The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

Just thinking of a volte face

gazwas

Active member
We've heard the same thing. 28/35 being discontinued in favor of future lens designs coming later this year or next.
Maybe we'll loose two and gain one and something like a 31mm (SK like weird numbers)?

A 35mm with 90mm image circle and less field curvature than the current would be very welcome
That sounds like a retrofocus design.

I've been tempted by the RS28mm so many times but put off by the cost and lack of any movements so a lens in the 30's from Schneider would be excellent and straight on my shopping list. If the 43XL, 60XL and new 120ASPH are anything to go by, it will be amazing!
 

cunim

Well-known member
I could do - there's always the feeling that future software improvements might give a better result if re-applying the original LCC though - and the huge file size of a tiff. I think I remember that when packing as EIP, the original LCC file has to remain in the library. That takes less space than saving as a TIFF. But as I have noted above there was one C1 upgrade that lost all my LCC profiles and I then no longer knew which of the LCC frames I had shot and saved applied to which actual image. That quite seriously p***d me off and was the beginning of the end for me with all this. I never really sorted it out and as a consequence I had a number of files that I was never sure were correctly corrected!
Good points. You are making me think I should reconsider my current workflow and save the LCCs. However, I mistrust my ability to keep all this organized and am not too bothered by file size. I have something like 15TB on NAS and that was pretty cheap and easy to implement. Data quantity is not a big problem in going to TIF.

However, your comment about improvements in LCC algorithms gives me pause. I used to work with some fairly elaborate corrections in scientific imaging - where we didn't keep discrete correction images - and that experience leads me to doubt saved LCCs will get much better with new C1 versions. This is because of how we acquire the LCCs. There are a lot more uncontrolled variables in photography than in scientific imaging and the LCC files reflect that. It is those LCC files that are the problem, not the correction processes.

We are bothered by very subtle cast and intensity induced artifacts. As an example of the latter consider the CCD segment differences that come up as an issue every now and then. The corrective algorithms appear to already do a pretty good job - if the correction matrix is optimal. However, if local CCD offset changes a bit (intensity) or if the FOV color balance changes a bit (cast) the correction matrix becomes less than optimal and the corrected image happily shows us where our LCC acquisition process was less than perfect.

OK, earth to cunim. It appears that many are keeping both the LCCs and the images. Should I adopt this? I think if C1 introduces workflow optimization that automates pairing LCCs with their target files (something like the long exposure dark correction) I should keep them. Otherwise, managing discrete LCCs is too inconvenient for the work that I do. Tim is clearly more disciplined and less lazy than I.
 
Last edited:

tashley

Subscriber Member
Good points. You are making me think I should reconsider my current workflow and save the LCCs. However, I mistrust my ability to keep all this organized and am not too bothered by file size. I have something like 15TB on NAS and that was pretty cheap and easy to implement. Data quantity is not a big problem in going to TIF.
For me it's not so much about the file size but the rendering speed in Lightroom - at least until (and if) Apple introduces a new Mac Pro because the one I have is groaning!

However, your comment about improvements in LCC algorithms gives me pause. I used to work with some fairly elaborate corrections in scientific imaging - where we didn't keep discrete correction images - and that experience leads me to doubt saved LCCs will get much better with new C1 versions. This is because of how we acquire the LCCs. There are a lot more uncontrolled variables in photography than in scientific imaging and the LCC files reflect that. It is those LCC files that are the problem, not the correction processes.
I'm not sufficiently expert and might just be falling for the marketing blurb but it does seem that Phase introduces new and better processing (Technical lenses with movements for example) though it had never occurred to me (stupidly) that the LCC capture would have to be contemporary. However, even so I like to keep the LCC just in case - in case I applied the wrong one and need to try a nearby one in the sequence! However disciplined I try to be, it is easy to lose track when having to change movements and apertures in the field :confused:

