• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Spiderock, Canyon de Chelly

Alain Briot

pro member
Here is a recent image of Spiderock created with the Phase One P45:

Spiderock-P45.jpg


The composition is comparable to the image of Spiderock that is in my Navajoland Portfolio:

http://beautiful-landscape.com/Navajoland-18.html

You can place the two windows side by side to compare the two images. The Navajoland Portfolio image was taken with Provia film on a Linhof 4x5 Master Technica.
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Hi Alain
A nice "place" to shoot indeed… of course I did what you suggested! and compared the 2 shots…
Obvioulsy the two shots where not made at the same period of year (sun height guessed thru light and shadows/and shadow direction/time of day) thus it become difficult to compare contrats and colors.
In this case I wonder If -for once and to be honest!- I don't prefer the film version.

This brings me to the following comment: viewing these shots (both of) with such huge resolution to so small image on screen, I wonder if one can see the real image quality…
I don't think it desserves what you've been able to achieve… At this size a pic from any camera would look sharp and nice…

If you did post 'em small to avoid them being stolen (I can understand that!) then put something in diagonal, this wouldn't prevent us to admire the IQ…

Thanks for posting and sharing!
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I too would like to shoot in that area. Every time you show such pictures I plan to go there but then haven't! So I have to get pleasure from what I see! So I appreciate the picture even more.

I think that the new cameras have such large resolution that indeed, very small version don't do them justice. So my suggestion is that we add 100 pixel cutouts to show off the qualities of these special cameras and the whole scene, say 600-900 pixels in size, depending on the need of the actual individual image. Then we have the best of both worlds.

Asher
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
That's a good suggestion Asher.

In my own Sinar diary, I post images both full frame and 100% crops at 1100 pixels wide. Certainly a bit long to download for some, but at least one can see the real quality of these backs.
 

Alain Briot

pro member
I am actually more interested in starting a discussion on composition and color. I posted a sample full-size crop of an image in a previous thread. The other images are all about the same. I'm not really into pixel peeping :) I'm more interested in discussing the contents of the images.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I am actually more interested in starting a discussion on composition and color. I posted a sample full-size crop of an image in a previous thread. The other images are all about the same. I'm not really into pixel peeping :) I'm more interested in discussing the contents of the images.

Alain,

No,no! We are not interested in pixel peeping either. However, there is a magnificent valley which asks to be looked at. You posted image does not do it justice. You were there! Remember you took the picture, we didn't! All we have is a large sized "thumb" of the very special photograph. There's no way we can deal with the various structures in this fine picture without having some better impression of the richness that you see and recorded. This picture really deserves to be either larger or have representative features shown full size or near that.

These files are so good, that we would be really arrogant to comment on the work that represents a high quality of technique with a picture where everything is so small that it's hard to visualize. For you, it's so easy as you were there and have the file. You know this so well you have lost some sense of what we might be able to get out of a small picture.

If the picture cannot be shown larger for some fear of it being copied, then just show enough portions and the single picture large enough.

Asher
 
Comparing the two images, even at the given web size, there is a difference in the shadows of the background. I will take the liberty to copy the two images here (or the link of the images) for comparison...

P-Spiderock-Sunset-500.jpg


Spiderock-P45.jpg


There is a "blue cast" in the far canon wall. I used the Mac DigitalColor Meter that comes in
the utilities folder and made a reading for the Phase One image as Red,Green,Blue and was
31 35 45 the same area for the early image is ... 25 24 29.

Is this lens related?

For some reason the two images I have seen of your work done both with the Phase One camera and the earlier method I prefer the classic. It may be the fact that you composed more freely with the wide angle and now that you are restricted for not having a 35mm or a 28mm the angles are a bit of a compromise. Do you feel that way?
 

Alain Briot

pro member
For some reason the two images I have seen of your work done both with the Phase One camera and the earlier method I prefer the classic. It may be the fact that you composed more freely with the wide angle and now that you are restricted for not having a 35mm or a 28mm the angles are a bit of a compromise. Do you feel that way?


I personally prefer the film image of Spiderock too. The larger view of the canyon behind the rock and the clouds in the film image create a better composition.

The blue cast is simply a matter of light and color correction. There was haze in the canyon on the day I took the p45 image. I have corrected this color cast since posting the P45 version here.

Which other P45/film images are you referring to besides Spiderock?
 
The image of Horseshoe Bend

The original works in a few levels for me, color contrast of green of the river with the rest of the landscape, the composition is very elegant and reduced the elements to the minimal, contrast works here giving a sense of drama and transmitting even the feeling of being in a grand space exposed to the heat and solitude of the canon.

The other one has none of that, the small green bush in the foreground is distracting, the rock is to "blond" and flat, the sky is washed out in the left side, but the angle makes the space less 3D as the other one. It makes the viewer work hard at reading what is going on as opposed to the other one where the viewer spends time exploring the space depicted in the images since it takes a second to know what its it about...

http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5745
 

Alain Briot

pro member
My motivation for creating the collage (the one you don't like) was to move away from the version done in '98 (the one you like). Been there, done that ;-)

"It makes the viewer work hard at reading what is going on as opposed to the other one where the viewer spends time exploring the space depicted in the images since it takes a second to know what its it about... "

Making a more complex image was one of my goals as well. I agree that it requires more involvement on the part of the audience, but I don't see that as a problem. It all depends which audience you are addressing.
 
Yes, you could say, after looking at the newer interpretation of the Horseshoe that the first suffered of excessive directness, after all art is like religion: a matter of faith. There is no mathematical formula for making a good composition, so I can only say what works better for me. What worries me, since I also have a DB, is the feeling of flatness that I see in the tow versions where we can compare from one medium to the other, but you say that in the first instance the image that we have here is not the best possible edition of the file. Could you post the newer and improved image?
 

Alain Briot

pro member
You mean of the Horseshoe Bend? That's the only ones I have. For both images. The other version I was referring to is of the Spiderock image (P45).
 
Yes, Spiderock image, you said: "...I have corrected this color cast since posting the P45 version here...."

I am curious to see how that version turned out.

And, now that we are talking about is, you also said: "I personally prefer the film image of Spiderock too." can I ask you why do you prefer the film image?

Thanks
 

Alain Briot

pro member
I don't have a web version of the corrected image. Basically the new version doesn't have the blue cast in the canyon.

I explained why I prefer the film image above (same thread):

"I personally prefer the film image of Spiderock too. The larger view of the canyon behind the rock and the clouds in the film image create a better composition."
 

Andrew Stannard

pro member
Have to admit that I prefer the film image. The quality of the light seems 'better' in the film image, particularly evident on the foreground rock - in the new version the shadows on the rock nodules (is that a word?) are harsher, and in my mind not as attractive.

Composition-wise I also prefer the film version - again mainly for the foreground. Having a complete rock, rather than the two, seems to create a stronger base to the image, which is something I tend to like. The clouds add an extra bit of atmospehre as well.



Cheers,
 
This goes along a discussion I had with Klaus Esser today, who, rightly so, is convinced that although Kodak and Dalsa made great advances, still a 8x10 or even 4x5 from a drum scanner has a different quality to it when we go landscapes.

Then again, Alain, were you ever tempted or had a chance to shoot with the SEITZ 160 MP?

I mean, 6x17, and digital, sure is a tempting proposition isn't it?

I was just talking to Mr. Seitz today, and of course, if you order today, you are lucky to have one in 8-10 weeks, hence there are no "have a try" loans available, which I believe is bad and wrong marketing. Then again, they are having problems getting the DALSA chip in propper quantities as he explained, interesting!

The convenience in digital comes at a high price, be it Hassy, Sinar, Seitz, ____ fill in whatever you see fit. Then again, at the same time, gear in analog can be snapped up at bargain prices, depending what it is of course, but to make that work if you live in the outback somewhere, you may want to be able to develop and scan yourself, which is another mediocre investment, even with a drumscanner. ...

... hmm, sorry... got carried away here... LOL

Alain shoots Mastertechnika Linhoff since quite some time, I wonder on his opinion on the matter.

When will digital have surpassed film, what does it take? Are 160MP like the SEITZ 6x17 enough?

Surely, DALSA or KODAK will "surprise" us with 50MP then what? 150MP etc etc. But at the end of the day it is about IQ and I see it this way....

Not long ago in computing, hardware was on the back seat in comparison to software. In other words, software had the edge, and hardware was playing catch up.

Now, where we have 3GB transfer rates from harddrives and faster, 8x cores, 1600 Mhz front side bus, and so on, the cards have changed hands.

Software is on the back seat now, and hardware has the edge, applications such as in music recording for example are way behind what an 8x core with sufficient level 2 cache and a subsytem in the +3 GB transfer, let aside a propper RAID installation ratio can support.

