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!

Fun with MF images - ARCHIVED - FOR VIEWING ONLY

Status
Not open for further replies.

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Medium format color is a different world. However, the advantage of medium format is not necessarily that it is more saturated/vibrant than smaller formats (this can be done in post processing with even crappy point and shoots) but rather that subtle differences between similar colors will correctly show and can be exaggerated (or minimized) in post. As you saturate the files (or add contrast, clarity, or curves) the ability for the sensor/system to tell the difference between subtly different subjects becomes more important.

Post processing can enhance the colors that are captured, but you cannot create a difference between two colors that was not captured in the first place. If a dSLR does not capture the subtle varieties of a color then when you go to saturate the image in post-processing the result can look unnatural with pasty fake looking color. The same thing can happen with a medium format image, but in general only at a higher level of saturation/enhancement.

Also to record good color the scene has to fit within the dynamic range of the camera. Medium format backs excel at recording a wide dynamic range, and recording subject matter with good color accuracy and tonal differentiation deep into that range.

Therefore, in general, a medium format image will take more post-processing abuse and still look tactile, dimensional, and "real".

Of course this is just simplifying one of many differences that exist between two very different kinds of cameras. Here is a partial list of the things that affect the final image (the point is to show there are many factors - it is a system):
Lens Hood / Flare > Lens coating > lens > aperture/shutter > body's internal blackness > IR filter > microlenses (or lack thereof) > AA filter (or lack thereof) > sensor size > sensor resolution > sensor pixel type > readout speed > sensor-to-AD-convertor path, A/D convertor (both bit depth and quality) > heat sinking / cooling > raw file compression > black calibration > in camera raw data manipulation > characteristic curve > ICC profile > demosaic algorithm > deconvolution algorithm > noise reduction type > up-res or down-res algorithm > sharpening

Note that resolution is on that list (it's what most first-time-lookers focus on) but is really only one part of the overall system.

You may find for instance, as many here have, that Capture One Pro produces much better color with your existing Canon than LightRoom or Aperture. The profiling and demosaicing in raw processing is often overlooked by users as being just something that happens in the background which takes a raw file that contains no color (only Red pixels, blue pixels, and green pixels) and lots of issues (e.g. chromatic aberration, noise, stuck pixels, color crossover, uneven spectral response etc) and makes it into the "true image" when in fact the raw processor is largely responsible for the end result (even before you go to enhance or style the image).

In medium format raw processing benifits from tight coordiantion between the hardware and software. The guys who make Phase One digital backs work down the hall from the guys who write the Capture One software that is recommended for Phase One backs. They speak constantly with Leaf and Mamiya engineers who make those backs. They all take mutual pride in making each other look better and both have a financial/business incentive to make the best total system.

Suffice it to say that medium format cameras don't have low cost, high ISO, fast shooting speeds, or a huge number of features, and they are more difficult to learn and to use; so if they don't deliver fantastic image quality and a good user experience then they won't be purchased by anyone. As a result the engineering, marketing, and resources of medium format companies goes very heavily into making the image capture the best quality images (even if it means sacrificing a convenience or non-quality-related feature).

So in short, yes, medium format colors are just better :).

That said, part of it is often just better overall craftsmanship - users of medium format backs tend to be (though of course not always) more sophisticated overall photographers (composition, subject matter, post processing, lens selection, use of polarizers where useful, shooting at better times of day (even when it means waking up very early!), willing to get off the beaten path to find good stuff, patient etc). Both because it requires a major investment that usually indicates a higher level of seriousness/commitment and because the equipment itself is not conducive to run-and-gun thoughtless photography but rather encourages slower, more considered effort.

Probably you didn't get many answers quickly because this is primarily a thread intended to post images and is considered a respite from more technically/equipment oriented threads. Also because most of the difference is hard to explain until you've used medium format - the internet is full of folks trying to prove/disprove the difference using numbers or posting web JPGs. If you want the real answer to this question you really must try a back yourself by rental, purchase, or one of the workshops put on by the GetDPI folks. Of course I should point out for full disclosure that I'm highly biased in all that I've written here in that my company (Capture Integration) is a medium format dealer.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
Thanks Jamie and Shelby, I have been checking out all these wonderful images, I had heard the Medium Format blows the stuff I'm using out of the water :)
It's really according to what you are using it for... I have a 5d Mark II as well and I think the files are really very pretty. At it's best, the 5Dii is a great camera.... portable, high IQ, low-noise (not as low as most would say, IMO). For people and landscape work, it's a great system. So many accesories and very affordable to boot. If print size isn't a huge concern, I've seen some very nice stuff out of the 5Dii when used with Zeiss ZE lenses or the better L-series primes and newer ts-e lenses.

