MF Look

[Guy Mancuso]

Well this one may just bring out the wolves but after 35 years plugging away at this and recently shooting MF digital . I am noticing something very interesting that I like a lot. After about 6 k in images shooting this Phase back and this is not a Phase thing but really a MF thing and that is the look I am getting. Okay here it is and ready to be strung up by the wolves and that is the 3d look i am seeing and the look of these files. I don't even want to delve into the combination of lens , back and output BUT my files are different than when I shot DSLR's and such. Not sure how to describe it or even want to try but i shoot a million corporate events a year and yes the MF system is NOT the system to be really working with or is it. I have to say after all of this my files look better and it is not just resolution, they look rounder . Bad choice of words but rounder and more film like than anything I have shot in digital. The M8 is pretty close to this sometimes but the MF files are just different in look and feel.

Yet again i am in the middle of processing another corporate get together with my Nikon SB 800 flash lighting it up and still my files have a certain feel to them. The images themselves are not portfolio stuff and that is not the point. What is the point is the feel you see. To me forget all the damn hardware at the end of the day you have to deliver files and they are just different. Not sure how others feel about this but I am seeing something different than i ever got before and I like it a lot. What's the feeling about this. i will post a fee lame images but forget the image itself look at the feeling from them. It just feels rounder and not digital brittle. Still processing and will post a few later

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Just a couple that just have a different feel to them than what I am used to seeing. Maybe i'm nut's or something but they just have depth to them

 

[KeithL]

Have a look at the following image by Jorgen Udvang.

http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/4/9/boys.jpg

Plenty of "depth" and shot with an Olympus E-1.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I did see that one and it looks great. Plenty of depth to it. I guess some of my point is i am getting this more on a regular basis and not so much on a limited one. With the M8 you can get that look also but more so when everything lines up nicely. MF seems to get this type of look all the time. Very hard to describe

 

[TRSmith]

It's a little hard for me to see exactly what you're trying to describe, although I do see a very nice smoothness across the entire tonal range. The natural look to small differences in value and color is very pleasing. I am especially impressed with the whites in the last picture where the woman is wearing a white blouse and holding a white styrofoam cup and some papers. They all seem dead on. Which is a tribute to your technique as well as the camera.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Thanks Tim straight out of the camera no WB involved. This is really hard to describe and it is the smoothness in tonal transitions that I am seeing. Not the best subject matter but from all these events i shoot i even see it here, which I thought I would not.

 

[Don Libby]

Hi Guy

I have to agree with you. While I haven’t been able to put it into so many words I’ve found I just like the file quality so much more than anything else I’ve shoot with or can currently shoot with; I still have my old 1DsII for wildlife and Sandy is using a 1DsIII for all her work, the majority of my work is landscape thus the P30+.

How does “I don’t know what it is but I know it when I see it” sound.

don

 

[KeithL]

Hi Guy

How does “I don’t know what it is but I know it when I see it” sound.

don

Like a Leica fanatic?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

LOL

Sounds good to me

 

[fotografz]

Why beat around the bush Keith? What exactly are you trying to say ... I'm genuinely curious?

Jorgens photo is great ... it'd be great with a P&S or a MFD camera ... although you'd be more likely to get that shot with a P&S or some other smaller, less intimidating camera.

Personally, I subscribe to the "I'll know it when I see it" school of thought ... IMO, trying to explain what you see in a specific photographic medium is pretty difficult.

 

[LJL]

Guy,
Having looked at these shots several times, and having read through your thoughts and impressions, I have to ask the question that keeps haunting me.....is this "look" that you are describing with the "rounder" colors, and things, attributable more to the lack of AA filter on the sensor? As you mention, the M8 can and does deliver a similar look or appearance to the captures. I have seen this myself when shooting it side by side against my 1DsMkII. Continues to surprise me. The M8 is giving up 6+MP in that case, and is working with slightly better glass, but it is not the resolution that is the issue, but the crisper finish of the colors and things. As Marc says, it is kind of hard to explain, but it does seem to be more prevalent with no AA filter than with AA filter. Maybe it is also the CCD v. CMOS thing....not really sure.