But what does that mean for software?

Others may chime in here....

Bart?

P.S.

I emailed this link to a couple of poeple on the fora, hoping they chime in here, this is really interesting to me, hopefully to others too!
 
I don't think that the problem is about pixels and it would be difficult to say that" Film Is Better for Landscape.

I spent some time making 4x5 enlargements on c-print at My Own Color Lab and got very frustrated by the analog process until I rented the Imacon that they have and edited the images at 500megas size. It was a pleasure. The prints where so much better after being able to control the image in Photoshop.

I think that a digital back can produce an equivalent file than the scanned 4x5 or 8x10. I think that the color depth of digital is deeper than film, but this is just a feeling I have since I am not using my back for landscape yet...

In this case Alain Briot has said that "I don't have a web version of the corrected image. Basically the new version doesn't have the blue cast in the canyon." so we don't know how good it is.

If you shoot raw, and make two or three captures at different speed you can have all the "information" required to make an spectacular image, so I think that the question is wide open regarding film and digital for landscape ... open and valid.

I think that 6x6 formats are a bit constraining since there are no real wide angle lenses available. This is the problem with the Hy6-Leaf-Rollei and Hasselblad V mount systems. Someone desperately need to make a "DX" type wide angle for them, but this is just my humble opinion.
 

Klaus Esser

pro member
analogue/digital

Hello my friends!

First take my apologies for being so rare in this warm and comfortable company of yours! I´m in a very turbulent period these times . . . which is good - but extremely time-comsumpting . . :)

Today a had a talk with Georg about Sinar, Hassel, Seitz and so on - and their price-ranges.

I´ve done some with a H3D recently - i rent them jobwise - and i was very impressed. I showed an example here some weeks ago.
Well - i see it under some different aspects:

buying such a camera and three or four lenses one needs comes at around 50000.-€.
how long does it take to reach at least the break-even point where one starts make profit again?
That depends on the frequency of jobs you NEED exactly this equipment for.
Where is the REAL and REALISTIC fortune of such a system?


Especially for landscape-photography - which isn´t as highly priced as advertising-photography i bet - in my eyes using analogue LF seems to be a far better choice.
You can get a very fine 4x5" or even 8x10" camera wit a set of exellent lenses for around 5000.-€
Then you buy a perfect automatic E6/C41 used processor from Jobo for around 1000.- bucks on ebay
Then you buy a used drum-scanner for about 2000.--4000.-€ on ebay.

This way you have an equipment for under 10000.-€ which you can get a much higher resolution as you can get from a H3D for 50000.-€.
Drum-scanning a 4x5" or an 8x10" @4000dpi results in 16000x20000px resp. in 32000x40000px as 16bit-TIFF. Razor sharp - showing exactly what the lens delivers in optical resolution.
Using a 50ASA tranny or a 25ASA b/w is extraordinary detailed, dynamical and sharp. Even at very big sized prints.

I´m working on a job recently for 3 pictures to be print 7m wide @150dpi for in-shop display use. One of it is racing horses . . Digitally it´s impossible to get a highres picture being printed that size with 150dpi. Not even with a Seitz digital 6x17 camera. It provides around 170MPx - but you need about 400MPx . . .
I used a 6x17cm with a 90mm SuperAngulon which is more than 90deg horizontally loaded with a 50ASA Velvia drumscanned@4000dpi. Resolution, dynamics, sharpness is exellent!
There´s motion-blur because i moved the camera synchronous with the horses (impossible wit a scanner-camera) - but you can recognize very fine details in sharp areas.

You simply get much more for lesser money using analogue LF photography with ALL it´s advantages.
And that means: highend-scanning.
Very often - too often - digital photography is preferred over analogue because people don´t use it as hightech but loose a great deal of it´s quality by inconsequent handling.

I told Georg to think about the cost-effectiveness of a digital 50000.-€-system - which wouldn´t be worth less than the half in two years . . and antique in five years - compared to a 10000-€ system which will work fine for at least 25 years . . . ;-)

As a pro you learn about cost-effectiveness very quick . . and in my eyes an 1DsMkIII is an intelligent combination of quality/resolution and price. More is fine, of course - but it´s bad relations of price and what you get for it . . in my eyes.

If it has to be really big with a static sujet i use the Canon for multirow-stitches of some hundred MPx or i use analogue LF. Or i rent a H3D or a Sinar Hy6 for one ore some days.

