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!

Fun with MF images - ARCHIVED - FOR VIEWING ONLY

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Fun with MF images, part 2: What are you shooting with that MF back?

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
And he wore that jacket just to make it easier for you. Moire heaven:angel:
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Re: Fun with MF images, part 2: What are you shooting with that MF back?

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.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Re: Fun with MF images, part 2: What are you shooting with that MF back?

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:
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
Re: Fun with MF images, part 2: What are you shooting with that MF back?

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.

don
 
J

jmvdigital

Guest
Re: Fun with MF images, part 2: What are you shooting with that MF back?

Played around with texturing a bit. No worries if you don't like it, I'm on the fence myself.
 

KurtKamka

Subscriber Member
Re: Fun with MF images, part 2: What are you shooting with that MF back?

I'll call this one "Milwaukee Gothic" ... to the curb with the Old Style and in with the new.

Kurt
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Re: Fun with MF images, part 2: What are you shooting with that MF back?

I'll call this one "Milwaukee Gothic" ... to the curb with the Old Style and in with the new.

Kurt
Love that shot Kurt.

I grew up in a house like that on Detroit's far west side. My Dad was a Detroit Firefighter.
 
T

tetsrfun

Guest
Re: Fun with MF images, part 2: What are you shooting with that MF back?

"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.

Steve
 
Last edited:
Re: Fun with MF images, part 2: What are you shooting with that MF back?

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.
Sorry to dig up an old post, I'm a little behind...

Jack, how does the Betterlight back you have fit in with this? Is it as good as they say it is? How does it compare with 4x5?
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Re: Fun with MF images, part 2: What are you shooting with that MF back?

Sorry to dig up an old post, I'm a little behind...

Jack, how does the Betterlight back you have fit in with this? Is it as good as they say it is? How does it compare with 4x5?
No worries, no post too old to discuss here!

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.

Cheers,
 

routlaw

Member
Re: Fun with MF images, part 2: What are you shooting with that MF back?

No worries, no post too old to discuss here!

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...

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.

Cheers,
Allow me to throw in my two cents worth of information, though its nowhere near as extensive as Jacks.

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.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Re: Fun with MF images, part 2: What are you shooting with that MF back?

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.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Re: Fun with MF images, part 2: What are you shooting with that MF back?

One trip
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
View attachment 9155
Apologies for the blurries, 1/3 sec hand held
-bob
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Re: Fun with MF images, part 2: What are you shooting with that MF back?

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.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Re: Fun with MF images, part 2: What are you shooting with that MF back?

Glad you are safe Bob!
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Re: Fun with MF images, part 2: What are you shooting with that MF back?

Glad you are safe Bob!
Not to bad really, just like the simulator.
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 :ROTFL:
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.
-bob
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Re: Fun with MF images, part 2: What are you shooting with that MF back?

I have a list of several passengers' emails who want copies of the shot.
$25 a pop and you pay for a portion of the flight!
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Re: Fun with MF images, part 2: What are you shooting with that MF back?

Bob, this one ticks all my boxes - looks like Moonrise Hernandez NM but I'm sure you knew that!

T
Thanks,
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.
-bob
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top