In the end, things do tend to look a bit different. I keep wondering if the DSLR folks were able to field a camera without AA filter, and maybe even go back to CCD, would they be able to achieve this sort of image capture? I am still hanging in the balance on some of this, as I cannot give up the DSLRs for all the things they can do, and am still not drawn to any one MF system point yet. Just some thoughts.

LJ

 

[Guy Mancuso]

It may certainly have something to do with it. AA filter is like putting a screen door over things if you know what I mean. Just diffuses the image than you need to sharpen to get some detail back but than it looks plastic or digital looking. This seems a certain clarity to it and smooth transitions between pixels and tones. Even these crap images seem to have that separation or something to them that I have not seen with AA filter type camera's. The M8 is a lot like this also but not as much as i see it in MF but more so than any DSLR so yes the AA may attribute to some of this. I think hardware does also to some degree. Funny you mention CCD since in reality the M8 and Phase are CCD Kodak sensors no less. We do see it with the Dalsa also but it is CCD with no AA also. Just not sure on a scientific level but my eye see's this stuff and makes me wonder a lot about it. What I find interesting is I am getting this with this type of work and portable flash which makes things flatter looking but i see lot's of depth

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Maybe I am trying to find logical reason and there is none that you can pinpoint too. Than again maybe I am drinking too much Kool aid or just freaking nuts in the head. LOL

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

I've not used MF digital but at the last wedding I shot I had a second shooter using a 40D. After 3+ years of shooting with a 5D and a 1Ds before that, the difference in the files was really in your face. The crop sensor files were so flat in comparison, so much less depth and the tonality was very 35mm film. For all the people who should know better saying that crop sensors are comparible to FF at lower iso's, there is so much more to an image than the noise and resolution, it's the way the image is rendered.

This is an interesting thread on FM http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/678783, there is a post there trying to prove that the 40D is as good as the 5D on the 2nd page, the difference in depth is so very different but I don't think that most casual amatuers can see it and because they can't they insist it doesn't exist.

And that's just the difference between crop and FF that was brought home to me last week. When you add the shallower DOF and focus falloff even with shorter FOV's that you have with MF to the tonality and depth of the larger sensor (nevermind 16 bit!) I have never doubted the 3D claim of MFDB whatsoever.

 

[KeithL]

Why beat around the bush Keith? What exactly are you trying to say ... I'm genuinely curious?

Marc, didn't realise I was beating around the bush. Way too many people place way too much importance on nuances that are so subtle as to be - by their own admission - indefinable and indemonstrable.

I'm a visual guy, don't talk about it, show me

 

[Mitchell]

Guy,

I see it as well. For me the clearest example is in the first shot, the man second farthest away from the camera. When I look at his face which is completely in focus and nothing but his face, it looks 3D. What I'm trying to say is I think the 3D look in these shots is independent of the shallow DOF. All the in focus faces look 3D even if you block out the rest of the picture. The out of focus areas by themselves don't look 3D to me.

I'm not saying small dof can't give a 3D effect, but clearly that effect is available to 35mm digital.

I'm in bed with a fever so this pixel peeping is the ideal occupation. On the other hand, I have no credibility.


Best,

Mitchell

 

[KurtKamka]

This is one shot where I was able to see the DD or 2D become 3D. Of course, your mileage may vary ... ;D

Kurt

 

[KeithL]

I see it in Jorgen's shot and it sure ain't anything to do with MFD

 

[David K]

Like a Leica fanatic?

Keith... thanks for the laugh, you really got me chuckling to myself with this one. I'd guess Guy is preaching to the choir with you since you seem to be a MF (Hasselblad) shooter yourself. I sort of, kind of, know what Guy is saying but am not totally convinced it's the format. I lean towards thinking it's the glass. At the risk of proving your point, I've gotten that "special" look on many occasions with my DMR and the 35-70 2.8.

 

[Vivek]

Keith, With all due respect, you have no point regarding the 3D appearance or the lack of it and are using Jorgen's fantastic picture as a talking point to your convenience. If you are genuinely charmed by that shot, if I were you, I would make useful contacts for Jorgen.

Moreover, you may even have pictures of your own to make case for or against anything, I suspect.