OK, earth to cunim. It appears that many are keeping both the LCCs and the images. Should I adopt this? I think if C1 introduces workflow optimization that automates pairing LCCs with their target files (something like the long exposure dark correction) I should keep them. Otherwise, managing discrete LCCs is too inconvenient for the work that I do. Tim is clearly more disciplined and less lazy than I.
I am theoretically quite disciplined and diligent but not being very smart, I come unstuck quite often! To err is human - and that's my problem with the LCC process. I don't have perfect colour vision, so I really have to try to get my technique right...
 

gazwas

Active member
I don't think any lens needs a optical CF as its all correctable in software. However, the larger movements you make the more stress it puts on the ability of the software to make corrections without adverse side effects. I have the SK43XL on my Arca/P65+ and that doesn't require a CF per-say but IMO its a much, much better lens with it.

A point that gets seldom mentionef and may be a non issue for you but in my experience when originally testing the RS40HR and SK43XL is the difference in flare handeling. My tests showed with the RS40HR it was essential to use a lens hood, (I suppose due to its more complex design) and was a total pig unshaded for flare. Not the usual coloured streaks but funny splodges across the frame that totally killed the contrast.

So, when considering the larger Rodies for a small compact setup you also need to factor in the additional size of a good lens hood (Lee WA hood) or compendium shade.

As a side note regarding LCC, I'm not so sure the latest LCC correction tool in C1 is such a massive step forward. Sure it pretty much eliminates all but the most severe banding on WA lenses but I feel the new correction formula over corrects for fall off and instead of compensating for colour shifts it just desaturates them killing all colours equally. Anyone else noticed this?
 

ondebanks

Member
Tim, are you are being too hard on yourself? If I understand correctly, you want to keep LCCs for each image. Why bother? After all, the back is applying all sorts of internal corrections to equalize the CCD segments, and the debayering processes are doing god knows what that changes from time to time and between raw converters. You can't save a "pre-raw" image that leaves out those proprietary processes so there is no such thing as an "original". Perhaps you could just save the lcc-corrected image, toss the LCCs, and be done with it.
I think it is important to distinguish between calibrations inherent to the sensor, and those which arise from the particular optical configuration ahead of the sensor. In the first category you have the CCD segments equalization you referred to...basically offsets subtraction and gain map division. Dark frame subtraction is another example. In the second category you have the lens cast and LCC issue. To me, a file is still 'raw' and 'original' if it has only had the first category of corrections applied in-camera...it is as raw as you can get from that camera anyway; not pure raw like Canon but tweaked raw like Nikon. Obviously de-Bayering comes later and its output is no longer raw.

I too work in scientific imaging, and the policy or philosophy is to separately keep every individual frame or exposure which is read off the camera, both data and calibration frames.

Not that I'd be entirely opposed to keeping only the LCC-corrected versions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely LCC correction happens before de-Bayering and the result can be saved in original Bayer format? In that case, there is still the freedom to do whatever raw processing you please, and later re-processing, on the LCC-corrected file. And because each LCC is unique to that setup at that time, because of dust etc., it's not like you can later make a 'better' LCC and apply it to the original raw file.

Ray
 

alajuela

Active member
I don't think any lens needs a optical CF as its all correctable in software. However, the larger movements you make the more stress it puts on the ability of the software to make corrections without adverse side effects. I have the SK43XL on my Arca/P65+ and that doesn't require a CF per-say but IMO its a much, much better lens with it.

A point that gets seldom mentionef and may be a non issue for you but in my experience when originally testing the RS40HR and SK43XL is the difference in flare handeling. My tests showed with the RS40HR it was essential to use a lens hood, (I suppose due to its more complex design) and was a total pig unshaded for flare. Not the usual coloured streaks but funny splodges across the frame that totally killed the contrast.

So, when considering the larger Rodies for a small compact setup you also need to factor in the additional size of a good lens hood (Lee WA hood) or compendium shade.

