Jump to content

kevinbriggs

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    414

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by kevinbriggs

    Leica S2

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    <p>I was wondering if anyone had any additional info to add/provide in relation to the following question (from another post on landscape photography):</p>

    <p> </p>

    <blockquote>

    <p>Hi Q.G.,<br /><br />It was noted to me a couple of years ago that there were a select few number of digital camera manufacturers (I believe Leica was one of them) that did not have anti-aliasing and other automatic filtering mechanisms within their digital sensors; Bayer patters may have been another one of these aspects that were not included as well.<br /><br />The individual who noted this was a longtime professional wedding photographer, one who used Leica equipment primarily. He said he chose the R system specifically for this reason.<br /><br />Do you know if this is true...?<br /><br />I went ahead and downloaded the tech spec sheet on the new S2, but I cannot see any information regarding these aspects (maybe I'm blind).</p>

     

    </blockquote>

    <p>Here was the response:</p>

    <p> </p>

    <blockquote>

    <p>Kevin,<br /><br />The only other way of capturing colour would be the Carver Mead/Foveon trick, of putting the three wells below each other, instead of in a pattern next to each other. Else, a Bayer pattern (or similar device) is needed, and thus used.<br /><br />A few, more expensive digital devices do not have anti-aliasing filters, yes.<br /><br />The Leica S2 has no anti-aliasing filter (it uses software in post-processing to do what would be necessary). The Kodak sensor has a Bayer pattern.</p>

     

    </blockquote>

    <p>Again, if anyone has anything to add -- Specifically as it relates to the Leica sensor's unique characteristics, i.e. no anti-aliasing filter and potentially the lack of other common digital-camera sensor aspects as well.<br /><br />Thanks again for all responses!</p>

    Is Returning to Film a Boon or a Mistake....?

    in Medium Format

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>Bayer patters and soft focus filters employed in digital cameras limit what the sensor gets to see.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Hi Q.G.,</p>

    <p>It was noted to me a couple of years ago that there were a select few number of digital camera manufacturers (I believe Leica was one of them) that did not have anti-aliasing and other automatic filtering mechanisms within their digital sensors; Bayer patters may have been another one of these aspects that were not included as well.<br /><br />The individual who noted this was a longtime professional wedding photographer, one who used Leica equipment primarily. He said he chose the R system specifically for this reason.<br /><br />Do you know if this is true...?</p>

    <p>I went ahead and downloaded the tech spec sheet on the new S2, but I cannot see any information regarding these aspects (maybe I'm blind).</p>

    Is Returning to Film a Boon or a Mistake....?

    in Medium Format

    Posted

    <p>Thanks again for all of the wonderful responses on this forum! They are truly appreciated.<br /><br />Okay, setting aside the questions surrounding printing (i.e. print size), I did have the following image-sensor and optics question as it pertains to the difference between the sensors and optics in a digital camera versus the optics in a digital scanner:<br /><br />Is there any difference… or perhaps to state it more clearly, is there an advantage one way or the other… with regard to the two separate processes involved in the film-based landscape-photography world versus the digital-camera-based landscape-photography realm <strong><em>as it pertains to the image sensor and the optics involved?</em></strong><br /><br />Meaning, if you are using the new Mamiya 7 II film-based camera (6 x 7 cm, 55 x 69.5mm), for example, you of course establish the image on film and then (if you are working within Photoshop or some other photo manipulating software) you are utilizing a scanner (let's say the Nikon Coolscan 9000) and its image sensor and digital optics to take that film-based image and convert it to a computerized, pixelated form.<br /><br />Or conversely, if you are using the new Leica S2 digital camera, you would be relying upon the built-in image sensor (part of the body) and optics (associated with the lenses themselves).<br /><br />But both processes rely upon image sensors and associated optics (or at least somewhat common forms of technology and processes, from what I understand).<br /><br />However, with the Leica S2 scenario, one is using an image sensor and associated optics to take the image directly from "reality," as it were. It is a "direct from the scene" sort of situation, in my mind.<br /><br />With regard to scanning, you are first shooting the scene onto a piece of film, and then you are utilizing the image sensor and optics associated with the scanner to create the computerized/pixelated image.<br /><br />My point being: there have been several individuals who have contributed to this forum who are advocating film (and I deeply appreciate their input here!). They are noting that the overall results produced with film are better when compared with a digital camera's image sensor and optics. And yet, if I'm utilizing a scanner to drop the film-based image into Photoshop, I still need to go through a very similar image-sensor and associated optics process, am I not? (Meaning, something very similar to what you would originally get "on the scene" if you were utilizing a digital camera's image sensor and optics.)<br /><br />So with respect to the pixel-for-pixel quality, as it were, what's the advantage in using a scanner's hardware versus a digital camera's hardware to computerized/pixelate the image...?<br /><br />Yes, I do realize the aspect of the differences in overall image size and the total number of pixels; but within each specific inch of the image sensor's data-gathering capability versus the scanner's, is there a difference...?<br /><br />Or am I thinking about this whole situation/scenario incorrectly...?</p>

