P45+, M8 or 5DII for the ABC?

[Dale Allyn]

I'm late to this gala, but in the mood to chime in.

First, I'd make it clear that people and portraits isn't your main area, so that "if they're cool with it, you're cool with it". This can make the shoot a lot more fun IMO. (Speaking from personal experience. )

Second, I usually feel that people should shoot the kit that's most comfortable for them if there's to be any pressure to deliver.

For me, I'd likely shoot a combo kit, depending on the actual logistics. I'd have the MF kit with glass geared to the session (i.e. 55mm to 150mm focal lengths), and the 5DII with at least the 85mm f/1.2, and maybe the 24-70 and 135mm f/2.0. A couple fast primes could replace the zoom, but if walking around and sniping, the 24-70 is pretty handy, especially with the described application of the images. (Sorry, I like my 24-70 L for certain things. ) If it's a casual session, swapping kits shouldn't be a problem. No offense intended, but he's just a guy and surely would understand you wanting to get different looks.

AND, I'd ask if I could have a casual walk through the area that I'd be ask to shoot within. I read the thread and didn't see that mentioned. Sorry if I missed it in your description.

MOSTLY, congratulations for you and your work being viewed such that they'd ask you to do this. I hope it's fun for you.

 

[tashley]

Thanks Dale. As it happens I have already asked for a walk through at an earlier date than the shoot so I can choose my locations and plan my lighting. I also this morning got a friend to model in a similar lighting situation to the one I hope to use (richly decorated room with subject facing a window as the only light source, window out of shot and parts of the room that appear in shot in fairly deep shade). I then took the same shot with Phamiya/80mm 2.8 and M8 with 50 lux and the results were interesting. Confoundingly, at 1/25th second and handheld I got sharper results with the Phamiya. I do know from experience that this was just lucky! But the Phamiya result just looked a lot nicer even at normal screen size though I suspect this might be partly influenced by the fact that I used C1 for the Phase file and LR for the M8 file.

In any event it seems that F5.6 is the right aperture at 1.5 metres to get an entire head in focus with nice bokeh for the background. The downside is that means ISO 200 and a very slow shutter and believe me I won't be trusting this to handheld, so that means a tripod, MUP, cable release etc.

So I'm already revising my plan... to shoot most of it with the Phamiya and then do some 5DII shots as an insurance policy...

Thanks again for the help

Tim

 

[Jack]

How many times do I need to say this? D)

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showpost.php?p=99716&postcount=26

Really, it is time for you to move LR to the back of the room. C1 is superior for BOTH M8 and Canon files in addition to being THE converter for Phase files...

(sorry)

PS: And perhaps you are not getting any luckier with the Phase, just more familiar? salute

 

[Dale Allyn]

Jack, I know that you have asserted that C-1 is superior to other tools for Canon files before, and I respect and accept your statement – especially when you're the one operating C-1. I'm not a Lightroom guy, but do use Bridge/ACR/PS for my Canon files (because that's what I have, and have used until now) and sometimes cuss my way through it. My C-1 version is only the DB version. Can you describe your experience in how C-1 improves the RAW conversion of Canon files, especially now that you're shooting more Canon gear now?

I'm not so interested in workflow differences, as that's subjective and takes a bit of personal retraining to change. I'm curious about the image quality differences that you're seeing. I've read your posts on this subject in the past, and maybe I'm being a bit dense, but is there a short answer other than "it's better" that could be bit more specific? It will help to see what to look for when I attempt to compare the two.

 

[carstenw]

Three things I have noticed that C1 does noticeably better than LR with some photos is white balance, noise and sharpness. This is with an M8. I don't know if the same holds for Canon.

 

[Dale Allyn]

Thanks Carsten. I have read this often of the M-8 files. I'm not great with C-1 but improving (need to sit with Jack or Doug for a few hours I think ), but feel comfortable, if not particularly impressed, when using my old tools on my Canon files. I will say that while there are things about C-1 that I like, there are several attributes that I really hate, so hope to learn of the specific incentives to work the Canon files there too.

 

[carstenw]

I guess no one can tell you whether you'll want to work in C1 every day, but I think that putting a few Canon files through C1 and LR as a test would be a test whose results could answer that. If you pick photos which push your personal requirements hard, then you might see some differences leading to conclusions.

