Leica DMR sample iamge

[brambor]

Ellis,

 

I am aware of the corpse bride which was shot with (I think) Canon 1DMKII.

 

Sorry, I did not add a smiley to my post. I was just kidding. I put in Wallace and Grommit who's skin looks PLASTICKY because they are CLAYMATION.

<p>

I am basically tired to contest the doodoo that flies in these posts. I do not understand the PLASTICKY references one iota. I have used various digital and film cameras and I do not think that any camera I used does make skin look like plastic. I did, however shoot one portrait with Velvia where the skin looks pretty freaky.

<p>

Scary Velvia (I still love the picture)

<p>

<img src=http://www.widereach.net/rodina/images/2003/smwolfsneck1.jpg>

[guy_mancuso]

Plastic = fake , not real like , blotchy, oversharpened, not smooth. Nuf said

[Brad_]

<I>The "plastic-y" skin tone many people seem to have experienced has much more to do

with how the photographer shoots (jpeg vs. raw) and processes the image,...</I><P>

 

Yep. Can't be stressed enough, especially on the post-processing side. Funny how some

become so dogmatic in their ways...

[boris c hann]

Brad, just to take the point further........The RAW file is such a rudimentary starting point

and there are so many variables in RAW processing that the individual style of the

photographer has way more relevance than the inherent characteristics of the sensor. An

interesting photographer will make interesting images with a DMR, Canon, or Nikon. Just

as a dull photographer will make dull images regardless of brand.

[peter_werner1]

<i>The RAW file is such a rudimentary starting point and there are so many variables in RAW processing that the individual style of the photographer has way more relevance than the inherent characteristics of the sensor. An interesting photographer will make interesting images with a DMR, Canon, or Nikon. Just as a dull photographer will make dull images regardless of brand.</i>

<br><br>

Nevertheless, the camera as a starting point can produce RAW files that allow (or do not allow) to achieve the result you want. I have battling with my previous DSLRs, a Fuji Pro S2 and a Canon 20D to get realistically looking pictures of orchids. Particularly dark red orchids are very difficult to render well. Before I got the DMR, I had started a thread about <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BflF">Problem with dark colored orchid pictures</a> on the digital darkroom forum of photo-net. I was unable to ever achieve any good result with the S2 and the 20D. <br><br>Here an example of the result I got with the 20D:

<br><br>

<center><i>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/bboard-uploads//00BflF-22591684.jpg"><br><br>

Canon 20D</i></center>

 

And here a similar photo made under the same conditions with the DMR:<br><br>

<center><img src="http://www.leica-camera.com/discus_e/messages/3/184756.jpg"><br><br>

<i>R9+DMR - Macro Elmarit 2.8/60 - Double Gooseneck Macro Flash - 1/90 @ f/11 ISO=100 - RAW + SilkyPix</i></center><br><br>

 

All the post-processing of the Fuji and Canon RAW files did not achieve the rendering I got from the DMR with the default parameters and without any further post-processing.

[boris c hann]

"20D.....a similar photo made under the same conditions with the DMR"

 

The same conditions? The DMR renders the background 5 (?) stops darker than the Canon?

And the Canon has more noise than the average disco? Bizarre.

[EricM]

the 20 d one looks like it was done on 1600iso camera flash and over sharpened

[nels]

Could it be that buyer justification has found a way into processing RAW files from different cameras?

[peter_werner1]

<i>The same conditions? The DMR renders the background 5 (?) stops darker than the Canon?</i><br>

Different background: black cloth in the DMR shot - should not have any influence on the rendition of the flower.

<br><br>

 

<i>the 20 d one looks like it was done on 1600iso camera flash and over sharpened</i><br>

It was taken at 100 ISO. Sharpen I had to. Without sharpening the picture looked even worse, too soft, no detail.

<br><br>

 

The best I could achieve with my previous DSLRs was with 3 hours massage in Photoshop CS and Paintshop Pro, trying this than that. Raw conversion in PS, tweaking Exposure, Shadows,Brightness, Contrast, Saturation and Tint, saving as TIFF. Then working on the TIFF with Paintshop Pro, again tweaking contrast, brightness, saturation . Compared to the previous one less contrast, no sharpening at all. It is not a photographic masterwork, but at least a more faithful representation of the real flower, which I kept near the screen for comparison. It still cannot compare with the results I get from the DMR "out of the box".

<br><br>

<center>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/bboard-uploads//00BgqC-22622684.jpg">

<br><br>

<i>Micro Nikkor 105mm - Fuji S2</i></center>

[terry_rory]

Peter, curious as to why you use Paint shop Pro and Photoshop CS?

