Where were the shots made Bob? i want to live there.
Where were the shots made Bob? i want to live there.
Vineyards by moonlight 8 minutes f/16
Focus by guess and by golly.
St. Helena, California
Bob, did you by any chance use C1 and the Process tab to export that JPEG? IT look a bit crunchy to me. I was experiencing a similar problem with C1 Process until Doug at CI helped me out.
Oh yes, very crunchy,
this time with c1 jpeg processing and sharpening disabled.
Bob, that looks better. I was complaining to Doug about the crunchiness of the JPEG export with C1 Process tab (especially at small sizes), and he suggested using the export "Web Contact Sheet" option under the File menu (I think; it's not in the Process tab). This method uses the proxies C1 has stored in memory instead of rereading the the Raw file itself. For whatever reason, the Web Contact Sheet method produces much more acceptable JPEGs in my opinion.
playing around with the aptus75 and a pano head
shot with the Mamiya AFDII and Zeiss 110/2, put together with AutopanoGiga (beta version)
(shot after sun was down, each capture about 10 sec.)
the last one prints at 175" x 128"
here's a 100% crop of the main tree
Last edited by JimCollum; 12th November 2008 at 08:14.
Jim, I like the images, but I feel like maybe you went more for sheer image pano size rather than a truly great scene or composition. Maybe it's the flat processing. I dunno, not trying to be negative, but beyond the impressive pixel sizes, these don't do much for me in their current state.
With the title of the thread im a curious about the following:
Images presented here are stunning and many(most/all) of them show the great tones and detail of digital MF.
I feel though that 80-90% are either landscapes, architecture or medium distance, mostly static details.
I now ask myself if digital MF is mostly limited to those subjects (because of DOF, noise at higher ISO and slowish AF or MF)
Do you guys also shoot people, do you use your MF-camera for more casual things, do you bring it when you travel, when you walk hroughthe city, do you take images of your family, or maybe even for some action ( I dont mean of you have to professionally shoot a soccer game)?
Or do you bring your M8 or D700 or 5d for those times and subjects.
How many percent of your shooting can be done with MF and how often do you need the speed and functions and flexibilty of a 1D or 5D or D700?
I mean how good and practicable is MF shooting for everyday use?
Ooo, I get to reply first!
All of those things you mention are true. DoF is slim at best (a plus for me), there is noise at higher ISO (though the 30+ really makes a usable 1600 for me), and the AF is slowish.
That said, I sold my Canon 1DsIII and my 5D... my Phamiya with P30+ is my main and only camera (aside from a small P&S). So far it hasn't let me down. I will be bringing it traveling, I walk with it frequently, and take family images, etc.
The speed is definitely a notch down from using a 35mm DSLR, but it depends on what level of compromise you're willing to accept, and whether that compromise includes a big bulky clunky camera slowing you down vs. vastly improved image quality?
For me, the 30+ is my main everyday camera. It sits in a photo backpack behind me, ready to roll. I've taken it hiking with my pano head (heavy, sure, but other than, a joy). I've taken many family shots with it, handheld. I've taken regular stupid snapshots with it. I've shot it handheld while walking around a farm festival thingy with my son and fiancee. There is a bit of a learning curve (learning how to handle the weight, predict your shooting opps a bit better since things are slower and more deliberate, and dealing with carrying a tripod when you want the best image and/or the light is low, etc.)
So far I have no regrets.
Tom, here's a handheld shot of my fiancee and little man Parker. Yes, that's a wig. Happy belated Halloween.
PS: Yeah the skintones are bad. Pay no attention.
Here's a "getting ready" wedding shot from a 503CW with a Zeiss 50/4CFi shooting Tri-X:
Last edited by fotografz; 12th November 2008 at 14:52.
1 Member(s) liked this post
Oh, and yes Tom I carry a MF camera on my travels ... I have enough "snapshots" clogging up multiple hard-drives and am now more interested in more keepers of people and places.
Old country store shot: H3D-II/39 @ ISO 400, 1/25th shutter using the HC/50/3.2 ... 1/25th was possible by setting the mirror delay on the H camera.