Plenty of guys making a living on the 5Dii.

I actually can't see a huge resolution difference (it's there, though) between my 5Dii and my 28mp Aptus II-6... but the files from the aptus can be pushed and pulled so much further, and the sharpness (when I nail the technique) is just mind-boggling. The RZ glass has a gentleness in it's rendering that I personally like that takes a bit of the edge off... while not losing all that MF resolution.

In the end, though, it's the subtle gradation in colors that come along with the 16bits and high resolution that seems to really help, especially for landscape work. Even for headshots/portraits, if I have a retouch-intensive job, the MF files always look nicer in the shadow regions. The transitions are so much smoother.

I also have a LOT more headroom in the highlights with my aptus than with the 5dii... I can recover highlight info in my aptus files that really surprises me sometimes.

In the end, though... the best camera is the one that you have with you! ;)
 
P

Paul66

Guest
Thanks for the insite Doug and the continued info Shelby.
I have ordered a Mamiya DM-Series 28Mp DSLR Camera Kit with 80mm LS Lens from a local dealer and it should be here by this weekend.
I am a slow shooter and try to do everything in camera, I'm not a fan of setting for hours in post processing when I could have spent time on location and got it right during the shoot.
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
Thanks Lloyd and Swissblad for the kind words about the headshot... much appreciated!

Body-scenics, the RZ certainly is a viable platform. I'm using because I want to shoot more slowly and carefully, but it's definitely not for those in a hurry. I use it on a tripod exclusively during these sessions. Focusing, for me, is a tad tricky at further distances... but for the tight faces that I shoot not a problem. I shot about 60 frames during yesterday's hour session and a majority were in focus... not bad for a first time out with that specific camera with only the eye-plane being in focus (f/5.6 is pretty shallow on MF).

I think my focus screen may need a very slight adjustment... or I may need another diopter in the WLF magnifier (which I use all the time)... as I always miss (if I miss) to the front.
 

tsjanik

Well-known member
Tom, your fine water image inspires me to post one of mine.
Thanks Jamie

Along the shore of Lake Erie yesterday. C1 defaults, IQ180, 150 mm D. Hand held.
Very nice image Bill. The diversity of rock types along Erie's shore always creates some great shorelines.

Thanks everyone for the kind replies!

Finally got to use those old school legs this afternoon. Here's one from my first headshot session shot solely with the RZ. Overcast with reflector for fill. Initial workup -Cheers!
Shelby
Nice one. She'll love this shot even more in 30 years!

Tom
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Medium format color is a different world. However, the advantage of medium format is not necessarily that it is more saturated/vibrant than smaller formats (this can be done in post processing with even crappy point and shoots) but rather that subtle differences between similar colors will correctly show and can be exaggerated (or minimized) in post. As you saturate the files (or add contrast, clarity, or curves) the ability for the sensor/system to tell the difference between subtly different subjects becomes more important.

Post processing can enhance the colors that are captured, but you cannot create a difference between two colors that was not captured in the first place. If a dSLR does not capture the subtle varieties of a color then when you go to saturate the image in post-processing the result can look unnatural with pasty fake looking color. The same thing can happen with a medium format image, but in general only at a higher level of saturation/enhancement.

Also to record good color the scene has to fit within the dynamic range of the camera. Medium format backs excel at recording a wide dynamic range, and recording subject matter with good color accuracy and tonal differentiation deep into that range.

Therefore, in general, a medium format image will take more post-processing abuse and still look tactile, dimensional, and "real".

Of course this is just simplifying one of many differences that exist between two very different kinds of cameras. Here is a partial list of the things that affect the final image (the point is to show there are many factors - it is a system):
Lens Hood / Flare > Lens coating > lens > aperture/shutter > body's internal blackness > IR filter > microlenses (or lack thereof) > AA filter (or lack thereof) > sensor size > sensor resolution > sensor pixel type > readout speed > sensor-to-AD-convertor path, A/D convertor (both bit depth and quality) > heat sinking / cooling > raw file compression > black calibration > in camera raw data manipulation > characteristic curve > ICC profile > demosaic algorithm > deconvolution algorithm > noise reduction type > up-res or down-res algorithm > sharpening

Note that resolution is on that list (it's what most first-time-lookers focus on) but is really only one part of the overall system.

You may find for instance, as many here have, that Capture One Pro produces much better color with your existing Canon than LightRoom or Aperture. The profiling and demosaicing in raw processing is often overlooked by users as being just something that happens in the background which takes a raw file that contains no color (only Red pixels, blue pixels, and green pixels) and lots of issues (e.g. chromatic aberration, noise, stuck pixels, color crossover, uneven spectral response etc) and makes it into the "true image" when in fact the raw processor is largely responsible for the end result (even before you go to enhance or style the image).

In medium format raw processing benifits from tight coordiantion between the hardware and software. The guys who make Phase One digital backs work down the hall from the guys who write the Capture One software that is recommended for Phase One backs. They speak constantly with Leaf and Mamiya engineers who make those backs. They all take mutual pride in making each other look better and both have a financial/business incentive to make the best total system.

Suffice it to say that medium format cameras don't have low cost, high ISO, fast shooting speeds, or a huge number of features, and they are more difficult to learn and to use; so if they don't deliver fantastic image quality and a good user experience then they won't be purchased by anyone. As a result the engineering, marketing, and resources of medium format companies goes very heavily into making the image capture the best quality images (even if it means sacrificing a convenience or non-quality-related feature).

So in short, yes, medium format colors are just better :).

That said, part of it is often just better overall craftsmanship - users of medium format backs tend to be (though of course not always) more sophisticated overall photographers (composition, subject matter, post processing, lens selection, use of polarizers where useful, shooting at better times of day (even when it means waking up very early!), willing to get off the beaten path to find good stuff, patient etc). Both because it requires a major investment that usually indicates a higher level of seriousness/commitment and because the equipment itself is not conducive to run-and-gun thoughtless photography but rather encourages slower, more considered effort.

Probably you didn't get many answers quickly because this is primarily a thread intended to post images and is considered a respite from more technically/equipment oriented threads. Also because most of the difference is hard to explain until you've used medium format - the internet is full of folks trying to prove/disprove the difference using numbers or posting web JPGs. If you want the real answer to this question you really must try a back yourself by rental, purchase, or one of the workshops put on by the GetDPI folks. Of course I should point out for full disclosure that I'm highly biased in all that I've written here in that my company (Capture Integration) is a medium format dealer.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off
:thumbs: Doug, one of the best, clearest, well written post on this subject ever! :thumbs:

-Marc
 

SergeiR

New member
The lighting seems hard for the subject - I have 4 Metz battery flashes, but I would use two of them with diffusers for this shot.
Eh? This is clamshell light with two photek umbrellas :) if it would get any softer subject would be on cottonball :) i dont like shadowless light - it defeats purpose of photography
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
Some shots from a shoot today for a school assignment.

My kids. In each frame, the shadow content/hardness is supposed to correlate to a specific emotional state (here, how far down the healing path my kids have gone since losing my mom to suicide two years ago)... also the position of the chair is supposed to correlate how "close" I perceive each of the kids still feels to her loss. The were just told to be themselves and we did not speak of my mom at all... these were taken with just them in their normal states.

Many more frames in the project, but there are is a big mixture of strobe and non-strobe... so there isn't supposed to be a huge amount of continuity as to light source.

I specifically chose the location as it offered a lot of different looks within a small area... which when working with my kids... makes a big difference :D

Aptus II-6, RZ Pro IID with 110/2.8 at various apertures, tethered (my first session tethered... worked flawlessly). Also first session using a Paul Buff Einstein 640 strobe with a Vagabond Mini Lithium... also a flawless combo today (although I'm not thrilled with the build).

One of the strobe/ambient shots (big silver umbrella)


Just ambient with silver reflector on fill side


Strobe/Ambient - softbox


just ambient... my oldest boy obviously still feels the loss most closely... although he's not sullen like this all the time.


Cheers,
Shelby
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top