The P45+ and DR. And noise. And...

[fotografz]

I like your tomato, but can I twist it. LOL

Twist what Guy? ... er ... whatever floats your boat :ROTFL:

 

[Panopeeper]

I am posting some shots i just took with the Hasselblad 31 at iso 100 and 800

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.)

 

[cmb_]

Okay, you guys are dead serious here, so I'll take my "Tomato", and put it on the "Fun with MF" thread :salute:

Marc, you are confused. That tomato is really a woman - you've got her up-side-down!

 

[PeterA]

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.

 

[mark1958]

Gabor send me your email address and will do. I can tell you i shot at plus 1 EV to purposely overexpose. I had taken a bunch that were more properly exposed but the area I focused on under exposed. Do you have phocus?

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.)

 

[Guy Mancuso]

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.

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.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

We really should run this test in September on the lighting workshop when all the players in backs are in the house and run a controlled test. By than Hassy will have improved there higher ISO with the Phocus software also

 

[Jack]

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.

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.

The other factor, at least for me, is how all this translates to print output quality. To me, the ultimate goal is superb quality in a large print and how you get there really doesn't matter much to me...

Lastly, I can't really think of a situation where I will need or want ISO 800 from my back, unless it is specifically to create additional noise! Though I do understand other folks have different requirements and that was why I did my best to post a comparable image to Thierry's ISO 800 sample. The test I am more interested in seeing for my purposes is noise on long exposures, like night-shot exposures of several minutes -- now that should be fun

Edit: Obviously Guy posted before I finished ... But great point: if we have time, we could do this on the September lighting workshop since we'll have most backs well represented.

Cheers,

 

[Panopeeper]

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

 

[mark1958]

I will convert them to .dng and you can play with them in CS3 or another program if you like. Will do later.

Jack and all, I just was shooting the leaves against the detailed wood fence to try to get something close to what Jack and others had shown. Ok. I will not do that.. i was just trying something to compare

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

 

[Panopeeper]

Mark,

please don't convert them. I will convert them myself, but I want to start out from the raw. I don't use ACR for this analysis, but Adobe's DNG converter.

Thanks

 

[Jack]

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.

 

[thsinar]

Jack,

would you mind?

Is it possible to have the full RAW of this shot?

Thanks Jack,
Thierry

 

[Jack]

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,

 

[thsinar]

Thank Jack, can be next week, I can wait.

Appreciated!

Best regards,
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,

 

[Panopeeper]

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.

This is very strange. If you upload such a raw file, I take a look at it and at the way Adobe handles it.

 

[Jack]

This is very strange. If you upload such a raw file, I take a look at it and at the way Adobe handles it.

I will give you the URL too when I upload it.

 

[woodyspedden]

Charlie 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

Unless I am missing the point I think we are in violent agreement. Both you and Charlie are using the same back (his only advantage is that he has been doing so for over two years! LOL) and both of you are getting great images. Compared to the Hassy H3D 39 only the details of the raw converters and the ergonomics of the body represent any real differences IMHO! It is my belief that both Phase and Hassy backs are capable of current SOTA performance and it is what must be done in PP to get the max out of these wonderful performers. In the end both (and probably Sinar, Leaf et al) will get you to almost the same place, personal preferences aside.

If I am totally wrong I am sure someone will assure I am corrected vis a vis my errors. But I think that any shooter e.g a Charlie Cramer who is focussed on the ultimate image as opposed to the technology that gets us to that image will concur that the methodolgy is subservient to the vision of the shooter.

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

 

[Jack]

Hi Woody!

We are indeed in total agreement, as usual! The only part of your post I was addressing was your question on what lenses Charlie used, the rest was just follow on to that. Also totally agree that any of these latest generation MF DB's are state of the art in digital imaging. What's nice is we have multiple choices based on our individual needs :thumbs:

 

[thsinar]

Woody,

So it is, in terms of IQ, with very small differences. The important point being to know the material in and out.

Beside this, other considerations come in play, not necessarily in order of importance:

- Warranty (often big differences in terms of price for the same warranty period)

- Service & Support (Here the dealer/distributor plays a big role: check them out)

- Software and Workflow

- Possibility to upgrade in the future to protect your investment

- Possibility of the back to be adapted to different camera systems, MF or view cameras, letting open the change to another camera platform

Best regards,
Thierry

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