Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tom0511

my S has been neglected too long

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

With all that GAS going on....x1d because S was too big, SL because of faster AF and zooms, S1r to have more resolution,.... I just realized that in the end the S has been the one camera which gave me overall the most satisfying results and unser interface overall (viewfinder/simple UI/file quality).

If you read to much in the internet - there is the risk to focus too much on the new toys only, and starting to believe the S is outdated. I think it is not. While I wish body and lenses were smaller, the rendering of the lenses is excellent. Compared to the new SL lenses the S lenses even have a distance scale. While for the big big printers 36MP might not be enough, for my use it is kind of a sweet compromise between 24 and 47 MP.

So what...just got it out of my shelve, put the dust away, loaded the battery, packed my messenger bag with the S007+70+24.

I cant wait to shoot my "new old" camera.

How could I neglect it for such a long time?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah.. just to make sure-nothing against the x1d/s1r or sl. Indeed I will keep my SL system when I need fast or zoom or tele, and I think its cool I can use my S and M lenses on it if I want to, and have pretty much the same UI like the S. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tom0511 said:

While for the big big printers 36MP might not be enough, for my use it is kind of a sweet compromise between 24 and 47 MP.

 

 

I willingly swapped my Phase One P65+ (60MP) for the lower resolution of the S006 purely due to its amazing form factor, viewfinder, intuitive handling and sheer portability. I couldn't be happier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, tom0511 said:

With all that GAS going on....x1d because S was too big, SL because of faster AF and zooms, S1r to have more resolution,.... I just realized that in the end the S has been the one camera which gave me overall the most satisfying results and unser interface overall (viewfinder/simple UI/file quality).

If you read to much in the internet - there is the risk to focus too much on the new toys only, and starting to believe the S is outdated. I think it is not. While I wish body and lenses were smaller, the rendering of the lenses is excellent. Compared to the new SL lenses the S lenses even have a distance scale. While for the big big printers 36MP might not be enough, for my use it is kind of a sweet compromise between 24 and 47 MP.

So what...just got it out of my shelve, put the dust away, loaded the battery, packed my messenger bag with the S007+70+24.

I cant wait to shoot my "new old" camera.

How could I neglect it for such a long time?

 

 

Yes, this is My favorite system after all these years handle so many different gears. It is not the most practical or reliable system but I enjoy using it the most. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha ha!  Got my corroded S006 sensor changed (just within the 5 year period), the AF of all my lenses changed, and the whole system packed for our trip to northern Spain. Can’t wait shooting it.  

As for print size: I went up to 150x90 cm. No problem. For me that’s enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, albertknappmd said:

what does GAS stand for?????

"Gear acquisition syndrome".

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Dutch psychiatric language GAS means generalized anxiety disorder, which comes close to the LUF’s GAS in the sense of worrying a lot about not knowing of, or not owning the most recent accomplishment in the pixel rat-race.

Apart from that I can understand OP’s journey; sometimes it is necessary use a lot of alternative gear before you can feel again what you already knew.

I am in such a period now, asking myself why I ever swapped my M7 for an M8, since I returned to that M7 lately. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, otto.f said:

Apart from that I can understand OP’s journey; sometimes it is necessary use a lot of alternative gear before you can feel again what you already knew.

I am in such a period now, asking myself why I ever swapped my M7 for an M8, since I returned to that M7 lately. 

Similar to what happened to me. My M7 was shelved for years whilst I used an M240.

The digital is now sold.

I spent years trying to get the M240 to produce an image rendering that I sought (namely, tonal depth that creates an extra sense of 3D; and high levels of detail, but something that’s smooth and not too sharp).  
 

I couldn’t find what I was looking for with the M240. But I found it in my M7 + newly released Ektachrome + drum scans .....

In the digital world, maybe I’d get closer to the rendering I like in medium format digital, rather than FF digital? 

Edited by Jon Warwick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with the sentiments above... I have an m240 and m10 with various lenses and I am always happiest when shooting my M7... something about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jon Warwick said:

Similar to what happened to me. My M7 was shelved for years whilst I used an M240.

The digital is now sold.

I spent years trying to get the M240 to produce an image rendering that I sought (namely, tonal depth that creates an extra sense of 3D; and high levels of detail, but something that’s smooth and not too sharp).  
 

I couldn’t find what I was looking for with the M240. But I found it in my M7 + newly released Ektachrome + drum scans .....

In the digital world, maybe I’d get closer to the rendering I like in medium format digital, rather than FF digital? 

Hard to say without knowing anything about your overall workflow. Sure, larger formats can sometimes¬†assist with tonal gradations (notably b/w), but superb prints require user decisions at every stage of the shooting and PP¬†process, up to and including display lighting. ¬†Same as in the darkroom days...¬†no such thing as ‚Äėplug and play‚Äô to get from good to exceptional. ¬†If gear (including lenses) was all that mattered, we‚Äôd all crank out the same results.¬†

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

In the digital world, maybe I’d get closer to the rendering I like in medium format digital, rather than FF digital? 

Not that I have seen thus far. If you see S fashion photography as presented in LFI, I rather see sharpness within¬†the pores of the skin from a viewing distance of one meter. Of course this is functional for textural expression in product photography. And S can¬†be nice for landscape and stills. But the ideal that you describe is easier to attain with 6x6/7/9¬†or 4x5‚ÄĚ on film

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 10 Stunden schrieb Jon Warwick:

Similar to what happened to me. My M7 was shelved for years whilst I used an M240.

