Perhaps he is rich? It is not the first time wealthy people have gone into photography and MFD equipment...
Crikey, the internet is full of people reviewing cameras! Other than a very few subscription sites like Sean Reid or Lloyd Chambers, I'm not aware of anyone doing it to make money.
I thought the review, though rather superficial (hard not to be, given the time constraints of a YouTube video), was fairly well done.
Anyway, thinking about Jerome's point, guy seems to be running a pretty established studio with a steady income. Not that hard to rent a couple of bodies in addition to the one he already has (Might even get a demo piece for free if he is in good terms with the dealers) or might have friends in the industry who own rival brands. It's hard, but not impossible to do such a shootout. I do not see how he can "Fake" the shoot when there is footage of him using all three cameras.
I guess he has a healthy business which at least at the time being generated enough money to do these sort of thing during a period of less work. He probably just think it's fun testing out gear.
I'd also love to compare those cameras, they're really interesting due to that they share the same sensor and still have much different pricing.
erm... I am not quite sure what the problem here is. Somoene made some videos and you have a problem with them for doing so?
Or are you saying that Hasselblad, Phase One and Pentax formed a consortium and paid this guy to do a video of their products, pointing out the weaknesses and strengths of each and asked the viewers to make their choice based on their requirements? You know, like in a real review?
Sorry, I am really lost here trying to figure out what you're angry about.
I take back all what I have written in this thread. Sorry.
Err... yeah, he's actually a quite well known pro photographer.
Interesting assumption on your part though that he must just be some rich kid. My first guess is usually on someone being a pro when I see videos that are this well made. And if he's not a pro but just has money, then perhaps he's a very talented amateur... with a lot of money. Double envy! :-)
I would like to have seen him work on images from all three on photoshop in order to see a 3 system comparison that way.
He seemed to run out of patience when working on the 645Z file in PS ACR.
He gets one thing wrong, the price differential between Phase and Pentax is not $24K vs $9K, but $40K vs 8K, that's about five fold. Of course if you are into controlled-light fashion photography then it's probably well worth it with the leaf shutter advantage of Phase and Big H.
Too much to list, let's just say I have a bad case of GAS.........
One thing people always forget to mention while comparing Phase to much cheaper competition is that you can get 90% of what phase gives at 60% of the cost with Leaf.
(...and better color to boot. Yes, I am partial )
We are all partial. I sold my Phase also before buying the 645Z.
Just ask you to read MR's LULA review in September 2014 where he compares 645Z, Hasselblad and Phase units with same Sony 51MP sensor.
Last edited by algrove; 28th September 2015 at 17:16.
I have read it and the Pentax is indeed the best choice for a lot of people.
Personally, I am happy with my CCD back and theflexibility that the modular system and leaf shutter lenses offer, but that is besides the point of the thread.
On topic though, I hope Pentax improves their RAW software. Probably not to C1P levels, but at least as good as Phocus. This is one complaint that the reviewer int he video raises and a valid one. ACR/ LR works, but not the best choice for anyone looking to get the best quality out of their images.
I think the key problem with LR is that the profiles rarely if ever are good. Adobe has decided for a "look" which at least doesn't match my taste. If you apply a custom profile with good color I think LR is perfectly fine regarding quality, although C1 does have better color adjustment functions. Phocus software feels really ancient (because it is), but Hasselblad does great regarding color, I prefer them over Phase One actually, although P1 does a very good job too.
Anyway, I've generated these two DNG profiles for the Pentax 645z using my own profile maker DCamProf, you can use them in Lightroom (or other software that supports DNG profiles):
They are made from a simple ColorChecker 24 shot I found on Imaging Resource web site, with simulated D50 light. So it won't work great for Tungsten, but for flash and daylight it should be fine. While simplistic, the CC24 does work remarkable well to match colors especially on newer cameras. I'd suspect some precision errors on high saturation colors though.
That's just the basic "colorimetric" part of color, it's the easy part, what you can do in any software supporting reproduction photography. The hard part is applying a film curve and still make colors look good, and then do subtle subjective adjustments. Here is where LR fail I think. I've put quite some effort into DCamProf to make a good job there, and I hope you like it.
The "neutral plus" profile adds some subtle subjective adjustments on top of the "neutral" profile. I think most will prefer that (previously I called it "look" but then few dared to download it ). At first glance they actually look identical, as the adjustments are very subtle as they should be. On images with saturated colors you see a larger difference. These are the adjustments:
* longer rolloff to white in skin-tone range to improve look of high-key portraits
* shorter rolloff to white in cyan-blue-magenta to improve color of skies
* slight warmup of midtones and highs in greens and yellows for making sunlit areas stand out more in landscapes
* slight saturation increase, skin-tones excluded as well as already highly saturated colors
* slight reduction of green component in oranges to get better separation between greens and reds (for landscapes)
* compress the gamut towards AdobeRGB
Almost all bundled profiles have some warmup, and C1 has even stronger warmup, so while I think it's a "landscape" adjustment, I think you will prefer it also for other subjects as we're used to that look. All bundled profiles also have gamut compression, so I added it to the neutral+ profile. I don't particularly like the concept of static gamut compression in the profile, I think it would be better if the raw converters would handled that dynamically based on image content, but neither LR or C1 does that (I don't think any current raw converter does it).
I don't own the camera so I've made this profile more or less "in the blind" and I haven't been able to relate to their native Silky Pix rendering (which I guess has different color/contrast than LR bundled profile). DCamProf is still under development so a bug/quirk or two may exist. In any case I think it looks significantly better than the Adobe bundled profile.
The most obvious differences is that it's a bit more saturated (I think Adobe's is unnaturally desaturated) and the blues are darker, but there are also more subtle differences in things like skin tones (which are way too yellow in Adobe's profile if you ask me).
DCamProf is free software, a tutorial of how to make own profiles exists here: Making a camera profile with DCamProf
You can make both DNG and ICC profiles, including Capture One style ICC profiles. As C1 refuses to open competitor's files you can't process 645z files there though.
My profiles probably have problems with deep artificial blue lights or other extremely saturated blues, I have a software issue there which I'm working on fixing, but the current profiles should work in most circumstances.
Last edited by torger; 30th September 2015 at 05:52.
3 Member(s) liked this post
Wow, I have no idea how accurate these profiles are, but I just tried the neutral+ one on a few of my images and it looks awesome compared to the Adobe and Embedded profiles, which I now realize had a tinge of vomit in their color palette. Will have to play around a bit more with these.
Torger thanks a lot for this!
I downloaded neutral plus and need to try them all out some more.
For skin tones it looks a lot better. Not sure about my industrial shots were I like the blue's of the Embedded color profile a bit better.
Anyway in both cases it is better then Adobe standard.
Also the camera is very new to me so I do not have a lot of material to work with yet.
The "blues" is a challenge, until I started working with camera profiling software I never understood how problematic the blue range specifically is.
You'll see that most bundled profiles render blues lighter than realistic, not just Adobe, Phase One does this too. My profile doesn't which makes blues a lot darker than typical for bundled profiles. The advantage of this is more accurate color, not only in the blue range but other colors too as it becomes easier to match all colors when you don't push any of them in the "wrong" direction.
One disadvantage of it is that it's harder to see tonality in darker blues (eye is less sensitive), so it may look more flat, it may also look more flat simply because the output colorspace is clipped more. So it does make sense to want less accurate blue in this case. (As a sidenote I don't exactly know how accurate the blue is in this case, the blue patch of the CC24 is one of those most sensitive to glare, so if the shot had some glare the blue is pushed down a bit more than it should.)
And then there's a technical disadvantage which is that for some cameras, like the Pentax and A7r-II, the raw blue channel is so much more sensitive than the human eye so you need to subtract a lot of blue to make the appropriate realistic lightness. What then happens is that in the extreme range, for example triggered by narrow band artificial blueish lights (such you can find in a city nightscape) so much blue is subtracted that you get on negative luminance and it clips to dead blue. With a light blue this does not need to happen.
To the next version of my software it will probably be possible to configure how you want the blues. Personally I'd still choose the "accurate" way, as for my subjects I don't get into the extreme blue range, but when shooting city nightscapes I'd make a special profile with a lighter blue. And as said you may prefer a lighter blue in any case to get better tonality in the range. Unfortunately to make a smooth profile one need to sacrifice a little accuracy/realism on the other colors too in that case. I'll see if it can be fixed with some sort of local adjustment at some point so you "can have it all", but it won't happen still for some time.
The posted profile will make more ugly clipping in the extreme blue range than is necessary though even with accurate blue lightness due to a bug in the software, so the next version will be better also in the extreme range.
1 Member(s) liked this post
The one thing colour element I'm struggling with with my new Credo 60 files is the blues, specifically the depth of blue in sky. In C1 – and Lightroom for that matter – the sky is rendered too light for my tastes, especially compared to Portra 160 scanned on my Imacon 949. Other than that, the colours are exceptional. I'm not experienced enough with C1 to know how to get the best of the conversions, but it's clear from Torger's comments that there is a lot going on under the hood that you can dig in to if you're that way inclined.
It's also clear that all of the above mentioned camera systems are pretty much on par, except for price and some specialist features (that may or may not make that price difference worth it.) Personally, I'm not convinced that C1 is the magic bit of software people make it out to be, but I do think the colour profiles and tone curve options C1 present make it very attractive for those that don't want to fluff around struggling to get the colour they want.
Interesting that you're mentioning too light skies, this is actually something I've noted and disliked too. This is a common property, most profiles/cameras have that. In Adobe Lightroom / Camera Raw the reason is that their built-in curve desaturates blues quite much as a side effect. In DCamProf I've designed a new type of tone reproduction where this aspect can be more controlled.
Per default (in the neutral profile) the rolloff into the whitepoint is the same over the whole hue range, and desaturates a little slower than Adobe, so skies are a little bluer. In the neutral+ I've adjusted this to vary over the hue range. It's even a bit shorter in the cyan-blue-purple range, intended to target skies, which keeps saturation even better, and then elongated (ie the opposite) in the skin-tone range. For faces if you keep saturation close to clipping the highlights can look a bit flat, especially for high key portraits, so it's then better with a long soft rolloff into white. Skies generally don't look flatter as they are quite flat already in the first place.
I've noted that working with hues and adjusting them is usually the easy part, but much of the look sits not in hues, but for example in this rolloff property. Skintones are very sensitive to this.
Another trick DCamProf does is transitioning from a more RGB-based curve to a luminance based curve as saturation increases to very high levels. This can be seen in say red flowers where Adobe with it's RGB-HSV curve flattens out the tonality in the reds, while the transition into luminance indeed desaturates the highlights a bit more but instead separates color better. Capture One profiles, which overall are very well designed, seems to do something similar. There's much taste involved in profile design though, so there's not one single best, and as a profile is static you can't optimize it to work best in all situations.
It's super-interesting problems for an engineer like me, I like to work in this crossover between perception and technology. Unfortunately it's not much commercial potential in this type of stuff (I do this as a hobby), I think that's why we haven't seen any good commercial profile makers (except for reproduction applications), and thus camera color continues to be a hard-to-grasp mystery which photographers can't do much about, you get what you get. I don't think DCamProf with its command line interface will change that in any major way, but it's a small contribution.
One thing that I've done (kudos to Jack for first pointing out years ago with IQ files) is to shift the blue cyan component a little using the C1 Pro advanced colour editor. It seems to me that most manufacturers shift blues to cyan (and hence look brighter) plus also a very nasty tendancy to make greens look more yellow/green than the blue/green that I normally see.
Set up a subtle cyan/blue advanced colour adjustment and save it as a style with C1 and you can apply it to all files during import or processing from a certain camera that exhibits the colour shifts. I've done this with my Phase One files for years. It only tkes a few points o adjustment to make files look more natural.
To my eyes the Phase One Blue rendering has always been a positive. I have always enjoyed the blue hues that I can get from C1 and many years ago stopped using a CL-PL on my Phase One skies. C1's color adjustment tools do make fine tuning the blue easier. I tend to shift the blue hue just a bit to the right (towards the red) then adjust the luminosity. The ability to make WB adjustments in a local adjustment are invaluable.
I agree that Phase One can take the greens to a more yellow hue and have to work on those colors more often.
Having looked at a few Phase One profiles for various cameras in a low-level analytical fashion I can confirm that they do like the warm look (add yellow). Most profile makers add a little yellow, Adobe does it, Hasselblad does it, I do it myself in the neutral+ profile posted, but Phase One does it more than most. What's right is a matter of taste and everyone has their own.
Some users have noted some blocky artifacts that may appear in highlights with my 645z profiles. It's some sort of software bug that needs fixing. At some point I'll post updated profiles which should work better, but it may take a while. I'm a bit choked with actual paid work now
1 Member(s) liked this post
Speaking of color calibration, I've heard good things about QPcards in the past: http://www.qpcard.com/en_b2c/home
Anyone used these before?
QP cards work fine - small, simple to use and easy to put into a scene. IIRC My Leaf or phase one P40+ came with them but I've used them before too.
My personal preference is the Color checker passport. Small, convenient and also has various white balance selectable segments for warmer/cooler white balance, plus a full color checker for profiling and also a large grey card.
Last edited by GrahamWelland; 6th October 2015 at 08:53.
I use the Spydercheckr and cube combo. Works quite well IMO.
Have usually used the QP cards in the past, are ok,but as you'd likely guess, not very durable if you don't take care. Starting to migrate to the color checker.