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!

Choosing a back for a Technical Camera

Speaking of deals, since they are now owned by the same company, does anyone know if there is a cross-platform upgrade possible when going from a Phase back to a Leaf back, or vice versa?
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Chris,

I wouldn't place too much emphasis on that. Way too many folks are processing Phase files with LR or ACR and the results are not optimal. Here's a 30 second exposure from the P65+ processed with C1 at ISO *200*:

 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
The bottom-line you shoot Phase process with C1. I would not use anything but C1 on Phase files. It has the best noise algorithms for there files
 

thomas

New member
Here's a 30 second exposure from the P65+ processed with C1
in comparision this example in Sensor Super Plus mode (i.e. at web size) is quite pointless.

BTW: has anyone ever tested how a full rez capture downsized by 50% compares to the respective image shot in Sensor Plus mode?
 

fotografz

Well-known member
One other area of consideration could be a Hassey CF back or Sinar back which can be used on ANY MF camera via adapters.

I paid $15K for a refurb CF/39 Multi-Shot with 2 different user swappable iAdapters (H and Mamiya RZ). It was purchased direct from Hasselblad through my dealer. I also use it on a Rollei Xact-II which was already set up for H backs. The back is powered by a common Sony Lith video cam battery which can be purchased in various sizes for extended shooting.

I put the CF/MS on a H2F and can use it in single shot when shooting outside, or in MS when tethered to a laptop or tower for still subjects. The results in MS rival much more expensive current backs. Pretty versatile kit.

Using Phocus I have not experienced color shifts on the H2F even when using the HT/S unit, and my dealer had a simple method of avoiding it when and if it occurs with the tech camera.

Just an option that seems to fit your budget.

-Marc
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
in comparision this example in Sensor Super Plus mode (i.e. at web size) is quite pointless.
What are you referring to? My example is NOT in Sensor Plus mode and neither was the one Chris was asking about... And my example above is at ISO *200* !
 

cly

Member
Here's a 30 second exposure from the P65+ processed with C1 at ISO *200*:
thanks, jack! and it would be great (once more) if you could post a 100% crop.

i'm asking because, for some reason, it seems to be pretty hard to find example files, showing the result of exposure times between 15 and, say, 30 seconds at base iso and a bit higher up. if you got to document the exhibition architecture with its lights in museums you easily come into this range.

--chris
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Okay, here you go. Keep in mind the wind was blowing about 50 MPH that morning (seriously, just ask anybody that was there) and even with my tripod relatively low, I got a lot of wind vibration during that 30 seconds of exposure, so these look pretty ugly from a camera motion PoV --- I only use them as long exposure examples.

You can definitely see noise in the crop, but IMO it's not horrible considering ISO 200, which was my original point for this thread. For this image, NR settings in C1 were 25 L, 48 C, and 30 LE. Profile was P65+ Flash V2, film std, and my standard daylight WB and standard sharpening, and my standard sat boost to +8. Everything else zeroed.



For thread posterity AND an ISO 50 example, here is a shot taken the same morning about 5 minutes earlier, but pointed toward Power Plant 2 which had the Eastern early AM skylight directly behind it. This shot was 30 seconds at ISO 50 in the same wind, so has the same level of camera vibration and is equally useless as an image for other than this noise example. Also, this one was processed at all my standard settings, which were identical to above except NR is only 15L, 30C and 0 LE. Point is to show how much better long exposure noise is at ISO 50 compared to ISO 200:



Here's the full frame for the above crop for reference:

 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I was standing next to Jack thought he was nuts it was so windy. LOL

He almost attached me to the bottom of the tripod. :ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:
 
S

SCHWARZZEIT

Guest
Okay, here you go. Keep in mind the wind was blowing about 50 MPH that morning (seriously, just ask anybody that was there) and even with my tripod relatively low, I got a lot of wind vibration during that 30 seconds of exposure, so these look pretty ugly from a camera motion PoV --- I only use them as long exposure examples.
Thanks for the samples, Jack. I think even on the ISO 200 shot the noise levels are still ok and do not totally ruin the image from a noise perspective. Can't detect any noise whatsoever on the ISO 50 sample.