I shoot EVERYTHING with MF or i don't shoot. LOL
Okay I do have a OLy 520 now and I cheated and shot a wedding reception but seriously i shoot everything and I shoot a lot of different stuff. Just shot a PR job, corporate meeting at ISO 800 150mm on a monopod. I maybe crazy but I ain't stupid, i use a monopod for many things. Main reason is it holds the camera . LOL
Really quick one shot at ISO 800 150mm at F4 put back on tungsten. Pretty much out of the can . If i can get away with this than 35mm DSLR's will never exist again in my bag
I will duly admit that I usually reach for something else unless I am sure I have the time and security to use MF digital. I still don't trust it enough for things I can't shoot again, so for that I shoot film, which I know I can always rely on, or the M8 and D3. If it absolutely has to get done properly or else, the D3 or an M7. They are the only cameras I trust implicitly.
Anybody know what this building might have been used for?
That looks like a very large Russian doll storage building.
Marc, great shot in the store! Awesome colours. Did you have to do anything special to hold back the light behind him?
Carsten - Website
Guy, Marc and Justin,
thanks for making clear that digital MF is not only for static subjects and commercial stuff. Great images to proove that too!
It's a lot of fun but admittedly more work at it. Which i actually enjoy the challenge
Autumn in Napa
Mustard's is my favorite lunch spot
This was with a 203FE and 110/2 on Acros. Unfortunately, the web pic is a bit too small to see the depth of field effect. It looks nice larger though. It was awhile ago that I took it, but I think the aperture was between f/4 and f/2. Only the telephone pole and fence are really in focus. I like using that slight blur to accentuate the subject, while still making the rest of the image recognizable. Eh, anyway.
Not sure where to put this but heck it is fun. Shot at ISO 800 but pushed in C1 1 full stop effective ISO 1600. Not to bad , noise that is
Here's one ...
2 shots. H3DII-31 50mm C, 80mm HC
First one is from Chicago.
The last 2 are from Saint Jean Church near Ephesus in Turkey. The first one is the tomb of Saint Jean, and the second one is the ruins of the Church that was later built around it (in the 4th century). It is beleived that he took Mary to Anatolia to save her life, where she died also (Meryemana Church). I'm trying to document such important places in Turkey and abroad, and have a large collection of pictures and documentation. It's my second hobby after photography. These go together well.
Actually at 100 percent it is not there. I know i was looking at the 25 percent going oh boy this will be fun. I do get moire with the P25 plus sometimes no question about it . Luckily now C1 4.5.2 has moire control that works pretty good.
Thanks Tom! I am glad you like it. I spent a long time on it (lots of masking work)...I don't know why...it was a really beautiful scene in real life.
Actually, I think I posted it a few weeks ago (I was lazy about developing the film), but I also shot it on MF digital. I had forgotten, so sorry for the double post. The MF digital version looked like this:
I had seen Tom's post (#741) the day he posed his questions however work has interfered with posting my reply - sorry.
The main camera I use is medium format. Sandy and I went to Alaska earlier this year and took the MFDB, 2 35mm Canons as well as a P&S. The only time I picked up the 35mm (1Ds II) was when I wanted to shoot wildlife - bears and moose. I did do an experiment using the medium format and shot a couple of wildlife at the National Bison Refuge in MT with mixed results. My main camera I had with me was my Mamiya AFD II and P30+; I used that to shoot all my landscape, took it with me on an aerial of Denali as well as picking up "local color" of Homer AK.
I think I read and agree with the notion that I have enough "snapshots" and am concentrating on the really good images.
I've come to understand and that why I simply love the image quality that I can get from medium format it isn't suited for all images. I attempted to capture images of eagles at Anchor Point with disastrous results making be rely on the faster focusing and longer lens of the 1DsII.
2 Sisters Bakery: Took this for a good friend - 28mm hand held using available light.
My attempt at medium format wildlife - 300mm lens
Walking around right at sunset in a very small campground somewhere in ID - handheld 28mm.
Anchor Point eagle 1Ds III with a 300mm lens doubled - simply no way that medium format can compete with this.
So I guess my "go to" camera is medium format.
Played around with texturing a bit. No worries if you don't like it, I'm on the fence myself.
Moonset over St. Helena
I'll call this one "Milwaukee Gothic" ... to the curb with the Old Style and in with the new.
"Anchor Point eagle 1Ds III with a 300mm lens doubled - simply no way that medium format can compete with this."
Very true..but I had birds and only MF..I gave it a try.
CZ 250/4 CF doubled.
Last edited by tetsrfun; 1st August 2010 at 18:31.
First off, to be fully clear, I no longer own my Betterlight unit -- it was one of the items I needed to sell to get into direct MF digital capture. That said, it doesn't alter what I'm about to say about it.
