MF resources

[fotografz]

Predictable, but fair for each person to assess their level of need and act accordingly.

Also, there is a big difference between those who are starting out in MFD and those who have been in it for a while. Learning curves are never easy, and cost factors going from ground zero verses upgrading an existing system are substantially different.

Frankly, if I was just going into MFD, I'd think hard on it even with what I currently know. The system expense is considerable and the business of photography is still choked off in my area.

-Marc

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Predictable, but fair for each person to assess their level of need and act accordingly.

Also, there is a big difference between those who are starting out in MFD and those who have been in it for a while. Learning curves are never easy, and cost factors going from ground zero verses upgrading an existing system are substantially different.

Frankly, if I was just going into MFD, I'd think hard on it even with what I currently know. The system expense is considerable and the business of photography is still choked off in my area.

-Marc

Agreed but the other factor as a commercial photographer is after the numbers and the clients. The need for oneself takes over. Or said more simply is I'm doing this for me first and my art. So I take all the ROI into account than say screw it and buy for MY needs. Here is how I finally look at it and after 35 years as a shooter what will I have accumulated in my work and more importantly how through all the years my files will finally hold up under the new technologies here and coming down the road. As I said several times I have had clients pin my images to the wall bigger than they ever should be and I get the screws. In the end I never want a file that will not hold up to that unfortunately this is only 2 years of MF and not the rest of the 33 years. This really bugs me that I did not jump into MF digital a lot sooner. I waited and waited and waited too long. For when I finally end this career I want the biggest badass files I can have in my legacy to work with and along the way the best files.

But lets be real honest one day of shooting proves it works but you did not get the best out of it. I know i teach this stuff and there is a big learning curve no matter what the level of experience. It's simply a different ballgame. I will never go back either.

 

[fotografz]

Agreed but the other factor as a commercial photographer is after the numbers and the clients. The need for oneself takes over. Or said more simply is I'm doing this for me first and my art. So I take all the ROI into account than say screw it and buy for MY needs. Here is how I finally look at it and after 35 years as a shooter what will I have accumulated in my work and more importantly how through all the years my files will finally hold up under the new technologies here and coming down the road. As I said several times I have had clients pin my images to the wall bigger than they ever should be and I get the screws. In the end I never want a file that will not hold up to that unfortunately this is only 2 years of MF and not the rest of the 33 years. This really bugs me that I did not jump into MF digital a lot sooner. I waited and waited and waited too long. For when I finally end this career I want the biggest badass files I can have in my legacy to work with and along the way the best files.

But lets be real honest one day of shooting proves it works but you did not get the best out of it. I know i teach this stuff and there is a big learning curve no matter what the level of experience. It's simply a different ballgame. I will never go back either.

Yep, the "ME" factor plays a huge role after you've done this for a while. At least, that's what I told myself when shelling out $10K for a Nocti 50/0.95 :ROTFL:

I love clients ... " Hey can you shoot our R&D facility? Just a 1/2 day of snaps will do" Then, as a last minute after-though ..."Oh yeah, BTW, we want to use a couple of them at 8' wide in our lobby." :salute:

-Marc

 

[thomas]

As you go from P&S to bridge, to crop, to FF, to MF, to....
The visible IQ gets "better", but following a logistic curve. You have to throw in more and more money for a smaller extra quality step.
So quality is logistic, price is exponential. That in itself is not a problem, people do buy Bugatti Veyrons, and it helps the economy.

Some additional thoughts on this (also to further clarify my posts above).

Last year I was looking for something more suitable for handheld shooting as my P45 on a Contax… so with somehwat higher usable ISO…
"Higher ISO" means ISO400 here, very rarely ISO800. That's really all I need at the required shutter speeds.
So I was thinking to either simply add a P21+ to my kit or alternatively a Sony A900 with 3 or 4 lenses.
Plus-points for the P21+: I could use it on the Contax, which I like to shoot very much, and with my Contax lenses, which I also like very much.
No additional camera bag, cables, charger etc. etc. etc. required. Just that little black box.
Plus-points for the A900: much higher ISO, due to sensor based image stabilization much, much better suitable for handheld shooting. Depending on the lenses the kit is also smaller and lighter… but not that much.

