Topic: Recent Format Agnostic Professional Works (Read 283670 times)

ACH DIGITAL · « **Reply #100 on:** April 24, 2015, 02:32:05 pm »

You guys were very lucky to even get something out of Photomatrix, I never could..

Now with fewer steps, which is what we are all trying to accomplish, get better results!

Craig Lamson · « **Reply #101 on:** April 24, 2015, 04:46:08 pm »

Quote from: Chris Barrett on April 24, 2015, 02:10:41 pm

Heh, I jut started playing with Topaz Adjust, which I think I heard about from you.

I'm a big fan of Topaz Detail 3

haefnerphoto · « **Reply #102 on:** April 24, 2015, 07:02:58 pm »

Quote from: David Eichler on April 24, 2015, 02:12:41 pm

I am not sure what you mean by C1 RAWs. I am guessing that you are using small format digital files here, in which case they most likely would either be Canon, Nikon or Sony RAWs. Also, hardly an expert on the mechanics of the HDR, but I am guessing that, under the hood, LR is converting each component image to an intermediate Tiff and then discarding these when producing the finished HDR file. I believe that is what Photomatix is doing when you use it with the LR plugin.

David, Yes my current workflow is to import the captures or tether the camera into C1. I tried running the 16bit tifs of the files in LR's HDR mode and it wasn't very successful. Chris, I did do some additional work in the develop mode, primarily a little sharpening. You didn't hear about Topaz from me, I've never tried it. Jim

alatreille · « **Reply #103 on:** April 25, 2015, 08:21:09 pm »

Quote from: Chris Barrett on April 24, 2015, 02:21:39 pm

Also, Jim, once LR creates the HDR, trying adjusting it's settings there in LR. By playing with curves and different areas of tonality, you can get a really good looking file. What I do then, instead of exporting a Tif, is just go right-click >EditIn > Photoshop.

...as a smart object - allows you to tweak again when in photoshop as a raw, work the lens corrections etc.

JoeKitchen · « **Reply #104 on:** April 28, 2015, 09:18:07 am »

So I have been out of the loop for a few days (my other half and I needed to get away for a long weekend) and just got back. Love the results here with LR.

From reading through the conversation, is it true that you can not do this with RAW files that need a LCC correction?

You can export from C1 as digital raws with the LCC applied?

If so, that sucks.

Chris Barrett · « **Reply #105 on:** April 28, 2015, 08:31:02 pm »

There is a "Flat Field Correction" plugin for LR. I can't seem to get it to work, tho...

ACH DIGITAL · « **Reply #106 on:** April 28, 2015, 09:52:32 pm »

Do you have the images in DNG?

Chris Barrett · « **Reply #107 on:** April 29, 2015, 08:39:40 am »

Antonio, I was trying it on the camera raw files, do they need to be converted to DNG?

ACH DIGITAL · « **Reply #108 on:** April 29, 2015, 08:59:42 am »

Hi Chris yes they need to be DNG. I just not sure exactly what effect you can achieve with those plug ins. I had tried them but don't see any difference..

Chris Barrett · « **Reply #109 on:** April 29, 2015, 09:16:41 am »

Hmm, well I'm in the middle of restructuring my kit and my goal is to move away from symmetrical wides that require LCCs. My Arca Hasselblad lens adapter just arrived and I'm looking forward to testing the 50mm against my Rodie 55.

haefnerphoto · « **Reply #110 on:** April 29, 2015, 10:06:57 am »

Quote from: Chris Barrett on April 29, 2015, 09:16:41 am

Hmm, well I'm in the middle of restructuring my kit and my goal is to move away from symmetrical wides that require LCCs. My Arca Hasselblad lens adapter just arrived and I'm looking forward to testing the 50mm against my Rodie 55.

Chris, I'm not so sure that a LCC isn't necessary with a shifted medium format lens. I'm interested in what you find out. Jim

Chris Barrett · « **Reply #111 on:** April 29, 2015, 11:16:16 am »

Who the hell knows what's going on in my head, Jim? I feel like I'm skirting ridiculousness here but am determined to reinvent my process. It's an odd blend of OCD and Masochism.