    <p>Again, I'm not thinking about the subject of the overall size of the file, the print size, etc. Rather, I'm getting back to the heart of the matter between shooting originally with film or shooting originally with a digital camera's image sensor.<br /><br />Thanks again!</p>

    Is Returning to Film a Boon or a Mistake....?

    in Medium Format

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>But as much as I like very high resolution photos I think you should take the time to print some of your nicer photos large and see what people think, say 20x30 inches, which cost around $10 at many places.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Hi Scott,<br /><br />Just a few days ago I went ahead and sent off an order for one of the prints to Mpix, printed at 16 x 24" (this was at just less than 240 PPI).<br /><br />I must admit that I was thrilled with the results. I have shown them to family members and friends alike and they are all raving about the results.<br /><br />So I may go for 20" x 30" on the next test print, but I'm sure this will place the PPI well below 200.</p>

    Is Returning to Film a Boon or a Mistake....?

    in Medium Format

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>But unless you're going to use it for stitching, a TS lens doesn't really do anything to resolve your initial dilemma about printing larger.</p>

     

    </blockquote>

    <p>Yes, I'm definitely leaning towards stitching.....</p>

    <p>On this note, any recommendations ongoing towards ptgui, CS5, or some other piece of software for the most effective stitching experience...?<br /><br />(I'm presently using Photoshop CS3... maybe I already mentioned that in a previous post...)<br /><br />Thanks again for all input!</p>

    Is Returning to Film a Boon or a Mistake....?

    in Medium Format

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>For DSLRs and especially Canon, the TS lenses are simply fantastic.</p>

     

    </blockquote>

    <p>Hi Rick,</p>

    <p>Do you own one...? Or does anyone else responding to this OP have any experience with Canon's new tilt-shift lenses...?<br /><br />I must admit, I've been thinking very hard about possibly heading in this direction with my current 1Ds Mark III set up.</p>

    Is Returning to Film a Boon or a Mistake....?

    in Medium Format

    Posted

    <p>Okay, help me understand something about one of the highlighted aspects of the Nikon 9000 Coolscan -- at least as it relates to going to a film-based 6 x 7 cm setup:<br /><br />According to the "Tech Specs" <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Film-Scanners/9237/Super-COOLSCAN-9000-ED.html">section</a> of the Nikon website, the Nikon 9000 Coolscan has an "Optical resolution: Up to 4,000 pixels per inch."<br /><br />Yet according to <a href="http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/13554">this</a> webpage, a 6 x 7 cm scanned image consists of 8964 x 11,016 pixels, which according to <a href="http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/1_calculators.htm#Print">this</a> webpage (bottom) would produce a print size of 2.24" x 2.75" if printed at 4000 ppi.<br /><br />So my question is: why is Nikon advertising 4000 ppi when, seemingly, it would never be advantageous to print at such a resolution...?<br /><br />Or do I obviously have a something wrong here in my understanding of the whole situation...?</p>

    Leica S2

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>My main advice re: this query would be to not assume that any Leica, even the most-expensive Leica, is the 'best' camera for all applications.</p>

     

    </blockquote>

    <p>And you are absolutely correct about one camera not generally meeting the express needs of both realms; therefore, I should point out that landscape photography is my primary semi-professional photographic activity.</p>

    Leica S2

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>If the new Pentax 645 digital is as good as claimed, it could radically change the medium-format market and the Leica's value could drop dramatically.</p>

     

    </blockquote>

    <p>

    <p>Thanks very much for the info! It's truly appreciated.</p>

    <p>Where exactly are people getting the latest info regarding this Pentax camera? Meaning, I've heard a lot of buzz about it, but not really sure where people are getting their info since I don't believe it's ever been officially reviewed (especially since it hasn't been officially released).</p>

    <p>What is so special about the potential of this particular Pentax camera...?</p>

    <p>Thanks again.</p>

    </p>

    Leica S2

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    <p>Thanks for the information!<br /><br />I have been unexpectedly out of town during the past 5 days, so I haven't had a chance to initiate some follow-up questions until now.<br /><br />They are as follows:<br /><br />Having never had the opportunity to work with Leica equipment before, <em>especially as it relates to the incredible reputation of Leica lenses,</em> I can only go on what I have read and, more particularly, by the personal recommendations made by amateur and professional photographers who own Leica equipment.<br /><br />I remember a conversation I had with a professional wedding photographer several years ago, someone who was shooting with the R system (even though it was manual focus only, of course... a specific challenge, he noted, for any wedding photographer) and who said that given his 25 years of wedding photography experience, NOTHING came close to the clarity and precision of Leica lenses (especially the clarity). (He really did emphasize "NOTHING" in that manner...)<br /><br />Based primarily upon the many, many hours of conversations I had with this associate, I was convinced that someday I was going to own a Leica system, especially for the lenses.<br /><br />Given that Leica has just released its S system (medium format), and given the fact that Leica produces its new camera bodies (in particular) much, much less often than Nikon or Canon (or even other medium format digital manufacturers), for instance, my first question is:<br /><br /><em><strong>I am assuming that this digital body will hold its value MUCH better than a Nikon or Canon digital body (even the high-end for these two brands), and perhaps even better than the digital bodies of Mamiya or Hasselblad…?</strong></em><br /><br />Meaning, if I went ahead and seriously considered the investment surrounding this new digital body, I'm hoping it would hold its value much longer than most 35mm and medium format digital bodies.<br /><br /><em><strong>Secondly, for those individuals associated with this particular forum, I would like to get as much input as possible regarding the lenses. In particular, are they truly some of the finest glass (if not the finest) ever devised, or is their reputation somewhat overblown...?</strong></em><br /><br />I would have 2 professional photographic purposes in mind in investing in such a system: first would be my landscape photography (I have been shooting with the Canon 1Ds Mark III for the past few years). Secondarily, I would also be involved in wedding photography in my local area as well (having been a semi professional wedding photographer for the past 7 years, using the Canon 5D).<br /><br />Lastly, what is it exactly about the Leica class that makes it so incredibly clear and precise, so remarkably valuable, particularly with regard to not only monetary expense but overall reputation as well.<br /><br />Thanks in advance for any and all responses!</p>

    Is Returning to Film a Boon or a Mistake....?

    in Medium Format

    Posted

    <p>I did have yet another follow-up question, one that pertains to printing again (since I have so very little experience in this area):<br /><br />As I have had the opportunity to peruse some of my most requested works (requested from family members and friends wanting prints) within Photoshop, I have noticed that the PPI settings on each of the 1Ds Mark III shots is 240. (This PPI setting is arrived at without any cropping or manipulation to these photographs whatsoever (as far as their size is concerned).)<br /><br />Yet I have also read that most professional photographers print at 300 PPI, with some going just a little bit less for some works.<br /><br /><em><strong>My question</strong></em> (and again, please forgive my ignorance -- this is just something I've never really investigated and never really paid attention to as a result of always working with/presenting my photos exclusively online rather than through prints): what exactly determines the PPI settings (at least as they are appearing within Photoshop)? The camera itself...?<br /><br />It was my understanding that -- based upon such calculators as <a href="http://www.mattspinelli.com/ppicalc.html">this </a>one - that based upon the resolution of the 1Ds Mark III, the PPI would be set in relation to how large I was actually making print, i.e. the larger the print, the less the PPI; and conversely, the smaller the print, the greater the PPI...?<br /><br />Or am I incorrect here...?<br /><br />Again, every time I take a shot with the 1Ds Mark III, I drop it into Photoshop and I am informed that the PPI is 240.<br /><br />Thanks again for all input! I have thoroughly enjoyed this ongoing discussion.</p>