So I compared the P21+ to the A900 of a friend of mine….
Beside a rough comparision of several shots we compared particularily one shot (at base ISO of the respective cameras; both processed in C1): a view inside a barn; i.e. a sunlit barn front and the view inside through the barn door… with some thin sunbeams illuminating the inside of the barn (showing some pitoresque dust in the air and so forth) … so a motif with quite a high DR (but actually not too high).
Both of us preferred the P21+ image and decided to simply leave it at C1 defaults (that already produce quite a punchy look on the P21+ without any further adjustments… although, of course, not exactly a spectecular look) and to adjust the A900 towards the P21+ image. As my said friend is quite experienced in creating different moods with curves and levels (and experienced with A900 files) and me I am a bit more experienced in Color Editor adjustments we split the editing: I adjusted the camera profile of the A900 to roughly match the colors of the P21+ and afterwards he adjusted the tonal values to bring the A900's gradation close to the P21+. That was 30 to 40 minutes of teamwork and the final A900 file looked really very similar to the P21+ file.
But we couldn't level out one difference: the P21+ showed more and finer details inside the barn (dust, screws on the ground, spider webs and so forth). I think it was not really an issue of DR… as we were able to boost the blacks of the A900 so that it showed the same image details. But they were much more "washed out" and undifferentiated then. And we couldn't adjust the gradation in the dark tonal range of the A900 file to look equally fine and smooth and "natural". We've seen the same thing in fine highlight transitions… the P21+ simply contained finer tones (maybe it also provides higher DR, but, again, I am snot sure if this is the correct technical term here). So while both the files looked quite similar the P21+ was superior in fine image details. Not much, but noticeable. And that was without any adjustments, just at C1 defaults. When we opened the shadows on the P21+ file it still was clean and smooth and even dark shades showed natural looking saturation.

Re the Bugatti Veyrons: the P21+ saved me quite some money (of course without camera body and lenses, but still…).

 

[dougpeterson]

The deed is done. I received the visit of a charming Calumet Lady, who was very patient and answered all my questions. We took pics side by side (5Dmkii, Mamiya 30 mp leaf back) with 80 mm lenses. We discussed the pics using C1 on her apple laptop, and then I printed them.

Since you've already done the hard part of taking the shots you might give one more go to those files.

Difference when taking the file "strait" might be moderate-but-not-life-changing. But the differences can quickly leave the realm of "subtle" if you want to bring up shadows, enlarge the image (full frame, or crop), pull back highlight detail, do any retouching/transformations etc. The "file fidelity" or "file flexibility" of medium format is often overlooked when performing strait-from-camera shots. Even purists perform basic manipulation like local dodge/burn so this should not be overlooked.

Any comments about the overall experience of shooting the camera? Just as one example, did you compare the look/feel/size of the viewfinders?

Anyway, as you state very clearly, and has been repeated on this forum many times, it is better - whether it's worth the price difference to you is a personal decision. As for the equations you put down - suffice it to say that price differences often increase as you get towards the best-available of anything whether it's razors, cars, restaurants, wines, or cameras. All about personal priorities - I could go on more vacations if I stopped buying $20 bottles of beer at my local bar. Is that $20 bottle 5 times better than a $4 bottle of Bud? For me - yes. For many others - no. That's why Avery, Hitachino, and Brooklyn Brewery, Chimay etc don't sell millions of bottles per year.