 

Within a few minutes of first ever using Photoshop I had completely deleted Paint Shop Pro from my system.

[peter_werner1]

<i>curious as to why you use Paint shop Pro and Photoshop CS? <br>

Within a few minutes of first ever using Photoshop I had completely deleted Paint Shop Pro from my system.</i>

<br><br>

Trevor,

<br>

I find that some things are done better in Photoshop, others in PSP. Better in PSP (rel.7) (IMHO):

<br><br>

Sometimes I do the following in PSP rather than in PS:

<br><br>

- Effects/Enhance Photo / Clarify<br>

- Effects/Enhance Photo / Automatic Contrast Enhancement - better than PS Auto Contrast<br>

- The lasso utility (perhaps I just do not know how to use it well in PS) to catch a zone and paste it as a Transparent Selection<br>

- Crop . You can easily adjust the crop area numerically by pixel, e.g. to get a perfect square, or variations of cropping zone with a constant width/height in pixel. In PS (to my knowledge), you can only do it graphically, which is not as precise.<br>

- Save for web: In PSP you can fine tune the percentage of compression, e.g. to get the best possible result when saving as JPG for a given maximum output file size (e.g. when uploading to photo-net or other fora). In PS you have only a few "hard-wired" options, you cannot fine-tune it that well.

[peter_werner1]

<i> In PS you have only a few "hard-wired" options, you cannot fine-tune it that well.</i><br>

Sorry, my mistake, you can. Still, I find the interface easier to use in PSP

[vivek iyer]

Peter (A), Peter (W)'s flsah should interest you as well. It isn't a ring flash. Something totally goofy and extremely versatile.

 

I hope Peter W will post a picture of it here.

[Brad_]

Ah, another great apples to apples comparison between cameras...

 

And what Boris said re RAW results and the freedom a skilled photographer has to tune to

taste in post.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>Sometimes I do the following in PSP rather than in PS...</I><P>

 

A lot of that can now be done in Adobe Camera Raw 3.3 (for Photoshop CS2 (PsCS2). You really owe it to yourself to upgrade to PsCS2, the benefits of Bridge and ACR 3.3 are enormous.

[peter_werner1]

<i>Peter (W)'s flsah should interest you as well. It isn't a ring flash. Something totally goofy and extremely versatile. <br>

I hope Peter W will post a picture of it here.</i><br><br>

 

Here it is. You can find it at

<a href="http://porters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=120318&Category_Code=F3F">Porters</a> for $149.99<div></div>

[peter_werner1]

Peter,<br>

<i>teh shot looks very lacking in sharpness ( not USM sharpness) I mean focus surprising for a macro shot with ringlights even.</i><br><br>

 

I focused on the middle section and at f=11 theren is not enough DOF for the whole flower. The flash was not powerful enough to use f=32, which would have been necessary.

[peter_werner1]

Ellis,

<br>

<i> You really owe it to yourself to upgrade to PsCS2</i><br><br>

I do have CS2. Perhaps I still do not know all the tricks. Since I have used PSP for years and know it by heart, I am still using it for some actions.<br>

BTW, I do not like ACR, I get much better results with Capture One or SilkyPix Developer Studio 2.0. I use PS and PSP for tuning the results after converting the RAW files into TIFF with C1 or SilkyPix.

[david k.]

Isn't it about time for a "it's the photographer, not the gear" comment ??

[nels]

"Auto contrast"

 

Therein lies the path to madness.

[Brad_]

<I>Isn't it about time for a "it's the photographer, not the gear" comment ??

</I><P>

 

Looks like you're the one, David. No soup for you...

[david k.]

No soup Brad.....I at least thought you'd throw me some crumbs for pinch hitting for you :)

[Allen Herbert]

I thought my Canon 1Ds mk.2 was good

 

I sort of prefer my fuji s3...<div></div>

[vivek iyer]

<i>No soup for you...</i>

<p>

Reminds me of some other forum..

[fotografz]

Related to both the Macro issue and the DMR:

 

I don't have a Macro for the R as of yet. So I tried a R90AA on a R bellows Unit to shoot

some jewelry tests.

 

Previously I had hoped to do Studio Jewelry shots with the 1DsMKII and a 100/2.8 Macro.

That experiment failed and I had to revert back to MF digital backs because the lack-luster

look to the Canon shots despite all sorts of work in ACR and PS.

 

The objective was to have controlled Spectral Highlights and as little PS work as possible

when doing a 100 piece catalog for example.

 

The DMR and 90 did the job, although the bellows is a bit harder to work with than a

straight Macro would be.

 

I think the 100/2.8 Macro is in my future.<div></div>