kevinbriggs

<blockquote>

<p>MF has also been dubbed "the ideal format," referring to 6x7, in the form of the Mamiya 7II, and RB67.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why is this known as "the ideal format"....?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm sure there's a good reason why you didn't just read the manual, instead of bothering us with this question.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Hello Leigh,<br /><br />I appreciate your taking the time to respond to this question, but I must say, I do NOT appreciate your haughty, schoolmaster tone. That is most definitely NOT appreciated.<br /><br />Although the answer to this question may seem straightforward to you, it did not seem so to a member of the ExpoDisc staff, nor did it appear straightforward to the Hasselblad representative himself.<br /><br />Why?<br /><br />The answer can be found on page 37 -- the one you keep referring to:<br /><br />To make a Manual White Balance setting (not a White balance test exposure), press the Man. (AF) button and then turn the rear control wheel to choose a color temperature: 2000 - 10000 K.<br /><br />The phrase "not a White balance test exposure" is exactly what is required in order to use the ExpoDisc -- you have to take a test exposure. This is why the member of the ExpoDisc staff -- who downloaded the manual himself -- was also puzzled.<br /><br />Similarly, the representative from Hasselblad admitted that it was somewhat confusing, i.e. the way the manual was giving the impression that utilization of a test exposure (ExpoDisc) was not a possibility.<br /><br />After downloading the Leica S2 manual, for example, it clearly talks about setting a manual white balance and exposure by taking a test exposure. It's in my Canon manual as well. It's also in several other manuals I downloaded.<br /><br />It is NOT a part of the Hasselblad manual (which is clearly noted above).<br /><br />Thus, the reason for my question in the first place.<br /><br />I have set up a tentative arrangement in Anchorage to meet with a representative of Hasselblad (who just happens to be in Alaska for the next couple of weeks, by some miracle), so I will have the opportunity to find out exactly how this alternative test exposure is supposed to take place.<br /><br />I'm sorry if I have wasted your time, but it was certainly not my intention.</p>

<p>I decided to finally contact the company directly; here's the response I got yesterday:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Hi Kevin:<br /><br />In fact that is not true....<br /><br />You are able to either set a manual color temperature or manually adjust to a grey card (or ExpoDisk).<br /><br />Are you ever in the Seattle area? We might be able to arrange a demonstration.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>He, of course, just doesn't how this is accomplished with either of these models. It will be interesting to learn how this is done.</p>

<blockquote></blockquote>

<p>Why is Hasselblad so far behind the curve on the technology (at least seemingly)...?</p>

<p>In considering the possibility of purchasing the Hasselblad H4D-40, I was surprised to learn (by downloading the manual) that it is NOT possible to create a custom white balance setting by taking a test exposure (by using a third-party white balance device such as the <a href="http://www.expoimaging.com/product-overview.php?cat_id=1&keywords=ExpoDisc">ExpoDisc</a>).<br /><br />For those out there who do have this H4D-40 model, I just wanted to confirm that this was indeed the reality of the situation...?<br /><br />I certainly understand that when shooting in RAW mode (as I always do), the custom white balance setting does not affect the underlying RAW digital data of the photo file.<br /><br />However, as a landscape photographer, I find it invaluable to have the "perfectly calibrated," if you will, color temperature by using the ExpoDisc because of what it will display (in each photo) on the digital back. As I take each shot and look at what is produced by such a perfectly calibrated color temperature setting -- by viewing each individual photo on the digital back -- it is much easier to gauge what I need to do with each individual photo file in relation to the subtle tones and hues of each landscape photograph.<br /><br />Or stated more succinctly, when I drop the photo into Photoshop, I don't want to have to guess at the color temperature at the time I took the shot (maybe several days previously). I absolutely love the ExpoDisc's ability to gauge/calibrate the color temperature for me respective to each individual RAW photo file.<br /><br />I'm just sorry to learn (possibly) that if I did indeed end up purchasing the H4D-40, I would not be able to rely upon the ExpoDisc method.</p>

<p>Thanks again for everyone's input here!</p>

<p>Thanks for the info Marc!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The "image size" box in the Image menu of Photoshop has a pull-down bar at the bottom where you can choose the option for best reduction. I hope this gets to your question.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Larry,<br /><br />Yes, I've tried that process before (hundreds of times). I'm just wondering if it's the best process...?<br /><br />Or is there some other process and/or piece of software that someone would recommend for a better final product...?<br /><br />Thanks!</p>

<p>There have been many threads within these forums on the subject of enlarging digital files (whether within Adobe Photoshop, Genuine Fractals, Qimage, etc.).</p>