That said, if you enjoyed the quality, and liked the shooting style but just can't justify the price - I think you'd be surprised how well an older back like a Leaf Valeo 22 or a lower-end current model like Mamiya DM22 would hold up in your testing, and at a much lower price of entry. The number of megapixels is the easiest way to "bunch" cameras together, but other than pure resolution (print size / ability to crop) the dozen or so other elements of image quality are very much strongly present in such older/lower-resolution models. Just a thought.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work

 

[PaulD]

Hi,

The last few posts contain a lot of truth, and if eventually I buy one of these MF cams, it will indeed not be because of the ROI.
I do not doubt the fact that they make better IQ possible.

My handling of them tells me that this is a product in development. Backs and cams look like they have been made for different purposes and then glued together. Except maybe the Hasselblad, but then they decide to paint it Ferrari red. Ergonomy is nowhere compared to what I'm used to. Maybe the upcoming pentax is better in that respect.

The question of the "expert" knowledge of C1...etc., needed to achieve top IQ, is in a way a show stopper.

I have problems to consider it an integral "part of the hobby". The proof being that if you study careers of famous photographers, both classic and modern (with MFD cams), they simply have the PP and the prints done by some employee who works for them. (or freelance).

My whole adventure into MF came about when this summer I had a large pic printed by a local print shop (happens to do work for a lot of real pros) and the guy said, "If you would have shot this with an MF cam, I could have made this look even better. You don't need more pixels but better pixels".
He has already forgotten more about PP than I will ever know.
So IQ can be purchased.

Going out on shoots, creating stuff, is the purpose. Today it feels to me that your average MF cam with its attached workflow, would be an obstacle rather than a productivity boost in that process.

Tomorrow I may feel different.
Paul.

 

[fotografz]

Hi,

The last few posts contain a lot of truth, and if eventually I buy one of these MF cams, it will indeed not be because of the ROI.
I do not doubt the fact that they make better IQ possible.

My handling of them tells me that this is a product in development. Backs and cams look like they have been made for different purposes and then glued together. Except maybe the Hasselblad, but then they decide to paint it Ferrari red. Ergonomy is nowhere compared to what I'm used to. Maybe the upcoming pentax is better in that respect.

The question of the "expert" knowledge of C1...etc., needed to achieve top IQ, is in a way a show stopper.

I have problems to consider it an integral "part of the hobby". The proof being that if you study careers of famous photographers, both classic and modern (with MFD cams), they simply have the PP and the prints done by some employee who works for them. (or freelance).

My whole adventure into MF came about when this summer I had a large pic printed by a local print shop (happens to do work for a lot of real pros) and the guy said, "If you would have shot this with an MF cam, I could have made this look even better. You don't need more pixels but better pixels".
He has already forgotten more about PP than I will ever know.
So IQ can be purchased.

Going out on shoots, creating stuff, is the purpose. Today it feels to me that your average MF cam with its attached workflow, would be an obstacle rather than a productivity boost in that process.

Tomorrow I may feel different.
Paul.

One last note ... in some respects, I agree that workflow has to be taken into account, especially depending on application. Unlike many I am NOT a die-in-the-wool user of the proprietary RAW software for my MFD work. I use LightRoom3 more than Phocus ... in fact, a lot more. However, the learning curve for LightRoom has been a long one and I have worked at maximizing it for each camera I use. I also know that in some critical instances Phocus is indispensable ... but it isn't that difficult of a program to adapt to since some of its designers were former Adobe developers and the similarities to LR are obvious.

In the end, the small mount of nuance lost by LR compared to Phocus is often (not always) not worth the loss of image manipulation tools and presets available in LR3. Processed side-by-side against Canon, Nikon or Sony files shot in the same conditions, The Hassey files have always stood head-and-shoulders above the others. Even my most visually illiterate clients can see it ... so it often perplexes me when other photographers can't

-Marc

 

[ptomsu]

One last note ... in some respects, I agree that workflow has to be taken into account, especially depending on application. Unlike many I am NOT a die-in-the-wool user of the proprietary RAW software for my MFD work. I use LightRoom3 more than Phocus ... in fact, a lot more. However, the learning curve for LightRoom has been a long one and I have worked at maximizing it for each camera I use. I also know that in some critical instances Phocus is indispensable ... but it isn't that difficult of a program to adapt to since some of its designers were former Adobe developers and the similarities to LR are obvious.

