Jump to content

M9 cannot replace my M7

BerndReini

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply
hoppyman

hoppyman

Posted
Posted

Hi, yes understood. I followed the same procedure as Adobe and shot the target twice, once under (Colour meter measured) 6500K and once under 2850K. I understand that the converter interpolates from those two points. Yes I understand that it will not work perfectly at every possible Kelvin temperature. I consider that it is a considerable improvement over the default profile for most of my images though.

In very low light you have the additional variable of noise from the high ISO too. That is the level I am seeing errors at ( small groups of pixels with colour noise).

As I understand it the Phase One Profiles and Adobe Camera Raw profiles operate differently. Any one profile is only truly accurate for that specific environment in any case. I

 

That's because you'd have to shoot another chart in very warm low light to get it calibrated for that situation ... then one in fluorescent, sodium vapor, a mix of the two etc. etc. The color chart just gives you a reference point of what the color values should be. The camera profile will interpret this only for the very specific situation you have it calibrated (in your case Tungsten and daylight at two specific Kelvin values.) This is why when you look at the Phase One Profiles provided with C1, they included about five or so different profiles for different lighting situations.

 

If you even just stick with the continuous spectrum lighting such as tungsten and daylight, and leave out fluorescents etc., which are a whole different beast, you'll end up with a huge number of possibilities. Late afternoon sunlight can be warmer than tungsten light, especially where I am with the pollution from the fires, whereas the color temperature on an overcast day can exceed 10,000 degrees Kelvin. Then when you have a combination of both, one person in the sun, one in the shade, as in my shot, the profile is almost useless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamie Roberts

Jamie Roberts

Posted
Posted
Here's an interesting film & digital comparison that might fuel this thread.

 

Hope you enjoy it as much as I did. :)

 

Twin Lens Life - The Brothers Wright - Fine Art Film Wedding Photography

 

 

I would have enjoyed it more, Rolo, if the digital files had been sharpened as obviously as the film scans. Or post-processed in something other than ACR.

 

Oh, and their credibility is seriously damaged by comments like this, IMO:

 

"But film is the only true fine art giving absolute creative control and ability, and it is the only truly archival process. Film can be left in storage (e.g. archived) for 200 years and still be scanned with whatever the current technology is at the time. With digital you must keep updating the file format, degrading the image quality and risking file corruption."

 

Huh? Most early film is actually really volatile, and not archival in the slightest--even in storage (this is a big problem in Hollywood, and not just in people's shoe-boxes). Modern colour film is more inert but subject to huge colour shifts over time.

 

And 200 years from now, if our descendants can scan film it's a pretty safe bet they'll be able to open up a TIFF file (which, btw, like all lossless storage schemes, degrades nothing whatsoever, and has been around for decades now). If they can't open up a TIFF file, then the planet will have much bigger problems than photography :)

 

Sigh. They could have spelled Riccis' name correctly at the end, too :)

 

Having said all that, they certainly showed some interesting differences. I would have liked it more if they'd shown more rapidly changing or mixed light examples.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rolo

Rolo

Posted
Posted

Jamie, whilst obviously drawing attention to it, I'm not promoting their views and am certainly not going to defend them. I'm quickly heading towards being an all digital shooter, for good and bad reasons, and can't seem to stop myself. Whether another M user wants to shoot film or digital is interesting to me, but no importance whatsoever.

 

To be fair, it was more in-depth than the average comparison here and elsewhere. Somebody here might choose to carry out their own tests in this way, or maybe not. Personally, I found the evaluation of the sky detail to be worthy of further thought (by me).

 

As far as I'm concerned it entertainment, shows another way of looking at it, but it's impossible to draw a final conclusion from it. Hope somebody thought it was worth highlighting the link. :)

 

 

I would have enjoyed it more, Rolo, if the digital files had been sharpened as obviously as the film scans. Or post-processed in something other than ACR.

 

Oh, and their credibility is seriously damaged by comments like this, IMO:

 

"But film is the only true fine art giving absolute creative control and ability, and it is the only truly archival process. Film can be left in storage (e.g. archived) for 200 years and still be scanned with whatever the current technology is at the time. With digital you must keep updating the file format, degrading the image quality and risking file corruption."

 

Huh? Most early film is actually really volatile, and not archival in the slightest--even in storage (this is a big problem in Hollywood, and not just in people's shoe-boxes). Modern colour film is more inert but subject to huge colour shifts over time.

 

And 200 years from now, if our descendants can scan film it's a pretty safe bet they'll be able to open up a TIFF file (which, btw, like all lossless storage schemes, degrades nothing whatsoever, and has been around for decades now). If they can't open up a TIFF file, then the planet will have much bigger problems than photography :)

 

Sigh. They could have spelled Riccis' name correctly at the end, too :)

 

Having said all that, they certainly showed some interesting differences. I would have liked it more if they'd shown more rapidly changing or mixed light examples.

Link to post
Share on other sites
frasier

frasier

Posted
Posted

Jamie

Thank you for the advise and for the profiles ... I will try them and see what they can do to my files. Actually I also got the LAB-color book from Margulis, which is also very reading stuff.

Did anyone try the new "Kelbytraining.com" website? I tried it for 1 month and it is very very interesting if you got the time to watch all the trainigng-videos by all the photoshop experts. Dan Margulis is also there. Too bad I only had one day where I had the time to watch some of the videos.

 

Best Regards, Jochen

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamie Roberts

Jamie Roberts

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jamie, whilst obviously drawing attention to it, I'm not promoting their views and am certainly not going to defend them. I'm quickly heading towards being an all digital shooter, for good and bad reasons, and can't seem to stop myself. Whether another M user wants to shoot film or digital is interesting to me, but no importance whatsoever.

 

To be fair, it was more in-depth than the average comparison here and elsewhere. Somebody here might choose to carry out their own tests in this way, or maybe not. Personally, I found the evaluation of the sky detail to be worthy of further thought (by me).

 

As far as I'm concerned it entertainment, shows another way of looking at it, but it's impossible to draw a final conclusion from it. Hope somebody thought it was worth highlighting the link. :)

 

Rolo--I wasn't expecting you to be defending the views or the test methodology, and I certainly found it interesting, if not convincing :) So thanks for posting it.

 

Skies are notoriously difficult given certain exposure methods in digital.

 

One of the key flaws of the test is that it makes no account of different ISOs, and so with exposures "the same as film" the digital files get blown pretty quickly (and from thence there is no return).

 

But something like a DMR (and to a lesser extent the M8 and new Canons and Nikons) can all properly expose a sky and with the right post-process curve can redistribute the gradient tones back into a print if exposed properly. Everyone knows that digicams don't have room for error (certainly nothing like 2 stops) in the upper quartertone.

 

Is that a reason to shoot film? Hardly; there's a ton of room in the shadows with today's cams, and that's getting better all the time. So the post-process is different. Not better or worse, though.

 

The next generation of digital will be even better with the upper quartertone; in 5 years time whatever difference is left won't even be worth considering.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamie Roberts

Jamie Roberts

Posted
Posted
Jamie

Thank you for the advise and for the profiles ... I will try them and see what they can do to my files. Actually I also got the LAB-color book from Margulis, which is also very reading stuff.

Did anyone try the new "Kelbytraining.com" website? I tried it for 1 month and it is very very interesting if you got the time to watch all the trainigng-videos by all the photoshop experts. Dan Margulis is also there. Too bad I only had one day where I had the time to watch some of the videos.

 

Best Regards, Jochen

 

Jochen, have fun with The Canyon Conundrum. It's certainly a must-read, and a many-times-read as well :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...