Being in Georg´s place i would buy complete range of analoge LF film processing and scanning unless a H3D or a Hy6 come for under 20000.-€.

"When will digital have surpassed film, what does it take?"

What it takes? Real big money . . :) Will it surpass film? Maybe some years ahead it will REALLY surpass MF or even LF at reasonable costs . . but that´s future-talk.

best, Klaus

P.S.: i showed it before - but here again correlated to the theme "landscape" - it´s an 8x10" Velvia 50ASA drumscanned at only 2000dpi (there are some low-res parts in it from testing a composing and there are some artefacts from compressing as "lightweight" jpgs for the Zoomify-server):

http://www.klausesser.de/Talhaus.htm

Camera was an 8x10 Linhof KardanBi with a 5,6/240mm Symmar.
 

Klaus Esser

pro member
I am actually more interested in starting a discussion on composition and color. I posted a sample full-size crop of an image in a previous thread. The other images are all about the same. I'm not really into pixel peeping :) I'm more interested in discussing the contents of the images.

Hi Alain!

YES! I fully agree. But there´s the basing technology which deals with the amount of pixels as well as with the colour-deepness which divides the world in analogue and digital.
And i found that sometimes one of them overtakes the other.

For example making HDR from carefully shot RAWs exeeds analogue film by far. BUT lets nit forget we can shoot bracketed also on analogue . . . and then THAT exeeds RAW . . and so on.

I love to use HDR for making b/w more and more. You can let it be "natural" or even "supernatural" and give it an edge which is impressing.

Today we have a wider range of colours and deepness than ever before was possible in photography.
Not only with the shooting but also with printing.
That causes also an extended view - a "new way" to look at pictures. Not only in aspects of resolution, sharpness and colours but also in composition. Which in my eyes changes also with the "newer technologies" resp. the extended quality of existing technologies.

We simply become more and more used to more and more details! And that deserves a "new way" of viewing, i mean.

The problem with extended optical quality is the question: do we need that more of details? Do we really NEED the absence of grain in digital photography? What´s the advantages?

In my eyes composition has to follow the extended quality - has to give reasons to see that more of details. A composition which doesn´t deserve more details . . what´s the reason to shoot it highres?

In my eyes comosition of pictures should be renewed also and should "match" the eveolution of sharpness and resolution AND extended colour-deepness.

Interesting point - let´s talk about i later . . i´m getting tired . it´s 2:07am over here . .

good nite, Klaus
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Klaus,

I think you have hit the nail on the head. In fact, the possibilities of sharpness, detail resolution, depth of focus, spread of tonalities and more are simply a mriad of expanded choices. One still needs to have a brain and soul to be able to select what to photograph and then select how each part of the image might be delivered.

Making a giant technically perfect image is a mechanical feat of excellence but not necessarily anything to do with good photography.

Asher
 
Dear Klaus,

I wish to make some important corrections concerning digital high-end prices and digital quality.

- a Sinar Hy6 with eMotion 75 LV (33.3 Mpx) has an enduser price of Euro 24'000.-.
With 3 or 4 lenses this puts the complete kit at about Euro 30'000,-, depending which lenses you choose. That is still money, agreed, but in no relation with the Euro 50'000.- mentioned.

- this system will possibly loose on "market" value with the years. So does any equipment. The digital system will have exactly the value yourself are valuing it: in other words, it will do the same job for you from day one and continue to do this after years, like analog. If it has given you the IQ at the beginning it will continue to give you the same, if it did do the job, it will continue to do it.

- I can assure you that a 22 MPx digital back with multi-shot capability does get you to the quality of 8x10 and even surpass it in terms of modulation and tonal values: there is a reason why museums worldwide are using digital technology nowadays to reproduce their collection digitally, and it is not a cost factor, but a IQ one.

Best regards,
Thierry

Today a had a talk with Georg about Sinar, Hassel, Seitz and so on - and their price-ranges.

buying such a camera and three or four lenses one needs comes at around 50000.-€.
how long does it take to reach at least the break-even point where one starts make profit again?

You can get a very fine 4x5" or even 8x10" camera wit a set of exellent lenses for around 5000.-€
Then you buy a perfect automatic E6/C41 used processor from Jobo for around 1000.- bucks on ebay
Then you buy a used drum-scanner for about 2000.--4000.-€ on ebay.

This way you have an equipment for under 10000.-€ which you can get a much higher resolution as you can get from a H3D for 50000.-€.

