Twist what Guy? ... er ... whatever floats your boat :ROTFL:I like your tomato, but can I twist it. LOL
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Twist what Guy? ... er ... whatever floats your boat :ROTFL:I like your tomato, but can I twist it. LOL
Mark,I am posting some shots i just took with the Hasselblad 31 at iso 100 and 800
Marc, you are confused. That tomato is really a woman - you've got her up-side-down!Okay, you guys are dead serious here, so I'll take my "Tomato", and put it on the "Fun with MF" thread :salute:
Mark,
do you mind posting the raw files of these two shots? I'd like to verify if they are truly overexposed, or if the software is playing a game. (yousendit is the simplest way.)
That is why i shot a bathroom in the house. No real light , i tend to agree here folks we need the shit light. Besides have to say green is not the bad channel for noise it is the blue channel.You either want a forum where real users comment - or you can repeat the snide BS and fan boy attitudes that exists in other places - make up your minds. Reading stuff in here one would think that the test for a MFD is its high ISO performance shooting garden flora at 800.
THAT is a LOAD in anyone's language buddy boyz - and quite a large smelly LOAD.
I don't disagree Peter... I was just trying to give folks what they wanted to see. Frankly, I think smooth green flora isn't the best subject to show noise either. As I indicated earlier in this thread, I think the real test is a McBeth card under controlled lighting so we can see how each color responds to each ISO. Since it's a readily available standard reference, other folks could shoot their own backs against it and compare results.You either want a forum where real users comment - or you can repeat the snide BS and fan boy attitudes that exists in other places - make up your minds. Reading stuff in here one would think that the test for a MFD is its high ISO performance shooting garden flora at 800.
Mark, please don't send them to me, my email server does not accept so large files. If you upload them to yousendit.com, you receive a URL for downloading, and you can post that here, or send it to me through my profile.Gabor send me your email address and will do
Mark, please don't send them to me, my email server does not accept so large files. If you upload them to yousendit.com, you receive a URL for downloading, and you can post that here, or send it to me through my profile.
You don't need to register with yousendit, you don't even have to use yur own email address, use a fictional one as sender and recipient.
I would like to see the apparently overexposed shots. I know, that Adobe Camera Raw adds +2 EV to ISO 800 shots made by the P45 Plus, thus making the shots appear overexposed. I have no idea, what Phocus is doing, I don't have it, but I look at the raw data anyway, without the raw processor. I understand, that yours is a different camera, but some software may mistreat its raw file.
Thanks
Is it possible to have the full RAW of this shot?
Thanks Jack,
Thierry
Sure Thiery, no problem. That file is on my office computer and I am leaving early tomorrow for a week, so it will be a bit before I can send it.
Cheers,
This is very strange. If you upload such a raw file, I take a look at it and at the way Adobe handles it.Don't know about earlier versions of ACR/Lightroom, but the current versions are *underexposing* all my P45+ files by about 1 stop, even the ISO 800 ones, while C1 nails them. FWIW, as tested and measured on McBeth gray patches.
I will give you the URL too when I upload it.This is very strange. If you upload such a raw file, I take a look at it and at the way Adobe handles it.
JackCharlie uses the 55-110 zoom pretty extensively for his landscape shooting. He also does NOT show 100% crops of files on his site! (And I know why ) Anyway, I was visiting Charlie and Bill Atkinson right after they got their P45's, and we were comparing their files directly to scanned 4x5, among others. (These files later made it into the Luminous Landscape file comparison DVD -- still available on the LL site I think if you want a copy.) The common comment from each of us was that the scanned 4x5 showed a bit more detail, but we all agreed you'd never see that tiny difference in a print. Even the differences we show in the side-by-sides in this thread would be difficult to detect in a print viewed normally...
More to the point, this was almost two years ago and the raw converters have only improved -- back then, the P45 files did NOT show as much detail as what we're seeing now. Thus I am confident in claiming that this P45+ file is equal to or better than drum-scanned 4x5 from a detail rendering standpoint, which was pretty much my gold-standard target. Suffice it to say, I am really happy with my decision
Cheers,
Jack
I submit that I, a rank amateur at best, will get the best images my vision can conjur with either of these, or the other, 39 Mpx sensors. JMHO YMMV
Woody