I was just shooting Sony on that workshop, but was shooting P45+ in the same region the week after. Morning light beats P45+, any time.

Some of those images are here: http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Dolomites2014/ ,gear used Sony Alpha 99, Sony Alpha 77, Hasselblad 555/ELD with P45+.

Hans has some nice pictures here
Best regards
Erik

Thank you for the clarification. Its helps a lot.

[David Eichler]

Art, I would dare to say that Scott Frances is DSLR and Joe Fletcher is MF Leaf. Joe's work is evidently medium format for the detail, frame and colors. I would say Leaf for the colors.
Hope I'm not wrong.

ACH

There is an interview with Frances on the Web somewhere where he says he uses Canon equipment. I would also guess that Fletcher is using (at least mostly) some kind of medium format.

In any case, I think it is more a matter of your vision and technique, rather than the equipment. Many types of equipment are capable of producing "beautiful" color if you use them properly. Perhaps some may make it easier than others to achieve the look you are after.

[eronald]

I have been looking at video, with an eye on documentary, and noticed a trend of firmware updates on japanese cameras.

What seems to be happening is that if a camera is average it just sits there till EOL, but if it is a runner - like the Oly EM1 or Pana GH4 or Fuji T1, then the company invests some of the above average revenue into really substantial firmware updates and this way even the existing customers get rewarded with a next gen cam that costs them ... nothing, while the product life is enhanced; the manufacturer gets a longer run and economy of scale, and time to sell existing customers more lenses, enhancing lock in. In this way the Fuji Ti seems to be acquiring good video, the Pana FZ1000 got 4K, the GH4 is rumored to have a Raw video option coming etc.

I wish this were also a trend with the heavy stuff. Up to now C, N, P1 etc seem to go mainly for stability - although Magic Lantern has demonstrated exactly how much more could be "given" the faithful customer, and has certainly accounted for quite a few 5DII and III sales.  

There is a lot of stuff that could be done with a DB ...

Edmund

[ErikKaffehr]

Oh Synn,

Sorry to hear that you are out of work!

Best regards
Erik

We do, which is why none of the working photographers touch the technobabble threads with a 10 foot pole.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have checked out a bit. Scott Frances uses Canon, uses several different exposures and opens in layers in Photoshop mixing them manually. It is like exposure fusion, but done with careful manual work.

Joe Fletcher definitively shoots medium format on a technical camera.

The colour in his images is mainly coming from a good mix of good natural light and artificial light. Light is often best early morning and late afternoon. Than, careful handling of white balance is needed to preserve that. Using normal daylight WB often works amazingly well in warm light situations, but it can go over the edge.

A grey card exposure is not really helpful, as it would just neutralise the good light.

I would also add that strong composition and elimination of keystone effects also enhances the images.

There is nothing wrong moving up to medium format, but cost of entry is a bit high. Some posters (Ken R. and Paul2660) used to indicate that upper end MFD is really needed to surpass upper end full frame 135. But making a large investment in equipment also gives an incentive to make best use of it.

I would suggest the posting by some photographers who have been there and done that:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=94932.msg775709#msg775709
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=94932.msg775936#msg775936

The last one says:

In response to the OP, I think the cameras are nigh irrelevant.  What you're really responding to is the impactfulness of the photographs.  It's all about the abilities of these two shooters and the quality of their retouching.

I shoot the IQ260 and the A7r side by side.  I prefer the Phase One file, but if I switched completely to the Sony, neither you nor my clients could ever tell the difference.

IMO,
CB

Which is in my view a few words that say more than a thousand pictures.

Please, also check out Joe Fletchers landscape images, that are shot in a different light, do you see the same magic?

Best regards
Erik

Hi guys, i'm new here.
I am architectural photographer and i love the color coming from the images of this two guys, that are identical:

http://scottfrances.com/

http://www.joefletcherphoto.com/projects

Does anyone know with wich system or camera/digital back are they shot?
I have used Sony a7r and Canon 5dIII and these images aren't definitely coming from this cameras.

Thanks in advance!

[eronald]

Erik,

 I knew there was some iron in your soul!

Edmund

PS. Is there a "pun" emoji?

Oh Synn,

Sorry to hear that you are out of work!

Best regards
Erik

[synn]

Erik,

 I knew there was some iron in your soul!

Edmund

PS. Is there a "pun" emoji?

There is. Looks like an MTF graph.

[andyptak]

Erik

Where did you find information on Scott and his techniques? Like other following this thread, I looked him up and found only one brief interview where he talked about technique. It didn't say much.

[Art Sanchez]

Thanks to all you guys for your responses! 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have seen some references, but I am less sure now. Very clear that he is shooting Canon, but that does not exclude that he is also shooting something else.