Personally, although I know that LR isn't the best for my files, I still haven't switched away from it. I hate manual organization of files with a passion. If I can find (or develop!) an organizational tool which would wrap around C1, I would probably switch.

On a different note, has anyone here tried RPP, a.k.a. Raw Photo Processor? It is really weird, and can only do single images, but the colours and sharpness are top-notch.

 

[Jack]

Hi Dale:

Re IQ differences, Carsten pretty much nailed it --- C1 tends to produce better color and a more detailed file than Adobe. And we should point out that LR and ACR now have identical raw processors, so we can use them interchangeably at least as respect raw conversions.

As to what specifically to look for. On color, I see the base profile being better, which translates to more accurate color in general. Skin tones are generally more accurate and pleasing as are things we regularly see like an accurate blue for skies. On detail and noise, you need to understand they are interrelated. Here if you compare a file optimally converted by both methods, the C1 file will almost always show better fine or high-frequency detail. In noisier files, the C1 conversions appear smoother, yet seem to hold detail better, which is counter-intuitive and I have no explanation other than C1 has superior deconvolution algorithms.

Hope that helps,

 

[Dale Allyn]

Jack (and Carsten), that helps a lot. Thank you. I have not tried the demo of C-1 yet on my Canon files because to be fair to it I need to upgrade my Mac to best run the latest version. This also means some peripheral upgrades, etc. I'm still stalling on this upgrade while the economy has me in a bit of a choke-hold (along with some HUGE medical expenses in my household, etc.)

Frankly, I'm shooting my Canon kit very rarely right now, and C-1 is the tool I use for my Phase files prior to moving them to PS for print output. I will look at C-1 with an eye to comparing the high-frequency detail, as this is where I have been most annoyed by ACR. And to be fair to C-1, some of the nit picks that I have whined about with the UI have been addressed or at least partially so in the latest updates.

(And I was aware that LR and ACR use the raw processor. I just don't like LR's UI or file system. Unlike Carsten, I like a manual catalogue system. )

Thank you again.

 

[tashley]

Just my two penny worth: I posted examples many months ago to show just how much better C1 is with both Phase and M8 files and I am a firm believer in it. My workflow now, since I value LR for its cataloguing features and some of its additional editing abilities such as for example local area adjustments, is:

For C1 files: import into C1, make all 'input level' adjustments and select picks. Export picks to LR for cataloguing and any further adjustments in LR and/or (rarely) Photoshop.

For M8 files: import into LR and do everything basic there but if the files is a real winner and likely to be used for something serious, pop the original through C1 and export a 16bit TIFF back to LR.

Like Dale, I have C1DB. I also have the M8 version of C1 Lite. I don't hve a version that handles Canon raws and keep meaning to purchase an upgrade since I am frankly sick of launching two different version of C1 and would also like to use it on my best Canon files. I have no doubt that it will give the best results.

Tim

 

[ptomsu]

Three things I have noticed that C1 does noticeably better than LR with some photos is white balance, noise and sharpness. This is with an M8. I don't know if the same holds for Canon.

Same holds for Canon and Nikon as well!

I am using my C1 Pro since many years, it always supported RAW formats of different new cameras as the FIRST SW and it is noticeably better in doing this than any competition.

My order of RAW converter quality is following:

1) C1 Pro
2) Aperture
3) LR and PS

And BTW - if you use C1 Pro it supports all RAWs, so no issue with different versions for different cameras!

My workflow is now: use C1 Pro as importing and storing and editing tool. If I really want to do further work on some files (like printing or publishing) then I export TIF Files from C1 Pro and do the rest with PS CS3. BTW - no better print engine than in PS! If I need to do editing of Metadata, I do it in Bridge - while Bridge sucks for all other things (very slow, bad colors etc) it is stellar for editing Metadata.

I continue using Aperture for fancy archiving jobs :angel: Not sure I really need these.

PS: C1 Pro became so important to me, that it will influence my decision for which MF system to buy with at least 30% !!! Translates into - if S2 is not fully supported by C1, then this is a clear no go for me!

PPS: And since C1 is supporting of course Phase One Backs, this is the most likely solution for digital MF for me!

 

[Jack]

Peter,

Well said! :clap: