Thanks cmb and Don! It's been quite the ride.
Thanks cmb and Don! It's been quite the ride.
Also CONGRATULATIONS for your new born daughter: I know what it is, mine is now 7 months, but it feels like the first day, still.
All the best to her (and to you),
Wow, err, thanks everyone Jana is actually not my daughter, but the daughter of my ex-girlfriend. We just have a great relationship (the daughter) and she visits me regularly.
Yep, it is interesting for sure, and we are lucky in that she is not that difficult. If she cries, something is wrong, and the list of possible items is short.
Anyway, I am distracting too much here. Back to photography!
Lol, just kidding. Life happens... back to photography.
Went up into the Yosemite high country yesterday. As we anticipated -- and why we did not schedule an Eastern Sierra Fall color workshop -- the color is poor this year. The air was clear and there were virtually no clouds, so the light was really too harsh by about 8:00. I found only a hint of color as shown in the last image. But I had a nice early morning drive and grabbed a few snaps:
Nice shots Jack. I especially like the middle shot. Some cool geometry going on there.
Sony A99, RX1, RX100
Claus, first of all, thank you!
And, I have no idea http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3707
Decided to take it easy and just chill in my easy chair this afternoon and see what C1 4.5 can or can’t do for my workflow. I took a image from last week’s Cambo test and opened it in 4.5 (currently just operating on my laptop). I opened the image in CS3 and tweaked it till what you see below – I never once saw or worked on the image in Bridge as I normally would have. I’m impressed. Now I need to see what it will do on my studio computer running 64 bit.
Jack – it’s a tossup between the first two images although the moon kinda wins in my opinion. Looks like you had the same type of sky we had last week at the North Rim; I think the technical term is something it sucked.
Jack – I learned a very long time ago that the worse the weather; the more it snow, rains, blows, etc., the better the photographic opportunities there are. I hate hot, flat boring skies as that will often times extend into the area that I want to capture.
Glad you liked the technical term!
I just noticed the clouds in the first image! You got to see more clouds than I did!
Here's one from down the road in a little town called Cedarburg. Appropriately enough, overlooking Cedar Creek.
Kurt --- very nice!
Nice shots guys.
It's scary what PS does so automatically now. No image is to be trusted I guess.
I love the Yosemite high country, as well as other parts of the Sierras, but like Jack, I too found conditions less than ideal – very clear skies and few colors. Still, a great place to spend time.
Hahaha, you guys should come here! More than enough rain, snow, and gales to keep anyone satisfied. Seriously though, there are many days when it is hard to drag yourself out to shoot -- dark, overcast, windy and cold. More often than not, instead of overcast it is sleeting or raining horizontally. They are days to work on your studio stuff! I guess everyone wants what they don't usually get....
This was taken two Januarys ago -- it is a pretty accurate representation of the light level at 9:30 in the morning.
It does not get THAT much brighter, particularly if it is cloudy.
By 1:30 pm or so, it looks like this:
And by 3:30 or so, back to this:
The dearth of light in the winter is repaid with 24 hours of light in the summer, and extremely long sunrise and sunset light for the rest of the year...the golden hour lasts all day in the early spring and fall.
Anyway, none of those were MF digital, but they were DMR, so Imacon...I guess that counts on a technicality.
Stuart, great stuff! I'd love to visit Iceland to photograph for a few weeks, but man, that looks cold! Post some more?
Another shot from Poudre Canyon last week.
EDIT: The color on this shot is funky depending on which monitor I pull this window to. On my MBP (the default main screen), things look great, on my secondary Eizo, it looks too purple and blue. YMMV. I think it must be because Safari only uses one monitor profile (the main screen's) regardless of which monitor the window is on.
EDIT #2: For some reason the top of the rocks all look dark. Kinda like a bad mask job on the sky, but this is straight from LR, no local adjustments made. Strange.
Great images and I would DEFINITELY love to come photograph Iceland. Maybe we can make it a GetDPI workshop destination?
Thank you guys.
Jack -- Guy and I had talked about doing something in May, but I am not sure if that is still on. I do have my work visa now though, so I will be here. Frankly, this is probably the best year in a long time to go -- their economy is in total shambles, so everything costs about 40-50% less (in dollars) than it did last year. It is still more expensive than it is in the U.S., but that fast food value meal that was 15 dollars last year (seriously), is now a bargain at 8! Similarly, the price of a watery beer at a bar is down from 10 dollars a pint to 5.