Just take me, I am shooting Sony but I am also shooting a P45+ on Hasselblad. So you could call me Sony shooter, or a Phase One shooter. Even Hasselblad shooter would be quite OK.

Best regards
Erik

Erik

Where did you find information on Scott and his techniques? Like other following this thread, I looked him up and found only one brief interview where he talked about technique. It didn't say much.

[jerome_m]

Thanks to all you guys for your responses! 

Thank you for coming back.

[hjulenissen]

But this is not how camera works. All digital cameras have limited color "accuracy" and the amount and direction of deviation is carefully chosen by the manufacturer (mainly by selecting the filter array pigments). The deviation is chosen to give "pleasing" colours. The choices are different between general usage cameras (which, as a rule, must be able to work under lights of varied types) and for cameras mainly used in studios (which mainly use flash).

I think that the explanation is closer to a mundane, pragmatic one.

Color filters are nothing like designing a digital or electronic filter, where there is a continous range of component/values to choose from, meaning that you have the liberty of "move the peak by 1% to the right, then broaden it slightly". Rather, it seems that color filters are selected from a discrete set of substances that may have certain spectral properties, but also certain life-expectancy, light loss, cost, etc. Thus, it might not be only a matter of employing a color scientist to tweak filter numbers in Matlab.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_filter_array#Manufacture_of_the_CFA

In U.S.P.# 4,808,501, Carl Chiulli cites the use of 5 chemicals, three of which are C.I. #12715, AKA Solvent Red 8; Solvent Yellow 88; and C.I. # 61551, Solvent Blue 36. In U.S.P. # 5,096,801 Koya et al., of Fuji Photo Film company, list some 150-200 chemical structures, mainly azo dyes and pyrazolone-diazenyl, but fail to provide chemical names, CAS Registry numbers, or Colour Index numbers.

By choosing less selective filters, a larger number of photons will hit the sensor. Thus, less (luminance) noise is to be expected. This is a trade-off for the manufacturer, and I would not be surprised if those targeting studio users with plenty of light see it differently from those targeting live action photographers.

I believe that when manufacturers create a  certain "color look" (and I believe that they do), this is mainly something that is done in the in-camera JPEG development (or in-house stand-alone raw converter). That is the place to do "pleasing" colors.

-h

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Stuart Richardson found this article: http://news.vh-artists.com/scott-frances-featured-in-september-2012-pdn/

I read some articles where he explained how he works.

Many posters are very equipment fixed, I don't think really good photographers care that much about equipment makes, but want stuff that does the job and does it well. I guess for real photographers it is more about having good and reliable tools than about bragging rights, and that may the reason they don't announce what equipment they use on each posting they make. That may be one reason it is hard to find info on what foretold two photographers use.

Some photographers share a lot of good information, Chris Barret comes to mind, or Rainer_v and many others.

I can also mention Steve Hendrix of Capture Information, all information coming from him seems to good and solid.

Best regards
Erik

Erik

Where did you find information on Scott and his techniques? Like other following this thread, I looked him up and found only one brief interview where he talked about technique. It didn't say much.

[Brian Hirschfeld]

I didn't really have the stomach to read all that stuff, and I just skimmed the first page, and looked at the links....my take is that most of their particular look is coming in post production, especially since most of it seems to be taken with available light.

[jerome_m]

Color filters are nothing like designing a digital or electronic filter, where there is a continous range of component/values to choose from, meaning that you have the liberty of "move the peak by 1% to the right, then broaden it slightly". Rather, it seems that color filters are selected from a discrete set of substances that may have certain spectral properties, but also certain life-expectancy, light loss, cost, etc.

Yes, but manufacturers still have the choice between a large amount of combinations. Moreover, we know that the filters are different between manufacturers. It stands to reason that manufacturers use that choice to tweak the rendering of the camera.

By choosing less selective filters, a larger number of photons will hit the sensor. Thus, less (luminance) noise is to be expected.

More photons will hit the sensors, but the color matrix will need to use large negative coefficients to subtract thee common parts. The net effect is usually more noise for more permissive filters, actually.

This is a trade-off for the manufacturer, and I would not be surprised if those targeting studio users with plenty of light see it differently from those targeting live action photographers.

I was discussing the quality of the light, not its quantity. Press photographers, for example, routinely shoot under fluorescent light (think indoor stadium, etc...). With an "accurate" camera everything will turn yellow-green and it will very difficult to get a passable white balance. With a less accurate camera, its colour "blindness" may be tweaked to be adapted to these illuminant. It is quite easy to test, actually: take a portrait under fluorescent light with different cameras and try to correct the white balance. The differences will surprise you.