You simply get much more for lesser money using analogue LF photography with ALL it´s advantages.
And that means: highend-scanning.
Very often - too often - digital photography is preferred over analogue because people don´t use it as hightech but loose a great deal of it´s quality by inconsequent handling.

I told Georg to think about the cost-effectiveness of a digital 50000.-€-system - which wouldn´t be worth less than the half in two years . . and antique in five years - compared to a 10000-€ system which will work fine for at least 25 years . . . ;-)

Being in Georg´s place i would buy complete range of analoge LF film processing and scanning unless a H3D or a Hy6 come for under 20000.-€.

"When will digital have surpassed film, what does it take?"

What it takes? Real big money . . :) Will it surpass film? Maybe some years ahead it will REALLY surpass MF or even LF at reasonable costs . . but that´s future-talk.

best, Klaus

P.S.: i showed it before - but here again correlated to the theme "landscape" - it´s an 8x10" Velvia 50ASA drumscanned at only 2000dpi (there are some low-res parts in it from testing a composing and there are some artefacts from compressing as "lightweight" jpgs for the Zoomify-server):

http://www.klausesser.de/Talhaus.htm

Camera was an 8x10 Linhof KardanBi with a 5,6/240mm Symmar.
 
- I can assure you that a 22 MPx digital back with multi-shot capability does get you to the quality of 8x10 and even surpass it in terms of modulation and tonal values: there is a reason why museums worldwide are using digital technology nowadays to reproduce their collection digitally, and it is not a cost factor, but a IQ one.

Friends,

first let me thank you for your input, and can I suggest that we take this discussion into a new thread, I am aware that this is complex and I did not wish to hi jack Alain's Spider Rock thread. So, If someone could split that from where I started posting on page 2 into a new thread, may be into the business pro fora, just a suggestion, much appreciated!

The combined professional experience of the people posting here easily surpasses the time back to where the very first photograph was taken! You guys bring a couple of 100 years combined professional experience to the table, and it is this reason why I thought this to be so interesting to disucss analog vs. digital, pros and cons, particulary in a time where advances in hard and software are really mindblowing.

Thierry, yes, but I intend to think that there is a difference in IQ needs when it comes to reproducing artwork in controlled Light situations compared to the landscapes for example. Product shots in advertisement are another segment of course, so is glamour photography ( ....is it called this way? You kow what I mean, chicks in high heels "designed" to promote a product or service ;) )

I trust that you made that comparison between digital and analog when you say a 22MP multishot even surpasses modulation and tonal values. I saw the "China Case Study" on SINAR's website and found it quite interesting, in case you have not seen that folks here ya go:

http://www.sinar.ch/site/index__gast-e-1072-24-1154-urlvars-rand-786.html

See, my problem is that I have no experience as of yet in shooting analog LF, and I am very concerned on the learning curve and the required processing afterwards to the point that I would have a file available in Photoshop to work with. Klaus made it sound all so easy on the phone. LOL ;) Then again, I understand that his experience with photography is around 50 years alltogether, and of course, he has learned it from a to z, something I am too old to start myself and I need to "focus" on specific subjects first and foremost.

So yes, to leave out the pain of chemistry and scanning, and may be I am wrong, but I do think that the development of film and operating a drumscanner needs a certain skill set and experience to allow for the very best results, would that be right?

Hence I am worried on the learning curve and time frame involved big times. As a hobby, yeah, I most certainly would consider investing 10K from profits to be made in the future and have a go with it, and I would not be astonished to have great fun with it.

Digital on the other hand, allows me to cut short that chemistry/scanning and have the convenience of my Photohsop file right away. I understand that resolution is an issue to a degree, but in my case, the maximum print width I will have to deal with is probably 60" or at minimum 44". I am not in billboards or advertisements such as Klaus has requirements for.

Again it is such a wide and complex discussion, we will probably jump back and forth in the process, but this can be quite usefull in this case I think.

Again, thanks for your time and input, it is exactly such discussions that make OPF stand out from othe fora on the net!
 
Last edited:
You simply get much more for lesser money using analogue LF photography with ALL it´s advantages.
And that means: highend-scanning.
Very often - too often - digital photography is preferred over analogue because people don´t use it as hightech but loose a great deal of it´s quality by inconsequent handling.

Bit confused, too early in the day... ;)

You mean they loose a great deal in IQ in film or in digital? If you mean in film, that's what I am so concerned about, the learning curve involved to propper develop and scan film to the very best possible technical results.
 
Top