The one problem however I see with all digital long exposures of light sources is how easy they clip. This is not specific to your samples. And I'm not sure how much of the highlight transitions could be recovered from the RAW, but even the ISO 50 shot seems already severely clipped at 30 seconds. It's just one application where film does so much better.

Here's a 22.5 minute exposure shot on 8x10" Fuji Pro 160S at f/22 with a Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-N 480mm:



The shot was taken on 2010-05-28, one day past full moon.

Here is a crop downsized to 1200 ppi which is a little over 100 MP for the whole image:



It's part of SXF airport about 7 km in the distance. But I wouldn't take this image as a reference for 8x10" resolution. There are so many things that can degrade image detail during long exposure times. I rather post this sample to show how film captures light over time because haven't seen that sort of tonal quality from any digital camera in long exposure photography.

-Dominique
 

JGR

New member
Thanks for the samples, Jack. I think even on the ISO 200 shot the noise levels are still ok and do not totally ruin the image from a noise perspective. Can't detect any noise whatsoever on the ISO 50 sample.

The one problem however I see with all digital long exposures of light sources is how easy they clip. This is not specific to your samples. And I'm not sure how much of the highlight transitions could be recovered from the RAW, but even the ISO 50 shot seems already severely clipped at 30 seconds. It's just one application where film does so much better.

Here's a 22.5 minute exposure shot on 8x10" Fuji Pro 160S at f/22 with a Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-N 480mm:



The shot was taken on 2010-05-28, one day past full moon.

Here is a crop downsized to 1200 ppi which is a little over 100 MP for the whole image:



It's part of SXF airport about 7 km in the distance. But I wouldn't take this image as a reference for 8x10" resolution. There are so many things that can degrade image detail during long exposure times. I rather post this sample to show how film captures light over time because haven't seen that sort of tonal quality from any digital camera in long exposure photography.

-Dominique
wow! This looks incredible, I'm going back to film :)

Seriously though, although I love the convenience of digital, this film example does look fantastic!
 
Btw, I'd also be interested in hearing from anyone who is using the Hasselblad backs on the Alpa too. e.g. CFV-39 which also looks like a good choice if I were to switch out the 645DF system which I'm not wedded to.


Hi Graham,

Don't forget the CFV is available as a 50MP unit now.

Price is €11990, the CFV39 is €9990.

David
 

cly

Member
This shot was 30 seconds at ISO 50 in the same wind, so has the same level of camera vibration and is equally useless as an image for other than this noise example.
thanks a lot, jack! looks much better than the example i referred to earlier.

--chris
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Thanks for the samples, Jack.

Can't detect any noise whatsoever on the ISO 50 sample.

The one problem however I see with all digital long exposures of light sources is how easy they clip.

Here's a 22.5 minute exposure shot on 8x10" Fuji Pro 160S
Hi Dominique,

Excellent points. First off, the nature of color neg emulsions makes them virtually impossible to totally clip. However, the colors of said lights will shift dramatically toward yellow no matter what their original color is; to the point where Red, Green and even Blue lights will all look the same color yellow. The other issue is noise, and of course film is far friendlier for long exposures than digital is, regardless of sensor. However, reciprocity can significantly reduce ISO, to the point where a 400 ISO film has maybe an effective ISO of 50, while the digital sensor is not similarly affected. Regardless, the effect of noise versus grain does not seem to be neutralized, and film retains its advantage IMHO.

Bottom line is when anybody tells me they plan to do a lot of long, multi-minute exposures regularly, I always suggest they consider using film instead of digital. Given the prices of "older" MF bodies that shoot film and you can still mount your existing MF glass to, it seems an easy choice --- other than that analog to digital workflow process required after the fact. Regardless, the only reason I hung onto one film back for Mamiya is for dedicated long exposures --
 
Top