The digital is now sold.

I spent years trying to get the M240 to produce an image rendering that I sought (namely, tonal depth that creates an extra sense of 3D; and high levels of detail, but something that’s smooth and not too sharp).  
 

I couldn’t find what I was looking for with the M240. But I found it in my M7 + newly released Ektachrome + drum scans .....

In the digital world, maybe I’d get closer to the rendering I like in medium format digital, rather than FF digital? 

I dont think so. Over the last year I also have started to use film sometimes again. It has an organic, natural look to it, and there is grain. Maybe it is in my brain because I grew up with it, but I like how it looks. Digital looks much "cleaner", allmost boring. And MF digital has maybe better colors than smaller sensors, but it still doesnt look like film IMO.

Besides the way it looks like film also forces me to make sure the image I take is worth to take it. Because it costs money, makes me think more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the S006 is the closest digital camera to film that I have used. I am not talking about 35mm film...more medium format film. It is still cleaner and more saturated than most films, but it has a very very good look to it. Film, however, has a superb look to it, and it is hard to replicate the feel on digital, especially if you are trying to replicate 6x7 or bigger. It is easier with images where you want everything in focus, but if you are looking to do a portrait with a shallower depth of field, the perspective, DOF and tonality of the MF and LF lenses is pretty difficult to replicate. I am not just talking about getting razor thin DOF, which really is not called for very often...I am not sure exactly what it is, but it is certainly visible. If you want to get closer with digital, I think one of the first steps is to tame your contrast, highlight curve and saturation, particularly in the greens and blues...digital greens and film greens are usually quite different. Be careful not to desaturate to the extent that things look really dull, just enough to take the "hyper realism" down a notch. The highlight curve is also important...film usually has a very graceful roll off in the highlights, and the bright whites tend to be attenuated somewhat by grain, neither of which happens with digital...you might not be clipping your highlights, but they may still be too hot. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I think the S006 is the closest digital camera to film that I have used. I am not talking about 35mm film...more medium format film. It is still cleaner and more saturated than most films, but it has a very very good look to it. Film, however, has a superb look to it, and it is hard to replicate the feel on digital, especially if you are trying to replicate 6x7 or bigger. It is easier with images where you want everything in focus, but if you are looking to do a portrait with a shallower depth of field, the perspective, DOF and tonality of the MF and LF lenses is pretty difficult to replicate. I am not just talking about getting razor thin DOF, which really is not called for very often...I am not sure exactly what it is, but it is certainly visible. If you want to get closer with digital, I think one of the first steps is to tame your contrast, highlight curve and saturation, particularly in the greens and blues...digital greens and film greens are usually quite different. Be careful not to desaturate to the extent that things look really dull, just enough to take the "hyper realism" down a notch. The highlight curve is also important...film usually has a very graceful roll off in the highlights, and the bright whites tend to be attenuated somewhat by grain, neither of which happens with digital...you might not be clipping your highlights, but they may still be too hot. 

Yes, brun-out highlights in the digital world can be harsh and quite unpleasant. I particularly disliked the CL-sensor's highlights, but that could be just me, of course...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, helged said:

Yes, brun-out highlights in the digital world can be harsh and quite unpleasant. I particularly disliked the CL-sensor's highlights, but that could be just me, of course...

Not just clipped highlights, which can be¬†problematic in any case, but subtle highlight tonal gradations, as Stuart discusses, are one of the only things I miss after transitioning to digital from decades with film, particularly medium and large format. ¬†That highlight¬†‚Äėmagic‚Äô is harder to capture, regardless the careful technique.

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a great photo essay in the New Yorker at the moment that demonstrates how color negative film deals with these highlights. The photographer, Hashem Shakeri, photographed abandoned housing blocks in Iran. The extremely harsh light is tamed by the film...color negative can really take huge amounts of overexposure. The photos are shot high key, so the shadows are extremely open, and the images are bright, fairly flat and retain all their highlight detail. This look is popular in contemporary art photography, and it is very difficult to achieve with digital. I am not sure, but this looks like it was shot on a Mamiya 7 or 4x5...the grain is visible in some images, but it is subtle, and the depth of field and aspect ratio suggest 6x7 or 4x5. Doing this kind of work with digital is quite tricky...I suppose it is possible with a camera like the S or GFX or Phase, but you have a lot of post-processing work to recreate the look, and even then it will be somewhat of an interpretation.

 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/10/21/ghost-towers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, had I bothered to read the text carefully, I would have noticed that they say that he chose to use MF film and to overexpose to elevate the sense of eeriness and sterility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

Not just clipped highlights, which can be¬†problematic in any case, but subtle highlight tonal gradations, as Stuart discusses, are one of the only things I miss after transitioning to digital from decades with film, particularly medium and large format. ¬†That highlight¬†‚Äėmagic‚Äô is harder to capture, regardless the careful technique.

Jeff

Yes, it’s the way digital renders highlights that I most dislike about it versus film.

I typically favour digital images done in dull and less contrasty light, given they look nearest to film for that reason!

Thanks Stuart for your comments above.¬†I would be grateful for more details from anyone on¬†post processing relating to¬†this matter - is it a question of taking down contrast, taking down highlights (and maybe also taking down the White slider) in random fashion and seeing what works, or is there a ‚Äúprocess‚ÄĚ that anyone can suggest that they find works well to improve¬†highlight tonal gradations?

Edited by Jon Warwick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing ¬†¬†0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

√ó
√ó
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy