September 17, 2014, 01:39:59 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Quasimodo

Pages: 1 ... 41 42 [43] 44 45 ... 58
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Why Hasselblad?
« on: September 29, 2012, 03:57:32 AM »
You may find this experiment interesting:

D800 vs Medium Format with Roth and Ramberg

thank you for a very interesting video :)

EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« on: September 28, 2012, 04:32:51 PM »
I have spent two days reading about DR and complicated stuff here. I have found this thread interesting, and one of the main reasons I keep coming here, is that although I think some people here confuse the ball and the person, the level of knowledge and genuine interest for both technical and artistic aspects is amazing.
I took a shot today on my way home after picking the kids up in the kindergarten, and I don't know why I thought of this thread.

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:
« on: September 28, 2012, 11:02:49 AM »
A new one from last weekend.  This one has 18+ stops of DR.

End of the Road by @!ex, on Flickr

This one is great. Great handling of the range, without the oversaturation that I think many of these type of shots normally get. How and where can you see the DR range (since you mention 18+)?

EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« on: September 27, 2012, 04:53:59 PM »
What you can do in software doesn't matter. Dynamic range benefits what you do in-camera. It doesn't matter if you can use clever software algorithms to massage the 13.2 stops of DR in an original image to fabricate artificial data to extract 14.0, 14.4, or 16 stops of "digital DR" (which is not the same thing as hardware sensor DR). I'll try to demonstrate again, maybe someone will get it this time.

"I am composing a landscape scene on-scene, in-camera. I meter the brightest and darkest parts of my scene, and its 14.4 stops exactly! HA! I GOT 'DIS! I compose my scene with the D800's live view, and fiddle with my exposure trying to get the histogram to fit entirely between the extreme left edge and the extreme right edge. Yet, for the life of me, I CAN'T. Either my histogram rides up the right edge a bit (the highlights), or it rides up the left edge a bit (the shadows). This is really annoying. DXO said this stupid camera could capture 14.4 stops of DR!! Why can't I capture this entire scene in a single shot?!?!?!!!1!!11 I didn't bring any ND filters because this is the uberawesomedonkeyshitcameraoftheyearpureawesomeness!!!!!"

The twit trying to capture a landscape with 14.4 stops of DR in a single shot CAN NOT because the sensor is only capable of 13.2 stops of DR! The twit of a landscape photographer is trying to capture 1.2 stops (2.4x as much light) in a single shot and his camera simply isn't capable of doing so. He could take two shots, offset +/- 2 EV and combine them in post with HDR, but there is no other way his camera is going to capture 14.4 stops of DR.

THAT ^^^^^ UP THERE ^^^^^ IS MY POINT about the D800. It is not a 14.4 stop camera. It is a 13.2 stop camera. You can move levels around in post to your hearts content, dither and expand the LEVELS YOU HAVE. But if you don't capture certain shadow or highlight detail TO START CAN'T CREATE IT LATER. All your doing is averaging and dithering the 13.2 stops you actually captured to SIMULATE more DR. Ironically, that doesn't really do anyone any good, since computer screens are, at most, capable of about 10 stops of DR (assuming you have a super-awesome 10-bit RGB LED display), and usually only capable of about 8 stops of DR (if you have a nice high end 8-bit display), and for those of you unlucky enough to have an average $100 LCD screen, your probably stuck with only 6 stops of DR. Print is even more limited. An average fine art or canvas print might have 5 or 6 stops. A print on a high dMax gloss paper might have as much as 7 stops of DR.

There is little benefit to "digital DR" that is higher than the sensor's native DR. Your not gaining any information you didn't start out with, your simply redistributing the information you have in a different way by, say, downscaling with a clever algorithm to maximize shadow DR. But if you didn't record shadow detail higher than pure black to start with, no amount of software wizardry will make that black detail anything other than black. And even if you do redistribute detail within the shadows, midtones, or highlights...if your image has 14 stops of DR you can't actually SEE IT. Not on a screen. Not in print. You have to compress it, merge those many stops into fewer stops, and thus LOSE detail, to view it on a computer screen or in print.

Again, and I agree with Zim, I have learned a lot of this discussion about hardware capabilities, screen capabilities, as well as print capabilities. I am waiting for my Pixma Pro 1 printer, and because of this latest information from you, I will go straight to check the stops it has. So my uninformed question yielded even more information :)

Thank you.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Why Hasselblad?
« on: September 27, 2012, 12:35:27 PM »

You're very welcome. It's very nice when people acknowledge one's contribution; sometimes it does take a while to craft a real and thoughtful answer to a sincere question.

By the way, I love "Enter!" on your website. I've shot things that are similar (not on my website), but your's is better still. I'm not sure that if I did "enter," that I'd be headed for Elysian Fields, Hades or just a nice swim. Could be any, or even all.


Thank you for your kind comment on my shot Enter. I like the ambiguity in it myself :) (a friend of mine argued that it could be called Exit, too:) I love your shots on your webpage, both of people and your elegant capturing of cars with the sun settling in the horizon. The woman through the windshield is a classic!


Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Why Hasselblad?
« on: September 27, 2012, 10:06:50 AM »

@jondave, you make an interesting case on how the agency/adagency world actually works, but the reasoning that you recognize is partly to other attributes than IQ and the need for higher resolution, and,- or, IQ.

I think you may have mistakenly attributed elements of my post to @jondave instead of me, "dafrank." As for your point about agency behavior being rooted in the reality of medium format digital's image quality advantage, here I have to conclude, from many years experience, that that is only very very slightly true and has much more to do with unexamined prejudices plus both the already explained ease of selection and attraction to the idea of expensive tools for expensive jobs.

I am speaking as a photographer who has owned and used medium format backs and all the related gear for many years, and, one who, before digital capture matured, often shot with 8x10 and predominantly shot 4x5 and large medium format - all to be scanned on my own drum scanners. I do know from direct experience that medium format digital yields better images than the equivalent shot on 35mm sized sensors, just like images from medium format film are technically better than those from 35mm film - and for much the same reasons. However, what I also know is that the uses to which these images are most often put are so much less demanding of the images "technical" quality than one might assume, that the superiority of medium format digital, as it is, is very unlikely to evidence any visible improvement in the agency's final product. When one sits slack-jawed at a 30 inch monitor, or in front of a gorgeous 40" x 60" inkjet print, staring at the output from an 80 MB PhaseOne back, it is indeed, a great thing to behold. But the cold fact of the matter is that in the latest fashion or car advertising campaign, the effect of all those extra beautiful pixels will be somewhere between extraordinarily hard and impossible to actually see with the human eye. Commercial print reproduction and web display practicalities are such that the advantages of the medium format IQ, as compared to the best of current 35-sized DSLR technology is just not likely to show up - period. That is what I meant in my previous post when I said that the real question is just how much the medium format advantage is really worth, and I figure, I think persuasively so, that the advantage to a working photographer - with the exception of "fine art" types who print very very big - lies much more in enhancing photographer's personal image rather than the quality of the images he or she may produce with their cameras.

In the end, the sheer talent, discipline, hard work and quality of the imagination of the photographer counts for exponentially more than the differences in image quality from one format to another that we've been discussing here.

And, by the way, the allusion I made previously to how the bigger files from medium format backs are best for even billboards is itself not entirely true. The crux of file suitability in that case goes to how far away the viewer will be to the billboard itslef when it is its installed position. It is true that a current high-end 35mm DSLR file that is well interpolated by a very good printer driver can easily suffice to make a great billboard if the subject and viewing distance is taken into consideration. Only if a billboard might be viewed at unusually close distance would the larger medium format file start to look significantly better.


Hi David.

Sorry about the misattribution of points and quotes. Trying to answer a post in here to several depends on a persons memory, since you cannot see the other post while answering.

I truly appreciate your detailed answer on both the technology and from the sociology of Ad Agencies :)


EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« on: September 27, 2012, 05:30:56 AM »
I for one find this discussion both entertaining and useful in aquiring knowledge that I did not previously have.

I have a question: Am I understanding the statements in this thread correctly if I say that you cannot increase the DR in your image because it is a hardware limit? The reason for my question is that I have been looking at videos @ youtube for good tips on black and white conversion in photoshop, and in several of these videos they claim that you can increase the DR by using layers and tweaking Levels and Curves....

EOS Bodies / Re: POLL: How much $$$ will the high-mp eos cost?
« on: September 26, 2012, 08:11:08 AM »
I am curious about the wiseness of conducting such a poll, that any Canon employee can see for input from a biased group of consumers, albeit an important one for such camera....? :o

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Why Hasselblad?
« on: September 26, 2012, 02:29:21 AM »
Thank you all for your good and detailed comments. I will certainly try to get my hands on of Hasselblad, Phase One, Leaf or others. I have heard others say that you pretty much have to learn photography almost all over to be able to perform well with these cameras.

@ jondave. Interesting that you mention the billboards and that they are not shot with 20MP cameras. Interesting because I have read in other threads on this forum that several have shot exactly billboards with as low as a 8MP camera, and I have also been told by friends of mine who are graphic designers, that due to the distance that the picture is viewed from, this might actually work.

@jondave, you make an interesting case on how the agency/adagency world actually works, but the reasoning that you recognize is partly to other attributes than IQ and the need for higher resolution, and,- or, IQ.

Neither was I aware that you could highspeed sync at 1/1600, which I would guess (of course having never tried it) would open up lightning to another level.

Thank you all for your input. Very interesting indeed.

BTW: I have for a long time had my eyes on a 1DX, but the recent rumors of a high MP camera has had a slight unsettling effect on my wishes, causing a dissonance between the wish for an outstanding camera with many FPS versus what I would suspect to be a brilliant camera with low ISO capabilities and an unparallelled (in Canon terms) resolution. Maybe Nirvana is on of each, until I win the jackpot and can supplement my Canon gear, with a MF + accessories ?:)

Third Party Manufacturers / Why Hasselblad?
« on: September 19, 2012, 03:28:18 PM »
Disclaimer: This is not a thread meant to trash other manufacturers, nor do I hope that the thread develops in that direction. It is a question I pose out of genuine interest in the logic and motivation for buying into these medium format systems.

My main question is: Why would people buy a digital Hasselblad? In what situations would you need what a Hasselblad can deliver? Are there work situations where a Hasselblad or other medium format systems are required? (for instance do high end magazines require images captured with these systems?).  Is the cost of a Hasselblad justified in terms of qualityrequirements anywhere? In Norway a Hasselbad H5D - 60 cost 312.031 NOK (41.988 Euro,, while a 1DX cost 54.995 NOK (7.400 Euro,,1Mp,-12b-s,-Full-HD-127617-p0000148151.aspx) and a 5D III cost 24.499 for the body (3.297 Euro,,-fullformat,-6-b-sek,-DIGIC-5-pros-129195-p0000151276.aspx)

Background for my questions:

I have myself most of my gear in Canon. I am, apart from approximately 10 paid jobs pr. year, foremost an enthusiast. My bread and butter comes from my job as a lecturer in Marketing and marketing communication- related courses. I have in several of my lectures used quite a bit of time on the DSLR and compact camera market. Hence, both professionally and from a hobby point of view, I am very interested in hearing your answers to my questions.

... Apart from brilliant compositions and creativity on your shots, I am particularly impressed with your lighting (and particurlarly in your akt/seminude shots), and I would love to see you open a thread on lighting, or even a youtube video for us other to learn from :)
Just look at the subject's eyes and you'll see the answer  :)

You have some beautiful pictures on your site:)

I am not sure if I follow your thought? Look at the eyes? The photos I was referring to (akt) on his page are many where you can't even see the eyes, but the lighting is beautiful.

To round up: I questioned the AF capabilities of Canon cameras in general and asked for experiences in this regard - particularly from users of the 1DX and 5DIII.

In the meantime a dared going for a 5DIII and can say that the autofocus problem is indeed solved. Tests with different lighting situations and most of the time very open apertures (2 and less) led to sharp images in nearly every case. Very convincing. It is a joy to TRUST your tool (and not need to shoot every situation 10 times just to make sure to hit at least once.

So thanks to all who convinced me going for this camera:-) Apart from the well working AF system it may be mentioned that the camera as a whole is a very good piece of work. Maybe somewhat pricey but very reliable and well equipped.

I am happy that your problem was solved, albeit in a fashion that made you aquire new gear, thus circumventing the original problem.

I have nothing to contribute with that have not been mentioned by these very skilled commentators.

However, I just wanted to say that I love your work (from what you posted in this thread, and from your portfoliopage).  Apart from brilliant compositions and creativity on your shots, I am particularly impressed with your lighting (and particurlarly in your akt/seminude shots), and I would love to see you open a thread on lighting, or even a youtube video for us other to learn from :)

I have ordered the Pixma Pro 1, and I am happy about that decision. However, I have to say that I am a bit envious of the new wireless solution of these two new printers. It would make life easier as far as having the printer at home (placement), instead of having it at work..... I wish they would make a solution for the Pro 1 where we could plug in a device that would give us the same flexibility.

See link below It is not neck strap but definitely will decrease the load from your neck. I'm using it and it is best thing I bought for carrying Pro body with heavy lens. It is expensive but worth it.
They have few other product that you might check on.
See that looks safer to me since you don't have to worry about it flying out and hitting somebody. A bit out of my price range currently but looks nice.

I have not read the whole thread, but I have myself just ordered two Black Rapid RS 7 with the additional strap to secure it even better and two pockets to extra battery and memory card. Hence I have no real experience with it, but after reading alot about different options, this one looked like the right one for me. It was that or the double Spider holster, but the latter looked too professional to me (given that this is not my main job, and I have maybe ten small jobs during the year). However, the idea with the Spider hoster to get all the weight on your hips rather than on your shoulder was tempting.

Getting my Black Rapids on Monday or Tuesday and looking forward to get rid of my Canon straps, and not having to remove the strap whenever you want to take a picture:)

I use a Asus 19" monitor and an ACER 23" monitor I got from Newegg. They're pretty good as long as you calibrate them. I use the Spyder 3 elite.

IPS is the best, but eh, I get great results from what I have. If you consider most people's will not have an IPS monitor to even view your images at there best, Why bother?

Thank you for your IPS tip, and to all for an interesting thread. I googled IPS and found something on their site, where they list the top ten screens for photoediting:

Pages: 1 ... 41 42 [43] 44 45 ... 58