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!

Hassaelblad H3 / Mamiay AFdIII / A900 test

fotografz

Well-known member
I'm simply seeing much less noise in the C1 raw conversion. Roughly, ISO 800 looks like ISO 400 in LR, 1600 looks like 800 in LR and so on.

I too prefer the workflow of LR, so I'll often simply use C1 for the Raw conversion at C1 defaults and then export the file as a 16 bit TIFF to LR for further tweaking - the grad filter, for example, is a very good reason to go to LR.

For the record, I find the same advantage in noise reduction with my Phase One files - C1 simply does a better job, though this is to be expected as it IS their back.

The Luminous Landscape has some good recent articles and screen shots.

Bill
I'll have to give that a try. I haven't used C1 for awhile and don't even know which version I have ... what version are you using Bill?

I also think I heard that Aperture does a good job.

If any of these RAW conversion options gain a stop in noise reduction over LR-2, then this A900 is definitely a contender.
 

mwalker

Subscriber Member
Thanks to Guy and Cindy for their help, I just downloaded the M8 upgrade to C1 pro. I'm going to try this workflow with the sony files , I'll bet I'll also like it with the M8 files.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
C1 in almost every camera i have used does a better job with regards to noise than anything else I have used . This includes the M8 , DMR and certainly my Phase files. Would not surprise me the Sony files as reported would also be about a stop better than LR which is what I have found in almost everything. Now i would love to see a ISO 1600 files in C1 if anyone get's the chance
 

jonoslack

Active member
I'll have to give that a try. I haven't used C1 for awhile and don't even know which version I have ... what version are you using Bill?

I also think I heard that Aperture does a good job.

If any of these RAW conversion options gain a stop in noise reduction over LR-2, then this A900 is definitely a contender.
Hi Marc
I use Aperture for the Sony files, and I'm getting very good results.
I actually convert them to .DNG files using the Adobe DNG converter - it makes them a little smaller, and I'm happier about archiving .DNG than 'proprietary' RAW - Aperture will use it's camera - specific demosaicing etc. even on DNG files - as long as it's a supported camera.

I've compared between the .ARW files and the .DNG, and I can't tell the difference.
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
Geez Bill i am starting to get excited about this, not good.
I'll have to give that a try. I haven't used C1 for awhile and don't even know which version I have ... what version are you using Bill?

I also think I heard that Aperture does a good job.

If any of these RAW conversion options gain a stop in noise reduction over LR-2, then this A900 is definitely a contender.

I'm using C1 4.5.2. I've tried Aperture - it's generally even better, but not by a big enough margin to make it worth using yet ANOTHER application!

Bill
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I'm using C1 4.5.2. I've tried Aperture - it's generally even better, but not by a big enough margin to make it worth using yet ANOTHER application!

Bill
Yeah, I plan on exploring Aperture this coming year a bit more than I have because it directly supports my Hasselblad MFD files ... which of course C1 doesn't do :ROTFL:

If I win the Lotto, I'll hire Jack or Guy to finally teach me how to use C1 ... don't know what it is about that software, but I still cannot get the hang of it, and my workflow grinds to a halt when I try it. :(
 

jonoslack

Active member
Yeah, I plan on exploring Aperture this coming year a bit more than I have because it directly supports my Hasselblad MFD files ... which of course C1 doesn't do :ROTFL:

If I win the Lotto, I'll hire Jack or Guy to finally teach me how to use C1 ... don't know what it is about that software, but I still cannot get the hang of it, and my workflow grinds to a halt when I try it. :(
I used C1 for a bit, and found the results fine (but not really better than Aperture), but the workflow awful . . . . except for events, where it wasn't so bad.

The point about Aperture is that it's great for a co-ordinated library (i.e. amateur or fine art) - so simple to keyword and find all the pictures taken in a certain area or of certain people etc. etc. When working for a client a shoot tends to be a shoot - so you aren't looking to be able to combine shots from a number of different shoots.

Mind you, I've used Aperture for a few weddings over the last year, and it works well there too.
My use of photoshop has reduced dramatically now I have the NIK plugins for Aperture - viveza and silver-efex pro work really well in combination, and the clone / repair tool in aperture is great as well. So, for me, these days I only use PS for perspective correction.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
C1 in almost every camera i have used does a better job with regards to noise than anything else I have used . This includes the M8 , DMR and certainly my Phase files. Would not surprise me the Sony files as reported would also be about a stop better than LR which is what I have found in almost everything. Now i would love to see a ISO 1600 files in C1 if anyone gets the chance
In the MR test, Aperture-2 did the best of all RAW developers, visibly better than C1 ... I don't have time right now to try Aperture=2 ... but I'm not doing so badly using LR-2 while processing a huge wedding I shot on New Year's Eve.

When I get a minute to myself, I'll post a couple of shots ... one thing I can say is that the Sony 70-200/2.8 APO I just got and used for that wedding is absolutely terrific !!!!
 

KurtKamka

Subscriber Member
Marc, after your first big shoot with the A900, can you provide an opinion on using the Sony vs. the D3? Does your initial enthusiasm still hold?

Kurt
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Marc, after your first big shoot with the A900, can you provide an opinion on using the Sony vs. the D3? Does your initial enthusiasm still hold?

Kurt
Hey, Kurt, I'll do a separate thread on my real world A900 experience ... (which is basically a thumbs up ... :thumbs: ), because it would be lost in this thread I think. However, the Sony will not replace the Nikon D3/D700 since they more compliment each other rather than compete.
 

harmsr

Workshop Member
Marc,

I like Aperture 2 also, however it is temporarily broken for use with the Hassy files. Ever since Apple updated the camera raw file a few months ago, it no longer works on the Hassy files. After import you just get a white background with pink splotches. It was supposed to be fixed in the 2.4 raw update, but was not. Still waiting.

Best,

Ray
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Marc,

I like Aperture 2 also, however it is temporarily broken for use with the Hassy files. Ever since Apple updated the camera raw file a few months ago, it no longer works on the Hassy files. After import you just get a white background with pink splotches. It was supposed to be fixed in the 2.4 raw update, but was not. Still waiting.

Best,

Ray
Thanks for the heads up on that RAY. Because I use so many different cameras ... even on the same job ... I tend to convert everything to DNGs and process in LR-2 because the work flow is fast for what I have to do.

However, for "special cases" I'd like to revert to the best software for any given camera ... and wish I could get the hang of C-1 .... I'm pretty slow at Aperture also ... at least compared to LR-2
 
Top