Live view on a technical camera - possible?

[torger]

I work in a very large area with a few clients that would in the wider world be considered small businesses, it's remote here and everyone has a camera and thinks they are a photographer.

Indeed, commercial photography is really a tough business these days, few appreciate and recognize what a professional can do . I see in newspapers how the artistic quality of images have been reduced when a large number of photojournalists have been laid off, and indeed many traditional clients that rented a photographer before just bring out the home digital camera and snap a photo. I do think that everyone that snaps a photo is a photographer in that moment, but it's not certain that they're a good one

And people are just lousy at seeing quality. I can see low light shots from mobile phones in printed publications, and well, for some as interested in image quality like myself it doesn't look nice. This is not about 50 megapixel Canon vs 50 megapixel Hasselblad type of differences, it's smeared details, ugly clipping and brownish pastel noise-reduced colors. Sometimes I've asked my non-photographer friends if they see any quality issues with these images, and well, they don't until I point it out to them, and when I do they don't care. So it's a tough business...

 

[Abstraction]

Abstraction, you do realise that different markets have different clients, I work in a very large area with a few clients that would in the wider world be considered small businesses, it's remote here and everyone has a camera and thinks they are a photographer. Where as in some places a client will want you to do no more than provide the goods, in areas like mine, it's personal relationships that count and anything that can be done to create that interest and bond is very important, hence me turning up with a tech camera and the client saying wow, what's that, is a good thing.

That's fair enough. Furthermore, kudos to you for being able to afford med format equipment working in a small business market. That's a feat in and of itself.

It's great that you have come to the conclusion that it's not worth it to you, you have gone from wanting info on only full frame backs with live view to realising that there is only one really effective cmos model for that and the cost of entry for someone with no existing equipment is huge, to finding a solution to allow you to use your existing kit and get what you want, I doubt you'd have even been thinking about at all had you known this at the start. There are a good number of photographers though who have build up a system or built up clients that appreciate their work for whom it is valid and to them, benefits out way costs and it's all good. Whether you decide to buy mf or not is of no relevance to me personally, I hope that what you do buy gives you pleasure and this process has been rewarding in some way.

Mat

I absolutely agree and this process of having gone from wanting info on med format backs with live view to making up my mind and realizing what my needs are has been made possible by this particular forum and contributors like you, Torger and others who have taken the time and made the effort to reply. Given where I am now, I can honestly say that you guys have saved me a ton of money! :grin:

 

[Abstraction]

Thanks, I was curious to know. Actually I guessed palette was the reason, and I too think it's quite attractive. Post-processing is not something I particularly enjoy or want to be a focus in my photography, so to work with a number of fixed presets is quite nice. I see many photographers use film for this reason, to concentrate on what the see as the core of photography...

...There's another thing about film. We've been talking about clients and status of camera systems. When it comes to art photography, at least here in Europe, film has a special status. The audience thinks it's more "honest", although of course many in actuality scan and post-process digitally just as if it was a digital image. In the era of "photoshoped" (it's a verb now) commercial photography the audience long for something more pure and traditional. So for my genre if I was about to think about status I should look into large format film, preferably 10x8", that has much higher status than the latest coolest digital camera. I'm today just not skilled enough to work with film though, I shoot too little, and digital gives me margins for errors and possibility to correct mistakes at the scene. I'm not ruling out that I will turn to film in the future though, although I hope I won't do it for "status" reasons...

I loved film, especially Kodachrome 64. There's nothing like a projected K64 slide. The colors pop, it's very, very beautiful. The cibachrome prints I used to get from the K64 slides had the same look, the same color and the same pop. There was just no way of getting that same look from any other printing process. Once Cibachrome was no longer available, I was no longer able to get that K64 look on prints and Kodachrome disappeared shortly after. I started shooting Provia F and I had R prints made from those, which were nice as well, but even the R prints' days were numbered. Once my options narrowed to scanning and printing, it no longer made sense to shoot film. So, whatever some may think about getting to the "core of photography" with film is delusional unless they're just going to shoot slides and project them. Hence, there is no "status" since the image is going to be digitized and manipulated just like any other image prior to printing.

Film responds to color quite differently from a camera though so you really can't get the same look with digital as with film, so if you really like the film palette there's no good substitute. In balance of things I prefer to have the digital control of colors though, the possibilities to make a personal design which is in line with your "message" are considerably better, and indeed making realistic colors is easier with digital too.

Unfortunately color software for digital cameras is under-developed, that's why I made my own DCamProf. Digital photographers don't really have the tools they could have had to control color, and I think that's a reason why there's such strong "mythology" around colors from various cameras, as most don't really know what sits in the software and what sits in the hardware. Most sits in software, but if you don't have the tools to control it it doesn't really matter.

One of the things I dislike about digital is that it has pushed the onus of printing onto the photographer. One of the things I liked with slide film is that the slide was essentially the end product and all the printer had to do was match the slide with his print. It involved a lot of technical expertise on the part of the printer, but no creativity. I worked with a few labs that I liked and they would match the prints color and contrast wise to the slide and I was free to concentrate on the picture taking process.

Digital has moved the onus onto me. I have to worry about color profiles, I have to do the post processing myself because there's no way for me to have the lab just match an original because there's no original per se. What I see on the screen may not be what they see. So I have to make adjustments and just have the lab print them straight. That takes a lot of my time, which I would rather not spend at the computer. There's also a steep learning curve and modifying color profiles is beyond my capabilities at the moment. Quite frankly, I don't look forward to learning how to do that.

 

[torger]

Digital has moved the onus onto me. I have to worry about color profiles, I have to do the post processing myself because there's no way for me to have the lab just match an original because there's no original per se. What I see on the screen may not be what they see. So I have to make adjustments and just have the lab print them straight. That takes a lot of my time, which I would rather not spend at the computer. There's also a steep learning curve and modifying color profiles is beyond my capabilities at the moment. Quite frankly, I don't look forward to learning how to do that.

I feel your pain. It's a love-hate relationship for me. My software engineer persona loves the challenge in making the software and going in deep on camera color. My photographer persona hates it, I just want to shoot, I have enough of computers in my life already.

And indeed we haven't mentioned this so far I think, but medium format does have an advantage in that it's a more complete integrated package end-to-end regarding color. The color profiles are very well-designed, while many feel that for DSLRs etc you need to make your own color profiles to get the most out of the camera.

I prefer making my own color profiles also for medium format gear as I often don't agree with the type of subjectivity they have, plus that making my own profiles gives me more freedom as I'm not as locked in to a certain brand's look.

However if I would not make my own profiles the case for medium format would be stronger as I think they often have superior color, especially if you compare to a jack-of-all-trades raw converter like Lightroom. Native colors of the manufacturers own software (Canon/Nikon etc) is often good, but few uses them as they aren't as convenient to use as say Lightroom.

I'm personally not particularly fond of Phase One's color (what's up with that yellow cast, and why do they make their look differ so much between backs?), but I can't deny that their profiles are very well designed so if you like their subjectivity it's a hit, very solid profiles. I like the approach of Hasselblad which has highly realistic colors, less subjectivity than Phase One, and they also try to keep the same look across their products so you can switch back model without getting a different look, which I'd think would be a key feature for professional photography. Hasselblad also have the approach to have only a single look, not a bunch of different looks like Leaf for example. It's a matter of taste if you like that or not, I actually like it.

One strange thing with Hassy backs though, I don't know if it counts for H5D, is that the color on the back screen is radically different from the color out of Phocus. Colors are much warmer on the back screen. It doesn't really matter in practical photography but if one gets an occassional peek on a Hassy camera it's good to know.

If you like to have a bit more subjectivity, I'd suggest to look into Leaf looks. Leaf is today Phase One's "budget brand", but the truth is that they're still a competing alternative when it comes how to interpret color. They have a distinctly different look and many prefer their look over Phase One, so it's not always a budget choice to go for Leaf.

I have no experience of how Leica deals with color so I can't comment on that. When it comes to Pentax 645z the profiles I made for them using my own software has become quite popular as the color you get from Lightroom defaults is pretty mediocre (although highly robust).

If you're into reproduction work there's also finished packages end-to-end so you don't need to mess with color profiles yourself. Capture One has their heritage edition with reproduction style profiles, and Sinar has very advanced multi-filter solution (Sinar CTM) if you like that. And there's multishot (Sinar/Hassy). Reproduction work with smaller format usually requires more expertise to make your own end-to-end chain.

In all, medium format has very well-developed workflows for typical professional tasks in their genre. Canon/Nikon DSLR is more geared towards the needs of photojournalism, wildlife and sports of course, and Sony is, well, consumer-like. The best now reaches a fair bit into medium format space, and you know already that I think the gap is now very small (and to some extent surpassed if you use older MF gear) for practical uses, but I think that you still may need to work a bit harder to get the workflows and looks where you want them if your taste is "medium format like".

 

[Abstraction]

And indeed we haven't mentioned this so far I think, but medium format does have an advantage in that it's a more complete integrated package end-to-end regarding color. The color profiles are very well-designed, while many feel that for DSLRs etc you need to make your own color profiles to get the most out of the camera.

I thought about that. I think it's this that gives it the "med format look" that many crave.

However if I would not make my own profiles the case for medium format would be stronger as I think they often have superior color, especially if you compare to a jack-of-all-trades raw converter like Lightroom. Native colors of the manufacturers own software (Canon/Nikon etc) is often good, but few uses them as they aren't as convenient to use as say Lightroom.

I read about people complaining about the LR color profiles. I use Corel Paint Pro, so that doesn't affect me and the manufacturer RAW converters tend to do a good job.

I'm personally not particularly fond of Phase One's color (what's up with that yellow cast, and why do they make their look differ so much between backs?), but I can't deny that their profiles are very well designed so if you like their subjectivity it's a hit, very solid profiles. I like the approach of Hasselblad which has highly realistic colors, less subjectivity than Phase One, and they also try to keep the same look across their products so you can switch back model without getting a different look, which I'd think would be a key feature for professional photography. Hasselblad also have the approach to have only a single look, not a bunch of different looks like Leaf for example. It's a matter of taste if you like that or not, I actually like it.

If you like to have a bit more subjectivity, I'd suggest to look into Leaf looks. Leaf is today Phase One's "budget brand", but the truth is that they're still a competing alternative when it comes how to interpret color. They have a distinctly different look and many prefer their look over Phase One, so it's not always a budget choice to go for Leaf.

I've looked into Leaf, and Sinar. Their backs are too expensive for the price difference. I just can't justify it.

In all, medium format has very well-developed workflows for typical professional tasks in their genre. Canon/Nikon DSLR is more geared towards the needs of photojournalism, wildlife and sports of course, and Sony is, well, consumer-like. The best now reaches a fair bit into medium format space, and you know already that I think the gap is now very small (and to some extent surpassed if you use older MF gear) for practical uses, but I think that you still may need to work a bit harder to get the workflows and looks where you want them if your taste is "medium format like".

I agree and I think with some color profile tweaking, you can come pretty damn close to that MF look.

 

[jlm]

maybe you need to start a new thread about the appropriateness of MF; not much lately about "live view", the thread topic

 

[Abstraction]

Yeah, we went off on a tangent rather steeply, haven't we?