In the end, the small mount of nuance lost by LR compared to Phocus is often (not always) not worth the loss of image manipulation tools and presets available in LR3. Processed side-by-side against Canon, Nikon or Sony files shot in the same conditions, The Hassey files have always stood head-and-shoulders above the others. Even my most visually illiterate clients can see it ... so it often perplexes me when other photographers can't

-Marc

Marc,

just to be sure - LR3 does not support Hasselblad RAW FFF files - right? So I wonder what your workflow is - make TIF out of FFF files in Phocus and then work on them in LR3?

Asking that as this is currently my real limitation in LR3. Otherwise I am pretty happy with it:

Thanks

Peter

 

[archivue]

my route was 5D, 5DII, Aptus 22...

i won't go back to Canon for my needs !

But i shoot with tripod, at 25 iso...

It all depends on your shooting style, but keep in mind that with 22 MFDB you can face moiré !

 

[fotografz]

Marc,

just to be sure - LR3 does not support Hasselblad RAW FFF files - right? So I wonder what your workflow is - make TIF out of FFF files in Phocus and then work on them in LR3?

Asking that as this is currently my real limitation in LR3. Otherwise I am pretty happy with it:

Thanks

Peter

Hassey files open directly in LR2 and 3 ... straight from the CF card into LR. Same for Bridge. Be sure you have the latest RAW version.

-Marc

 

[ptomsu]

Hassey files open directly in LR2 and 3 ... straight from the CF card into LR. Same for Bridge. Be sure you have the latest RAW version.

-Marc

Not sure what I am doing wrong ....

I have installed PS CS4 and LR 3.2 on my Mac running Mac OS 10.6.4. I checked that I am running Camera RAW 5.7, which is obviously the latest version supported by PS CS4. But when I try to import FFF files which I have on my disc (imported via Phocus) I cannot even see that there are these FFF files available for import in LR 3.2 - so I cannot import anything. On the other side I can see all other RAW files on my hard drive for import in LR3.2.

What am I doing wrong? I think I should not need to upgrade to PS CS5 for this?

Thanks for advice

Peter

 

[Valentin]

..I think I should not need to upgrade to PS CS5 for this?

Peter

From what Marc is saying, LR should be able to "see" these files. Did you try that?

You can open and work on the files in LR and export them and retouch in PS under a different format.

 

[ptomsu]

From what Marc is saying, LR should be able to "see" these files. Did you try that?

You can open and work on the files in LR and export them and retouch in PS under a different format.

I tried to see these files but I cannot - the files coming out of my H3D39 are FFF files and not 3FR files. Any Adobe info says that they only support 3FR files currently. This is obviously the issue ....

Not sure what I am doing wrong, as I have not found any possibility to generate 3FR files out of my H3D39 instead of FFF files.

 

[fotografz]

Not sure what I am doing wrong ....

I have installed PS CS4 and LR 3.2 on my Mac running Mac OS 10.6.4. I checked that I am running Camera RAW 5.7, which is obviously the latest version supported by PS CS4. But when I try to import FFF files which I have on my disc (imported via Phocus) I cannot even see that there are these FFF files available for import in LR 3.2 - so I cannot import anything. On the other side I can see all other RAW files on my hard drive for import in LR3.2.

What am I doing wrong? I think I should not need to upgrade to PS CS5 for this?

Thanks for advice

Peter

Peter, if you want to use LR3.2 don't import through Phocus ... which I think converts the 3FR files to .FFF which utilizes all the proprietary data of the integrated system, and carries all the adjustment data you do when exporting. You'll also note that when exporting .FFF files from Phocus it has to be a DNG, Tiff or Jpeg. Lightroom and Bridge should be able to read any of those.