As a side note regarding LCC, I'm not so sure the latest LCC correction tool in C1 is such a massive step forward. Sure it pretty much eliminates all but the most severe banding on WA lenses but I feel the new correction formula over corrects for fall off and instead of compensating for colour shifts it just desaturates them killing all colours equally. Anyone else noticed this?
Hi

I have the the Rodi 28, 40, and 70 on a Cambo AE RS. IQ 180

My experience has been

On the 70 T/S, I generally put a rubber collapsible hood from Hama and no issues. No CF - Have to be careful with movements with the Hama

On the 40 T/S (by far my favorite at the moment) - The Hama does not work, it vignettes, I use the Cambo Compendium, especially if the sun is between 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock, not time wise, but clock wise. Shoting into the sun ie, Sunrise or Sunset, I use only reverse grads, or ND grads. -- No Flare at all -- BTW I hate flare -- not a flare fan:p No CF -- I do use movements.

On the 28 , Do use the Rodi CF, Will use the Compendium or ND Grads occasionally. Will sometimes take off the CF due to frustration of losing 2.5 stops and being down to 1/15 sec, With no movements (other than maybe 2 - 5 degrees rise / fall, I have not had a big problem).

My biggest issue has been keeping track of movements, exposures etc, Now I make my notes using the time stamp, as the back records this, I am going to make my self a little chart with boxes to keep track.

Thanks

Phil
 

gazwas

Active member
On the 40 T/S (by far my favorite at the moment) - The Hama does not work, it vignettes, I use the Cambo Compendium, especially if the sun is between 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock, not time wise, but clock wise. Shoting into the sun ie, Sunrise or Sunset, I use only reverse grads, or ND grads. -- No Flare at all -- BTW I hate flare -- not a flare fan:p No CF -- I do use movements.
I agree, correctly shaded (Cambo Compendium) its a none issue but if you are after a compact set up on an Alpa TC, adding a compendium kind off defeats the objective of the TC IMO.

Like I said, this might not be an issue for Tim but a point worth considering for a light weight (hand held?) travel camera. ;)
 

alajuela

Active member
I agree, correctly shaded (Cambo Compendium) its a none issue but if you are after a compact set up on an Alpa TC, adding a compendium kind off defeats the objective of the TC IMO.

Like I said, this might not be an issue for Tim but a point worth considering for a light weight (hand held?) travel camera. ;)

I agree Gareth with the compendium get sorta large, I would be interested in how other people hand hold the tech cameras, I have not had much luck, maybe with the smaller ones and securing a hand strap, might work. Interested in others experiences.

Best

Phil
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
However I do have one suggestion that is simple and which gets rid of this problem altogether: there would be a firmware tweak that does the following:


[*] User identifies to back that tech cam is being used with lens that needs LCC

[*] After exposure back asks you to identify the lens from a list you have already set up

[*] Having done so, back asks for shooting parameters (largely: aperture, shift, tilt) which can be entered from tab-able lists.

[*] For each subsequent shot back asks whether these parameters are unchanged.

[*] Photographer then has some additional metadata that identifies what 'library' LCC (s)he needs to use or at worst to shoot.

Easy. Admittedly the second order issues of WB and focus distance also impact the LCC but if we assume that most wide shots are focussed at somewhere between 5m and infinity and that the shooter has done a proper WB, then we should have gotten most of the way to solving a problem which, frankly, has really p****d people off.
I definitely agree with this. It strikes me that with all the discussion by Phase One about the processing power of the IQ back that they really should have augmented the software with some tools.

Another in addition to the shooting lens, rise/shift/tilt metadata / LCC info would be something like a tilt calculator / look up tables. If I can write one, Phase One certainly can. How about even an open plug in architecture to add tools?
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
With all due respect... Many of your threads are about dissatisfaction with your gear, but yet you own some of the finest available. The embodiment of perfection is a perceived notion, one that can't be upgraded, purchased, or implied. The quality of inspiration from others is evident in your own work, not by what camera or lens they used, but by your own artistic interpretation. Thus, you have "payed it forward" so to speak, with your contribution to others artistic needs...thank you!