As for more pictures, there are a number on my website. I don't really have many medium format digital though, as I just got that recently and I have only been here two weeks or so. But here are some medium format film shots:
Mamiya 7II 43mm
Mamiya 7II, 43mm
It gets pretty nice and green in the summer though...doesn't get much about 60 degrees though:
DMR, 19mm. Some of the white you see there (the brightest part at the bottom) is actually glacier, not clouds. The glaciers are usually covered in clouds, so it is not too often that you get to see them clearly.
Obviously, someone did not like the guy who lived here:
Actually, it means something like "Ridge Hill". Anyway, that's enough for now...I was trying to find some that I don't think I have posted before or a lot anyway...
I posted this inside another thread as an example to someone but it belongs here Stitched pano.
http://www.graham-mitchell.com Graham Mitchell
Agreed, very nice image Graham!
Sorry I don't have D back, cannot afford, so these two are scanned with a cheap Epson 4870.
501cm + 80mm
No need to apologize here sinwen --- those are great images!
Could you give me a hint ?
I see you all selling your 35DSLR once you step into MF digital because it is so much better and I believe so indeed.
But do you think these top DSLR compete with 120 film ?
Behind this question : is it worth selling my 501 gear to move to let say the new 5D ?
Thanks for your answers, will appreciate.
I would first say it all depends on how much you shoot. If not a whole bunch, it might be more economical to buy a better film scanner --- like maybe a dedicated Minolta or Nikon MF film scanner?
I think the 5D2 will probably at least equal the image quality of properly scanned 6x6 or 645 film, however larger MF formats like 6x7 and 6x9 may offer something more. Those film cameras are cheap and if you already own a good MF scanner, then might be a viable consideration if you don't shoot much...
But, if you do the per-frame-captured cost analysis, the DSLR gets very cost-effective pretty quick. It's biggest advantage is its per-frame operating cost: Take the cost price of the DSLR minus its resale value over say 2 years, and then divide by the number of frames you'd expect to shoot over those two years. Even if it's only 1000 frames in 2 years, you can anticipate your $2700 5D will probably be worth around $1700 two years later, for a per-frame cost of $1. By contrast, MF film is what, $6/roll plus $6/ roll to process or $12 total for 12 frames --- so they'd be equal. Now if you move the DSLR captures up to 2000 over the 2 years, its per-frame cost drops to 50 cents, or half the cost of MF film...
However, if you like to shoot the kind of images you posted, then stick with what you are doing because you're doing it very well.
I shot a 5D for years ... and have always shot a 503CW with film, and still do.
I'm not sure what the criteria people use when they say a DSLR can equal or beat a MF film camera. Whatever that criteria is, it isn't the same as mine ... because my 5D never equaled the Hasselblad film camera to my eye.
I find most, if not all, 35mm DSLRs with CMOS sensors to be lacking in depth and tonal graduation ... and many, including the 5D, to produce a plastic look to the mages. Not until you jump to MF digital with CCD sensors do the files start to compete with MF film or beat it.
Keep that Hassey, and save up for a CFV digital back. Then you can shoot both film and digital.
I agree with Marc -- for my money, 35mm digital cameras don't have the look of medium format film. To me, film looks better than digital regardless of format. End of story. But it just has a look that I like -- I like the tonal range, color palette and black and white tonality better. That said, digital is far more convenient, more flexible, it has higher resolution per image area used, it is more efficient and in many cases more cost effective. Furthermore, above ISO 400 (in 35mm digital anyway), digital trounces film. So I would say that if you are happy with the 501cm, stick with it. If you want the same thing, only digital, the 5D is not it.
What I did say is the 5D *2* will likely at least equal the image quality (resolution) of well-scanned 6x6 and 645, a very different statement than the saying 5D *original* does that now...
Even at that, the tonality, look, feel, signature, palette, grain characteristics, halation and response curve will all be different between the mediums --- those differences may or may not be preferred over the "look" form the DSLR, but they are a different consideration than resolution.