<p>But what about rules/tactics for digital file reduction...?<br /><br />For example, at 240 PPI, the Canon 1Ds Mark III I'm using makes files that are just about 16" x 24" (just a little bit smaller than this). If I want to make a stunning print at 12" x 18", do I simply use Photoshop's reduction options, or do I go with a third-party program...?<br /><br />What's the best method for reduction...?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What " more people" choose is not relevant to your decision. What is relevant is how well it fits with what you want to achieve, and you haven't said which leaves everyone in the air a bit, making assumptions about what's important to you, without which any advice is valueless.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Hello David,<br /><br />You bring up an excellent point. I should have included further information.<br /><br />To be as brief as possible (some of these points you have raised, some you haven't):<br /><br />1. I have absolutely no problem with a heavier camera. I am 6'6" tall and about 280 pounds (amateur bodybuilder, believe it or not) and I enjoy hiking a great deal. So whenever anybody talks about the weight of the camera, it's just not that big of a deal for me.<br /><br />2. I'm definitely leaning more towards digital, even though there are many, many people who are telling me to stick with film.<br /><br />3. As everyone else has noted, there are impressive aspects to both the Hasselblad digital and Mamiya digital models.<br /><br />4. I absolutely intend to print my works. I'm currently getting an increasing number of requests from family members, friends, acquaintances, and others who would like prints of my current work with my Canon 1Ds Mark III. I'm moving into the medium format realm to improve the overall quality of the photos, especially the prints, of course. On this note, I'm looking to print at at least 20" x 30" (without having to use any enlargement algorithms, software, processes, etc.), preferably 24" x 36"... perhaps even a little bit larger.<br /><br />5. I do care about the battery life. Yes, I can always take an extra battery -- no problem. But battery life is indeed important, especially when I'm out in the field all day (usually the back country of Alaska).<br /><br />6. I'm ALWAYS going to be shooting with a tripod, never handheld.<br /><br />7. I don't need to bring along any flashes for my landscape photography; just filters and generally one lens (maybe two at the most).<br /><br />8. I do not want to have to crop anything, by the way. I hate cropping!<br /><br />I hope this information proves helpful in providing further advice. Thanks again!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>....and the more expensive ones now have 7.2, 6.8 or 6.0 micron pixels.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Ray for this confirmation.</p>

<p>If I'm performing the calculations correct, the pixel sizes associated with the medium format sensors aren't really all that larger than what I'm seeing on the Canon 1Ds Mark III (which I'm currently using), which is around .0062.</p>

<p>For instance, when rounded to the nearest ten-thousandth, I get a pixel size of .0060 for the Hasselblad H4D-40, .0089 for the Mamiya DM22, .0071 for the Mamiya DM28, .0060 for the Leica S2, etc.</p>

<p>So I must admit I'm not totally understanding Mamiya's claims about the benefits of larger pixel sizes in medium format cameras....?</p>

<p>... maybe I'm not calculating these correctly.....</p>

<p>Or, when Mamiya is referring to "smaller sensors" are they meaning point-and-click "Coolpix" and "Powershot" cameras...?</p>

<p>Many thanks for all responses -- it has been truly educational thus far!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>

<p>To the OP: Is your question an intellectual curiosity, or is it for pragmatically protecting your work?</p>

</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Robert,</p>

<p>The reason I'm inquiring is because I'm just starting to sell some of my landscape works and I wanted to cover all of my bases...</p>

<p>Thanks! </p>

<blockquote>

<p>You can figure it out from the sensor size and the number of pixels.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>What's the formula to follow...?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You can work out the pixel size for the Mamiya from there
http://www.mamiya.com/dm33-dm40-and-dm56.html#Specifications
The DM33 has pixels that are around 7.1 micron for example
For Masselblad you can get the data here
http://www.hasselblad.com/downloads/datasheets/h-system.aspx</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Scott,</p>

<p>Thanks for the links. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing pixel size listed anywhere on any of these documents and/or webpages.</p>

<p>Is it just my imagination, or when it comes to landscape photography, do more people choose Mamiya over Hasselblad (when it comes to medium format film and/or digital cameras/lenses...)?</p>

<p>(This certainly seems to be the impression as I have had the opportunity to peruse a number of medium format forums...)</p>

<p><strong><em>If you had to choose between Mamiya or Hasselblad for landscape photography, which one would you choose...? Why?</em></strong></p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>(... And yes, I would like to limit the conversation to a choice between either Mamiya or Hasselblad -- thanks again!)</p>

 

<p>On Mamiya's <a href="http://www.mamiya.com/photography-why-medium-format.html">webpage</a>, they state the following: "Similar to film formats, larger sensors offer higher resolution, greater dynamic range, more color depth and bigger pixels as compared to smaller sensors."</p>

<p>Question(s): do ALL medium format digital cameras possess bigger pixels for their sensors...?</p>

<p>Secondly, are all medium format pixels the same size...? Or do different manufacturers produce different pixel sizes for their medium format cameras...?</p>

<p>Let's say I'm comparing the Mamiya DM33 with the Hasselblad H4D40 (yes, let's pretend I have a few tens of thousands of dollars to spare): does one literally need to inquire with the manufacturers as to exactly how large their individual/respective pixel sizes are and then compare the two...?</p>

<p>Lastly, and to switch to the subject of FILM and medium format (the following question is nonetheless related to a similar "optics" question):</p>