MFD is very personal and emotional as a direct result of the price point, and unfortunately, only lenses can justify whether it's worth the investment. An Alpa and Cambo are both great cameras, but more or less just a simple conduit for your IQ180. You should enjoy that DB to its fullest and not be too particular with the limitations of every camera and lens combination. I speak from experience and find that getting away from absolute does not diminish my creativity in any regard, in fact, the opposite is true, it allows me to relax... and photograph the forest through the trees.
 

gazwas

Active member
I speak from experience and find that getting away from absolute does not diminish my creativity in any regard, in fact, the opposite is true, it allows me to relax... and photograph the forest through the trees.
In a perfect world but you have to enjoy using the equipment first. :p

Owning great equipment that you enjoy using is the perfect vehicle to becoming more creative and why getting the equipment right for some is such an open topic of discussion and bewilderment.

If gear had no input in the creative process that we'd all still be shooting the cheap cameras our photography obsession started with. Personally, I don't subscribe to the cameras don't matter train of thought and I doubt many photo geeks do.
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
I think you've missed my point. Obviously gear contributes to the creative process and quite frankly, those cheap cameras you've mentioned have captured some of my most creative images; albeit, a perceived notion. Putting ego aside, I too chased perfection through various expensive camera platforms, in hopes of finding that personal, creative signature for my Fine Art work. For other demanding clients, I just use what's necessary. All viewfinders will observe the same scene because cameras do in fact matter, but it's what you expect from it that probably matters most.
 

cunim

Well-known member
I think it is important to distinguish between calibrations inherent to the sensor, and those which arise from the particular optical configuration ahead of the sensor. In the first category you have the CCD segments equalization you referred to...basically offsets subtraction and gain map division. Dark frame subtraction is another example. In the second category you have the lens cast and LCC issue. To me, a file is still 'raw' and 'original' if it has only had the first category of corrections applied in-camera...it is as raw as you can get from that camera anyway; not pure raw like Canon but tweaked raw like Nikon. Obviously de-Bayering comes later and its output is no longer raw.

I too work in scientific imaging, and the policy or philosophy is to separately keep every individual frame or exposure which is read off the camera, both data and calibration frames.

Not that I'd be entirely opposed to keeping only the LCC-corrected versions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely LCC correction happens before de-Bayering and the result can be saved in original Bayer format? In that case, there is still the freedom to do whatever raw processing you please, and later re-processing, on the LCC-corrected file. And because each LCC is unique to that setup at that time, because of dust etc., it's not like you can later make a 'better' LCC and apply it to the original raw file.

Ray
Ray, excuse the long response but I love discussing scientific imaging. Everyone else can probably take this as being off topic and tune out.

I think the stringency with which we keep every image file depends on the intended use. Here I would contrast the qualitative and quantitative forms of imaging. If we are doing quantitative imaging, yes, keep everything and never touch the original image data. We even used an "audit trail" function that let you highlight a data value and then see the image location where it originated. I would suggest that this type of rigor is not relevant here, because photography is a form of qualitative imaging.

Because photographs are made to be viewed, not measured, one can give the cast correction function the freedom to change image data. Of course, the result must look good when we view it. That is easier if image acquisition conditions are tightly controlled when a microscope or telescope is the image forming device. Then we can trust that the LCC is a good model of the image acquisition condition.

Photographic imaging conditions are not as well controlled. As a result, the LCC is often not a good model of the original acquisition conditions. The situation is made worse because photographers' highly trained visual systems become so very sensitive to slight magenta casts, vertical folds, etc. Therefore, artifacts that are a tiny proportion of the data range may be visible. It takes a pretty good LCC to correct these. Even then, the process is to apply it, see if it works and, if it doesn't, post-process until the final result is acceptable. In other words, the LCC is only part of the workflow by which the final image is made to look "good". That's why I don't keep mine.