Just my $.02, even given the fact the 5D2 has 21mp, and may equal a 120 film frame, there is still so much missing. For me, my 1Ds3 (also 21mp) could not hold a candle to my new MFDB, even if it was the same pixel resolution. These new Canon bodies, while they have huge great sensors, the rest of the "solution" betrays them, namely the lenses. If you head over to Fred Miranda and DPReview, there are constant threads battling about lens sharpness, lens-to-lens quality control issues, etc. So many people are fed up with Canon's dismal optics, that they move to adapters and using Nikon and Zeiss glass. Just something to keep in mind. A camera system on paper is very different than the reality, even with that pricey L glass.
And I agree that no current DSLR can come close to competing with a MFDB on IQ, including tonality --- at least on a single exposure. Stitching multiple frames is a different story.
How do you get better tonality with stitching?
Interesting side note on "Stitching".
I'm way into MFD Stitching for commercial applications these days (still learning about it) ... most recent application was an axel testing Dynamometer room using multiple panning shots with the H3D-II/39 and HC/28mm. Not enough room to get back and use a longer focal length ... and the 28 was too wide causing too much regular W/A distortion. These shots will be potentially used for 6 to 10 foot wide wall graphics that will be viewed close up by engineers ... ( the ultimate pixel peepers? : -)
My point is that stitching proves that we want, and sometimes need, even more resolution ... and full frame 645 with 65 megs or more isn't a ridiculous desire.
Not exactly "fun with MF" being that it's hard work to do these under time constraints, really bad lighting and "factory" filth. I did learn something on this job ... I stitched processed DNGs straight from ACR and lost the DNG corrections available in Phocus ... resulting in some distortion in the crane rail at the back of the room. Next time I will go through Phocus and stitch the processed Tiffs with DAC applied. Ya learn something every day
First my name is Michel, sorry about that .
Then I thanks you all for your answers. Saving for a digi-back is a good idea but it will take me a life time, so it isn't an option right now. Nonetheless I will follow Mark's advice and keep the 501. Decision of not making any move is quite easy particularly when I am not very enthusiastic about DSLR sizes and weight pretty similar to the 501, lenses being zoom zoom and the so many programs and buttons.
One thing said is CCD seems better than CMOS is of high interest, I think Leica is using CCD, am I right ? They could well be the only manufacturer doing it in aps sensors.
To carry this discussion one step further with a few minor points. I will also go on record saying that IMHO:
1) 22 MP MF capture well exceeds anything I seen from any DSLR, including 21MP + AA filtered DSLR capture.
2) 39 MP MF capture is almost (not quite, but very, very close) to being as good as a drum-scan of a perfectly executed 4x5 negative.
This is interesting, it could be my inexperience, but 6x7 film still looks better to me than my 22mp MFDB. Perhaps I should do a real comparison to see if this is just my bias....
AIX for Breakfast
In *my* case I favored digital's relative lack of grain which was visible in even a 16x24 print from scanned MF Provia.
I did however feel many of the film scans had smoother tonality than their DSLR equivalents.
Tonality is an area where I feel MF digital capture, even 22MP, excels over DSLR capture, and in most cases I find it better than scanned MF. Conversely, I feel scanned 4x5 (or larger) exhibits smoother tonality than 39MP MF capture.
Hope these clarify my preferences, and I respect that others feelings may be entirely different --
I am also using a H3DII (but 22mp) with the HC 28mm (for a little while only) & just received a really right stuff pano head last week-end.
I was amazed by the result of the first quick test I made: 6 pictures taken every 15° in a room with no 'room' to back-up.
The big mistake I made: i was starting the 1st shot (and ending the last one) at the border of the frame so that I had to use the borders in the final composition. In my opinion there is just few distortion elsewhere in the picture because it is using the best part of each shot (DAC corrected in Phocus) but not for the extreme right and left sides of the picture.
I just mention that because I have the same impression in looking at your picture.
Now I know that for good stitched results with the 28mm, I need to start to shoot larger than the final frame. Obvious for some, lesson learned for me.
(Don't look at the light, no care was taken to make a correct exposure)
Marc - that testing platform is one giant milling 'bed' - would be fascinating to see how they 'locked down' each side of the machine...
Very funny Jack
I just love BIG stuff.