The files from my Betterlight Super 6K were equal to the best drum-scanned 8x10 I ever shot, so call it a full notch above direct capture MF DB capture -- essentially the best image file I have seen. However, just like shooting with an 8x10 view camera, the Betterlight is not particularly convenient to use outside the studio, nor is it particularly versatile in low light situations. But if you have adequate light and a static subject, and if you want the best file possible from a technical point of view, right now I would still give the Betterlight scanning back the nod over all MFDB's. In fact, I'll go a step further: If my main work was any in-studio product work like tabletop or art repro, the Betterlight would be system of choice, period.
Since starting another similar thread recently regarding IQ differences between MFDB's and scan backs I have been given a number of high res files form the Hasselblad H3D II 39 MS camera and printed one of them to a 32x42 inch print @ 137.238 dpi no less on epson enhanced matt paper. The results are jaw dropping stunning and noticeably better to me than the single shot equivalent. The differences compared to the single shot capture have more neutral highlight and shadows with extended values and hue in the highlights especially. The single shot image has highlights that seem truncated and smooshed in value and hue by comparison to the MS version. In other words subtle nuances if they are important to the end user are much improved and extended comparing single shot vs 4 shot.
Micro details from the MS image all but defy reality, and offer a very 3 dimensional look. As one astute observer said its as though you can pick up the threads right off the page. There seems to be much talk lately about how the newer single shot capture devices are so good the differences are moot between multi shot and single shot, but its certainly not what I am seeing.
How does it compare to the Betterlight? At this point I am not sure given I don't have one to make a direct comparison with but am working on it. From a pure scientific and technical point of view the scan back would presumably have the edge for a variety of reasons. The pixels are a full 12 microns vs the 39 MS at 6.8 microns which puts far more pressure on the lens to resolve finer details plus it hits the diffraction limits far sooner. Just as important the larger pixel wells of the scan back have 3 times the capacity to absorb photons before saturation theoretically allowing for far more dynamic range and extended values/hues. In addition the Super 6K-HS produces a file size with some 30+ more mb, nothing to sneeze at.
What is not clear to me however is whether smaller pixels such as the one associated with most 39 mp backs produces finer details than the larger pixel of the scan back, assuming all else is equal such as lens quality etc. I suspect the differences in this area might not be that great in which case the scan back would still have the advantage over any MFDB, but this is nothing more than pure conjecture on my part.
Hope this helps.
I know this is probably off topic, but I wonder what will happen with cameras like the Red Scarlet -- http://www.red.com/epic_scarlet/
This is a digital movie camera, but at the same time it can be configured as a DSLR. Sensor sizes range from 2/3rds of an inch to 6x17cm. Yes, a full 6x17cm 261 megapixel sensor that does 25 frames per second. Body only for the 6x17 is priced at 50,000 (now), which is really not that far from the top of the line medium format digital. They are also doing a full 645 sized sensor that is in Mamiya mount -- they are clearly targeting the photography industry and people who are being asked to create more and more multimedia content. I am curious as to what sort of impact this will have on the medium format market. Furthermore, given their massive capture rate (50fps on 645), will these cameras be able to use a multi-shot technique similar to the mfdigital makers, but could they do it at a much higher speed?
I don't know much about the technical issues here, but the Red cameras seem to be a tour de force, with pricing (albeit expensive) very much in line with current medium format digital systems.
One hort diversion due to a bird strike
One hit on the cowling, a one or more through the engine
One lost engine
One new plane
Then back home
Apologies for the blurries, 1/3 sec hand held
Man that cowling took a hit. So is the heart attack over after that engine said sorry Thomas the engine can't get over the hill.
Glad you are safe Bob!
Some others on the plane really raised a ruckus, but a one engine go-around in a 757 is not all that hard. One woman refused to board the replacement plane.
The worst part for me, which is not part of the simulations, is the smell of burning bird in the cabin (yuck). I recommend plucking them before burning them. I will have to have a word with GE about that.
I scream more when the dow falls 800 in a couple of hours
At least the three bottles of Papillon I had in my suitcase made it through unharmed.
I have a list of several passengers' emails who want copies of the shot.
Sometimes I wonder about that AA shot. The foreground in the AA image was much further away, so I guess that it would go together in one exposure with enough DOF. I guess he was using something like a 300mm lens or longer.
I brazenly used focus blending to get the foreground and background sharp at the same time.
AA had to wait to see what developed. I wonder how much post he used on that one.