I really like the idea of modeling LCCs for various acquisition conditions, as other responders have suggested. Of course, the models would not be perfect but neither are the real LLCs. With models, you would still apply an LCC, see if it works, and then post-process until acceptable. The difference is that we would not need to make actual LCC images - wonderful.

Sadly, the modeling process would involve some fairly challenging optical engineering and programming. With any luck, discussions such as this will encourage Phase to allocate enough resources to do the job.

Peter
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Johnny, I hear you but I'm afraid I agree with Gareth: gear does matter. Now I know that it is not by any means the most important factor, a perfect camera being useless in the hands of a chimp or a human with no aesthetic vision. And indeed I have two photos coming up for auction at Christie's next week which were taken on a Sony RX-1, so I have direct experience of how you don't need a hammer to crack a nut. But I do think that a lot of what we bring to forums is made up of the problems were are having. That doesn't mean we are having problems with everything we own or use, but that we want to share the head -scratching with others when we do have problems!

So in this case, having made the decision to sell all my MFD gear about a year ago, I have so far managed to sell everything but the IQ180 and, as the price I can expect to achieve continues in slo-mo free fall, have reached the point where it seems almost daft to sell the back.

If I am going to keep it, I am loathe to recreate the circumstances that led me to want to sell it (partly, no movements, use of a CF, still not quite right LCC corrections, workflow issues at shooting, processing & archiving stages). So I am asking those people here with a lot more tech cam experience than me to help identify which body and lens combination will help me avoid those issues the best.

So I personally think that the thesis that I am letting the best be the enemy of the good is not quite fair. I just want to learn how to achieve the closest to the best that I can by tapping in to the expertise of others.

There are a lot of bits of equipment I have that are unproblematic, or great, or tricky but great - and I do pretty detailed write-ups of those too and am always willing to share what I have learned. So it's not all negative!
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
Tashley, I certainly understand your dilemma, I was just speaking from my perspective in my (earlier in my career obsession) for the best. I've never said that gear doesn't matter, it does, influenced by personal feelings and opinions, and not necessarily by facts. I was trying to encourage you to enjoy the IQ180 and not look at it's limitations or loss of value. The connection to a camera is indeed personal. My Leica M3 is the finest photographic instrument i've ever held in my hands, but I know and accept it's limitations, but that does not stop me from making memorable images.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
How I sometimes long for an M3 (or my personal favourite an MP, which I had for a while) but I am not brilliant at developing film and scanning it and there are so few services that do it well here in the UK...

As for the loss of value in the IQ180 - I absolutely take that on the chin: it was my choice to buy it and I was fully aware that higher MP DSLRs were in the pipeline and would likely screw the used market for MFD. I have no complaints about that at all. I wanted the option of hanging onto it until I could see if the D800 would step into some of its roles, and the cost of that option was not selling before the market took a dip. My choice, no one to blame but me!
 

Ken_R

New member
Amazing images can be produced with almost any camera. It all depends on the person behind it! (and the subject in front of it ;) ) There is really not one best camera for everyone. Each one of us has different needs/wants, styles, workflows and tastes! Sure, some of us share some aspects of those elements but overall a camera/system is a VERY personal choice.

Don't want to deal with CF's and LLC's with the IQ180? Then the only option is to mount it on a Hasselblad V or H camera, a Mamiya/Phase body or a Contax. (you can send the back to a dealer and they can arrange to change the mount)
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Ken, I largely agree: but the unintentional retention of the IQ180 means that it has to find a place in my shooting where it provides a service that other cameras I own can't provide - a very personal and private thing, for sure!

For my general needs, the D800E is all I need. But I do have a niche requirement for a high quality camera with movements and that's where the Phase might well fit back in, since there's no good wide perspective control lens for the Nikon. However, there's pretty much nothing that an IQ180 does on a DSLR style body that I wouldn't prefer to do on the D800E...
 
Top