<p>If you were shooting with medium format film as opposed to digital, and you just happened to be using the Nikon Coolscan 9000 (for instance), do the optics associated with the scanners -- either the Nikon or drum scanners or whatever -- also have different "pixel sizes" as it were...?</p>

<p>Meaning, if you are shooting with medium format Fuji Velvia 50 or 100, for instance, and are trying to soak up all of the color and saturation and tonality... and on and on and on... with regard to the actual film, must you then choose a scanner that similarly incorporates the largest "pixel sizes" (again, as it were) for scanning such landscape masterpieces...?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for any and all replies!</p>

 

<p>I've learned to rely more on ND filters for such situations but was hoping there was a successful technical methodology for those instances when I need the positive polarizing effects associated with water (in the foreground).</p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses! Much appreciated.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the great info! Much appreciated.</p>

<p>

<p>Mamiya currently has a promotional video on their site for their new RZ33:</p>

<p>http://www.mamiya.com/rz33/</p>

<p>Within this video, there is some commentary (albeit brief) on the RZ lenses. Although it is not stated explicitly/emphatically, it is certainly emphasized that the RZ lenses are the sharpest with respect to the entire Mamiya medium format line.</p>

<p>Is this true...?</p>

<p>Just wanted to get commentary from Mamiya users.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance!</p>

</p>

<p>Question regarding the following negative effect of using a polarizing filter on a wide angle lens -- which is explained best by the following quick photo example found <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/B-W-77mm-MRC-Circular-Polarizer-Filter-Review.aspx">here</a> (middle of the page):</p>

<p>Are there any specific "cut off" technical specifications for exactly when such a phenomenon will occur...? Meaning, does it occur on all wide-angle lenses, or is it a very specific in its appearance once you have crossed a certain technical threshold, as it were...?</p>

<p>I shoot primarily with wide angle lenses; I have been shooting in 35mm format (Canon 1Ds Mark III) for the past several years, but I'm now moving to the Mamiya medium format range in the near future.</p>

<p>Is there a difference with how this polarizer-filter phenomenon occurs with relation to the difference between 35mm and medium format (6 x 7 cm), or does this not have any appreciable difference (which is my guess)...?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance!</p>

 

<p>

<p>I'm a little bit confused about copywriting photographic works. As a landscape photographer, I'm just starting to sell some of my works (friends have expressed interest in purchasing these works) and I need to know what constitutes a copyrighted work versus a non-copyrighted work (if that makes sense)....?</p>

<p>As I have perused several different online forums on copyright issues (and there are hundreds and hundreds of active copyright discussions within these forums) a general theme has emerged (at least according to my understanding): as soon as the shutter release is pressed, the work is officially copyrighted by the photographer because of its exclusive originality. Correct?</p>

<p>Does there have to be any formal "registration process" associated with a copyright...? Do the works have to be individually registered in some fashion...? Something akin to a patent registration process...?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for any and all replies!</p>

</p>

<p>Follow-up question regarding interpolation:</p>

<p>From a few of the reviews I have read concerning Genuine Fractals 6 and Qimage (among others), it appears that some of the more recent interpolation programs are becoming extraordinarily good at enlarging digital images.</p>

<p>Here are my 2 follow-up questions:</p>

<p>Given that most of the reviews of Genuine Fractals focus upon smaller digital files being enlarged by 5 or even 10 times, I'm wondering if there is a difference in the overall quality of the enlarged image when it is enlarged by only 50% - 100%?</p>

<p>Meaning, if I'm shooting with the 1Ds Mark III and I'm already able to print at 16" x 24" at around 230 PPI, if I want to print at 20" x 30" (and yet increase the resolution to maybe 250 PPI) -- because this enlargement is only in the range of about 50% (I haven't gotten out my calculator, so I'm just going on a mental image right now), is the enlargement (using Genuine Fractals or Photoshop or Qimage) going to be much less "problematic" as opposed to trying to enlarge something by 500% or 1000%...?</p>

<p>I hope that makes sense.</p>

<p>Does anyone know if Photoshop CS5 has improved their underlying algorithm associated with enlarging (or even reducing) photo sizes? Meaning, because I'm upgrading to CS5 next week, I'm wondering if there is something new in CS5 in relation to a better underlying algorithm for producing enlarged digital files...?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for any and all responses!</p>

 

<p>Within Photoshop CS5, do the lens corrections (Filter > Lens Correction) that Adobe includes within CS5 constitute "suggestions," or rather are they specifically calibrated lens corrections that SHOULD be applied each and every time...?<br /><br />For example, I'm shooting with the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM lens, which is listed under the official Adobe calibration profile.<br /><br />Should I, therefore, batch process my files to take advantage of these lens corrections…?</p>

<p>Additionally, is Adobe trying to step into the arena occupied by DXO with regard to the calibration of specific camera bodies and lenses...?<br /><br />Meaning, with CS5, would the DXO product be unnecessary...?<br /><br />Thanks in advance for any and all responses!</p>