Starting to play with some S2 files

[Terry]

Let me start off....I am not an expert at this and it is not a scientific test. I used the S2 for about three days and made a number of shots in the field and can show what I ended up with. For instance, take this first scene in very bright high contrast light. Three exposures (all at f4.8). First shot, I just took in the whole scene to see how the camera would expose. I then exposed for the sofa to see how blown the sky would be. Third time I exposed for the sky to see how well I could bring up the interior shadows. In the end this was a good test for me to see what information was out there in the shadows.

The fourth and fifth images are virtual copies in LR with adjustments noted.

All hand held

1/500

1/250

1/1500

1/500 with recovery slider at 100

1/1500 with fill light slider at 50

 

[tashley]

Hi Terry,

The underexpose and then fill shot looks best to me from these - how do they look to you full size? Conventional wisdom would have us expose to the right and then pull back the highlights so as to retain shadow detail...

Best

Tim

 

[Terry]

Yes Tim,
That is the one that is best the 1/500 shot is OK and the sky isn't actually blown and I can get stuff out of the shadows but there is enough still in the shadows of the 1/1500 shot that I would use it. It is just different for me to see how much I can pull from the shadows. There were a lot of spots like this the first morning I had the camera so it was a good way to learn.

 

[ptomsu]

Hi Terry,

for me the first shot looks best, maybe not all the details in shadow and sky you could get if you exposed towards one or the other end, but it looks just ok.

I would assume out of my knowledge I have meanwhile with the H3D39, that I can get pretty similar results out of the box, if I work on the spanning the whole range - maybe with exposure correction. If this file came directly out of the S2 then this is remarkable for me.

Keep sharing!

 

[docmoore]

Terry,

Peter is correct...the lattitude in these exposures is the hallmark of MF.

Looks like the S2 has it and then some.

Makes one wonder......


Bob

 

[Jack]

Terry,

Personally I am liking the last iteration, which IMO follows most conventional digital processing wisdom: expose for the highlights and develop for the shadows.

The main thing with MF files is the ability to push them around. I honestly feel you can add around 2 stops of DR in the raw processor for most MF files using the above method, maybe more. Generally speaking, I find the highlight recovery slider can usually recapture 1/3rd to 1/2 stop, and before I get slammed, no, the colors from that will not be 100% accurate, but at least they are palatable. So here you could conceivably "save" the first shot's highlights too. The shadow slider is the biggie, and can usually pop up as much as 2 stops to a base ISO capture without adding horrendous noise issues. Pretty impressive and probably the main reason those of us shooting MF chose it...

 

[Geoff]

Terry,

Personally I am liking the last iteration, which IMO follows most conventional digital processing wisdom: expose for the highlights and develop for the shadows.

The main thing with MF files is the ability to push them around. I honestly feel you can add around 2 stops of DR in the raw processor for most MF files using the above method, maybe more. Generally speaking, I find the highlight recovery slider can usually recapture 1/3rd to 1/2 stop, and before I get slammed, no, the colors from that will not be 100% accurate, but at least they are palatable. So here you could conceivably "save" the first shot's highlights too. The shadow slider is the biggie, and can usually pop up as much as 2 stops to a base ISO capture without adding horrendous noise issues. Pretty impressive and probably the main reason those of us shooting MF chose it...

+1. Last image is lovely. Unbeatable.

 

[Terry]

Jack,
In working with the third shot (1/1500 shutter) it clearly gives me the most latitude to push it around. In the examples above I just kept it simple with the recovery for the 1/500 in the and the fill for the 1/1500 shot.

If I start to work on the shot I can get more out of the 1/1500 shot both with recovery and fill for global adjustments before going even further with local adjustments.

Also, Jack, Guy and I discussed all of this at the workshop while I was shooting and why I have all of these files to work with. Helpful when learning a new camera/format to have instruction at the same time.

This is the 1/1500 shot with both recovery and fill....notice how much better under control the highlights on the bottom of the sofa fabric are controlled.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Terry,

Personally I am liking the last iteration, which IMO follows most conventional digital processing wisdom: expose for the highlights and develop for the shadows.

The main thing with MF files is the ability to push them around. I honestly feel you can add around 2 stops of DR in the raw processor for most MF files using the above method, maybe more. Generally speaking, I find the highlight recovery slider can usually recapture 1/3rd to 1/2 stop, and before I get slammed, no, the colors from that will not be 100% accurate, but at least they are palatable. So here you could conceivably "save" the first shot's highlights too. The shadow slider is the biggie, and can usually pop up as much as 2 stops to a base ISO capture without adding horrendous noise issues. Pretty impressive and probably the main reason those of us shooting MF chose it...

Exactly similar image here at the same time as Terry but I have no clipping on either end. Just some shadow and highlight recovery and a little tweaking this is where MF shines it's bright light. This is one shot without any blending or HDR. Actually pretty rare these days to do HDR. Most MF camera's or backs can handle this type of range.

 

[Mark Gowin]

Terry, I agree with most others in the the the last photo (1/500 shot with shadows lifted) looks better to my eye. As you know I have recently purchased an S2, so I am in the learning curve of processing images.

Tim, you have owned the S2 longer the any of us so could you please share some of your tips for processing S2 files. For example, which raw processor works best and what settings are good starting points in general?

Three things that I already know I need to do are: 1) Buy an Xrite passport to develop a profile for the camera in Lightroon; 2) Buy or build a faster computer; and 3) Buy a higher gamut monitor (e.g., NEC or Ezio) to get the most out of the processing. The only problem is all of these items start with the word "buy". At least the Xrite is inexpensive and I knew the computer and monitor upgrade would be needed before I bought the S2.

 

[monza]

Just curious, did anyone shoot MF film at the workshop for comparison?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

No film shot that I know of. Honestly there is no interest at all from me on film. Have not shot a roll of film in at least 10 years.

 

[jonoslack]

HI Terry
the last iteration looks good . . . just as a matter of interest, did you take this shot with the A900 as well?

all the best

 

[Terry]

HI Terry
the last iteration looks good . . . just as a matter of interest, did you take this shot with the A900 as well?

all the best

Of course not, that would have been too logical and made too much sense . But I did do the same test with just the Sony the next day....file coming right up. Will process now. I did it on the Sony with a tripod thinking I would try and blend them but may not even need to.

 

[monza]

For an amateur like me, film is the only option if I want to shoot medium format..which I do. Am trying out a Contax 645. So far with even a halfway decent exposure on color neg film it's very hard to lose shadow detail or blow highlights. I was just curious if anyone had a direct comparison with digital.

 

[docmoore]

For an amateur like me, film is the only option if I want to shoot medium format..which I do. Am trying out a Contax 645. So far with even a halfway decent exposure on color neg film it's very hard to lose shadow detail or blow highlights.

Which is why most of us prefer Neg to Pos.:toocool:

Bob

 

[Terry]

OK,
Here is an A900 bracketed exposure. -2EV, 0, +2EV untouched

Now for the basic files with just fill/recovery sliders. Similar to the S2 the A900 does well with the underexposed shot. The shadows come up quite nicely and there is still room to get better highlight. Look how well I can hold the mountains in the window.

Normal Exposure + recovery slider at 100

Underexposed -2 EV + Fill light slider at 60

Underexposed -2 EV + Fill light slider at 60 and recovery slider at 100.

 

[Mark Gowin]

The last A900 photo looks good. The A900 is no slouch.

 

[tashley]

Tim, you have owned the S2 longer the any of us so could you please share some of your tips for processing S2 files. For example, which raw processor works best and what settings are good starting points in general?

Hi Mark,

I tend to use LR3 as a sort of 'import it, catalogue it and see what I got' solution (I know it's a beta but I have been using it for months now and it seems very stable to me, I make backups of the originals and it gets more details out of the files than LR2 for most cameras). However, if I want to get that real MF hyper-real look, extracting the last drop of detail, then, C1 is best by far. It's not a free lunch though: it is more prone to show color moire and moire in fine architectural detail, it tends to oversharpen as Guy has noted and needs toning down a bit, and it can, even at lower than default sharpening, exaggerate noise in darker mid-tones. But what it DOES do is extract that jaw-dropping detail that an MF file with no AA filter has - and which you just never, ever see from a DSLR.

HTH,

Tim

ps I have had an issue with 'centrefold' on some files from my replacement S2 (the first one had a sensor fault and was replaced) and so the second one has gone back to be fixed. It wasn't by any means visible in all files - in fact it was somewhat rare - and is far less visible in C1. Has anyone else seen this? I hear it happens in Hassy files from time to time but I have no experience there...

 

[PeterL]

Very informative thread. Thanks for posting Terry.

Cheers, -Peter