    Is Returning to Film a Boon or a Mistake....?

    in Medium Format

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>I showed the resulting prints to a number of my fellow commercial photographers and several of the art directors I work with. Only one could tell which was which, and I later learned it was because the digital file had more depth of field. Some of you guys say you can tell the difference between film and digital. Maybe you can, but I can tell you that a bunch of experienced professional photographers and art directors in my city couldn’t.</p>

     

    </blockquote>

    <p>Hi Dave,</p>

    <p>This is indeed a remarkable piece of information -- thanks!</p>

    Is Returning to Film a Boon or a Mistake....?

    in Medium Format

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>The "trouble" is, we're still using digital cameras like we used film cameras: one shot at a time. That misses the potential of stitching several shots together to produce a single large, highly detailed image (which is what Art Wolfe is now doing), or using software to have a grass blade inches from the lens in focus while distant trees are also in focus. It just takes a different mindset and workflow.</p>

     

    </blockquote>

    <p>Hi Stephen,</p>

    <p>Just wondering how you heard about Art Wolfe's stitching projects/techniques...? In other words, just confirming that this is indeed the technique he's employing.</p>

    <p>Thanks!</p>

    Is Returning to Film a Boon or a Mistake....?

    in Medium Format

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>Am I the only one who thinks the pictures on Kevin's web site, although very pretty, have no resemblance to reality? I have never seen landscape look like that.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Hi Brian,<br /><br />Believe me, no offense taken. =)<br /><br />I have heard such comments more times than I can even begin to count.<br /><br />My response...?: You have to come to Alaska and shoot during the summertime (especially the evenings) in order to get the colors in the sky I'm able to reproduce.<br /><br />Furthermore, I have been asked at least 100 separate times (at least!) what I did in Photoshop to color the water blue within many of the photographs.<br /><br />The answer of course is that I did absolutely nothing -- this is glacial water. It is blue (or blue-green, depending upon location within Alaska) naturally. The first time I set foot in Alaska (1980) I could not get over how blue the water really was. It totally blew me away!<br /><br />I'm shooting throughout the Kenai Peninsula and just South of Anchorage most of the time. And generally, I'm only able to get these colors in the evening hours of the Summers (which are the "white nights" as they have been referred to in North American and Russian parlance). I do use one or two filters the vast majority of the time, nothing special; but they are able to amplify the colors coming through the Alaskan evenings remarkably.<br /><br />Best,<br /> Kevin</p>

    Is Returning to Film a Boon or a Mistake....?

    in Medium Format

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>Do not sell your working (as opposed to old/no longer used) digital equipment to finance film equipment. The mediums and work flows are different and I think you would sorely miss the digital side.</p>

     

    </blockquote>

    <p>Hi Daniel,<br /><br />No, I would never sell the current equipment I have -- the Canon 1Ds Mark III and Canon 5D (I sold the Nikon D100 a while back); I would only be adding to this camera body and other Canon lenses.<br /><br />I very much agree with you on this point.<br /><br />Best,<br>

    Kevin</p>

    Is Returning to Film a Boon or a Mistake....?

    in Medium Format

    Posted

    <p>And now for a follow-up question I have always wanted to ask with respect to medium or large format film photography, but was too apprehensive about doing so because it might sound quite... well, ignorant. But here goes:<br /><br />If I was fortunate enough to have the money to acquire a medium or large format film-based camera, but didn't have enough money for a digital back, is it possible that I could take along my Canon 1Ds Mark III and use it as a form of pseudo-digital back device...?<br /><br />In other words, would the settings I've established with the 1Ds Mark III -- assuming I've got a separate tripod set up for the 1Ds Mark III and a separate tripod set up for the medium or large format camera -- be "transferable" over to the medium or large format film camera? (Meaning, I would use the same ISO, shutter speed, f/stop, etc.)<br /><br />My initial assumption is that this is probably not doable, simply because of the different dynamic ranges of 35mm as opposed to medium or large format...?<br /><br />Thanks again!</p>
×
×
  • Create New...