Besides, why edit out culls and import twice?

If you want to use LR3, then import from the CF card reader directly into LR or Bridge. The files will be .3FR.

CS4 and CS5 also work.

If you want to use both Phocus and Lightroom for different select files, then download the CF card to a separate file folder on your desktop (or a separate hard-drive) and use that to selectively import from. The files in that folder will be the original 3FR, and I think some, if not all, of the proprietary data will be lost ... (like the lens correction data that's fed into Phocus. Neither Lightroom nor Bridge reads that info. Phocus imported FFF files do.

I may be wrong on some details above, but I know I'm right in that the files from a CF card can be imported directly into LR and Bridge.

Just shoot a couple of images with your H camera and load them directly into LR3 to check it.

Hope this helps,

-Marc

 

[fotografz]

From what Marc is saying, LR should be able to "see" these files. Did you try that?

You can open and work on the files in LR and export them and retouch in PS under a different format.

Actually, one of the strengths of LR is that you do not have to leave Lightroom to retouch in PS ... or to use any other plug-in like Nik Define-2. You can go to the LR menu and tell it to open in PS which it does ... then when finished and saved, it places the retouched file back into the same LR library next to the original RAW file. All LR adjustment tools can then be used to further refine the retouched file ... and those further LR refinements are reversible unlike a retouched file saved out of Photoshop. Pretty nifty if you ask me. :thumbs:

-Marc

 

[Guy Mancuso]

BTW the P21 and P25 backs are 9 micron sensors they do not have the DR of the later 6.8 micron sensors so they will be more contrasty and you will need to add some fill to them. Also these are a bear for moire'. These backs are a lot different than the 6.8 backs and newer 6 micron backs. You will see some difference over 35mm but not as much compared to the newer backs which have a tonal range to beat the band. Great backs these 9 micron backs and sharpness on my Monument Valley shot smoked a Sony A900 with Zeiss glass but it's apples to oranges . If you really want to know what modern day MF backs are about pick up any of the latest 6 micron ones. And go into the review section Jack and I have compared them all between each other . Lot of hard data there to read.

 

[ptomsu]

Marc,

many thanks indeed!

I already suspected that Phocus is doing this conversion to FFF. Could not try so far as I am not with my H3D39 currently, but will do asap.

Will let you know

 

[ptomsu]

Marc,

just tried, could import 3FR files into LR3.

If this would become my workflow I am still not sure, as I am loosing on one side all the nice correction features of Phocus, on the other side I win lot of good things from LR3

Not sure what I like more. I would vote that finally LR3 supports both - 3FR and FFF files.

This is another milestone in my way of thinking WRT MF digital and that I would prefer possibly the S2.

Anyway many thanks for your support again!

Peter

 

[dougpeterson]

Actually, one of the strengths of LR is that you do not have to leave Lightroom to retouch in PS ... or to use any other plug-in like Nik Define-2. You can go to the LR menu and tell it to open in PS which it does ... then when finished and saved, it places the retouched file back into the same LR library next to the original RAW file. All LR adjustment tools can then be used to further refine the retouched file ... and those further LR refinements are reversible unlike a retouched file saved out of Photoshop. Pretty nifty if you ask me. :thumbs:

-Marc

In any case any Capture One users are reading this and becoming jealous - you can do the exact same thing in Capture One.

Setup....
Set a process recipe (my suggestion would be 16 bit TIFF in a wide color gamut if working with a digital back) to "Open With" - "Photoshop" and under "Advanced" change the "Root Folder" for output to "Image Folder".

From then on...
Select an image and push process (or control D) and the image will process, open in photoshop, and when you close it the results will be alongside the raw in Capture One.

Of course the normal Capture One workflow has the raws in folder and the processed in another folder which is what I prefer. But if you want to do it the way LR does you can.


Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work