As evidenced here...

Chris Barrett · « **Reply #112 on:** April 29, 2015, 11:21:00 am »

Meanwhile, Stefan just came up with this!

The new Canon 11-24 on tilt/shift adapter.

Here he is on FaceBook.

ACH DIGITAL · « **Reply #113 on:** April 29, 2015, 11:43:35 am »

Uh Chris wow you'll have plenty of play with that Hassy 50mm. What version is that?

David Eichler · « **Reply #114 on:** April 29, 2015, 01:48:36 pm »

Quote from: Chris Barrett on April 29, 2015, 11:21:00 am

Meanwhile, Stefan just came up with this!

The new Canon 11-24 on tilt/shift adapter.

Here he is on FaceBook.

Zoom lenses that shift. Truly amazing. I often find a 17mm shift to be too wide but want something more than 24mm, say, about 20mm. Looks as though this or the Nikon conversion would do the trick (just that I would have to convert to Sony to do it).

I know the Nikon 14-24 has an excellent reputation for image quality, and the Canon 11-24 looks excellent on paper. However, I wonder how much image quality will hold up after adding additional elements and using shifts. Plus, how much distortion do the conversions add? Yes, we can often correct for distortion with Photoshop, but once in a while there are things that you either just can't fix or that require really heavy retouching to do so, which would not be the case with lenses that inherently have low rectilinear distortion.

Chris Barrett · « **Reply #115 on:** April 29, 2015, 02:09:40 pm »

David, the conversions don't add any additional optics (like the 'Blad HTS does), so there should be no additional distortion beyond what already exist in the lens. I want to add one to my kit, but am now torn between the Nikon and the newer Canon.

Hmm...

David Eichler · « **Reply #116 on:** April 29, 2015, 02:21:28 pm »

Quote from: Chris Barrett on April 29, 2015, 02:09:40 pm

David, the conversions don't add any additional optics (like the 'Blad HTS does), so there should be no additional distortion beyond what already exist in the lens. I want to add one to my kit, but am now torn between the Nikon and the newer Canon.

Hmm...

Chris, I am puzzled then. These lenses were not designed for shifting, so you would not expect that much movement would be available without some kind of modification
of the optical design, and the only way I could imagine doing that to an existing lens is by adding optical elements. However, I am hardly an expert on optics or lens design.

Chris Barrett · « **Reply #117 on:** April 29, 2015, 02:24:29 pm »

Yeah, but Stefan tested them out and they actually have circles that allow some shift... not as much as a dedicated TS-e. I too love the idea of zooming into the composition versus cropping and would be willing to give up a little movement for that.

ACH DIGITAL · « **Reply #118 on:** April 29, 2015, 06:08:09 pm »

I found out that from my set of Nikon lenses some have bigger image circles and some are quite tight. My 85 1.8 G has 5mm play. The Zeiss 35mm f2 has 6mm play and this is enough for interiors, the 60mm macro G 2.8 which is excellent lens has 8mm play, the 14-24 has about 10mm play and all very sharp at this end. Of course this is surprising. I always work at F/11 if it helps.
In some forum I read the a Nikkor 50mm 1.8 E Series has enough image circle to cover MF, of course this lens is not sharp enough for 36 mpx camera.
I also have a Horseman VVC Pro which is fitted with an APO-D Rodenstock 120mm 5.6 making an excellent set up for products. I tried fitting this Horseman with Pentax 645 lenses but the from end is not strong enough for the weight of this lenses.

Chris Barrett · « **Reply #119 on:** April 29, 2015, 06:59:35 pm »

Quick grab of the living room with the FrankenArcaBladSonyenstein... that old CF 50mmm holds up nicely, even against my Rodie 55.

Author Topic: Recent Format Agnostic Professional Works (Read 283670 times)