mike_macdonald

<p>Contrary to what others have said, there is something very new in the technical guide. It talks about the D800 performing better than the D800E at smaller apertures that cause more diffraction. Though the D800E is slightly sharper most of the time, apparently it's slightly softer at smaller apertures. Unfortunately, they were lazy and didn't include pictures that show the difference. I have a D800E on order and that information may have just changed my mind. It would have been nice to see what they were really talking about.</p>

<p>HUGE MISNOMER of "645D." The sensor isn't even close to 645. It's way smaller. It's too bad they are trying to mislead people.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think they are trying to "mislead" people as much as it being a marketing indication that this model continues the tradition of their 645 line. Only an idiot would pay $9k without reading the specs, and 33x44 is pretty much par for the course. Or maybe they should have called it the "3344D," but what do I know.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>They are completely misleading people. The size is midway between a 35mm full frame camera and a 645. Why not call it a full frame 35mm, then, and be modest. Call it what it is. Leica didn't lie about it with the S2. It's the principle.</strong><br>

<strong></strong><br>

50K Shutter Releases is extremely low for digital photography even if it shoots at a slow 1.1 FPS</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Again, this is 1.1fps camera for landscape and fine art, not a 10fps machine gun for sports.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>50K Shutter Releases: Photographers takes a lot more pictures when shooting digital and for many reasons:</strong><br>

<strong>1. HDR / Exposure Blending<br />2. Focus Stacking<br />3. Digital is cheap, why not take some extra shots?<br />4. Experimentation</strong></p>

<p>Works to -10 Celcius (or 14F). My 645N II has worked -15F (or -26C) though the film advance gets a bit whiney.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Holy smokes, a 5C difference. This is just takes the cake for the ultimate in nitpicking. Trust me, it's not just your film advance that's "whiney" [sic].<br>

If you're a professional landscape and outdoor photographer, why do you even care how the 645D performs at ISO 400, let alone 800? Do you not own a tripod? If you need to do low light action photography, get a 1D MkIV and have at it. It's called having the right tools for the job...</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>You don't have to be disrespectful and condescending! Who do you think you're talking to? Obviously, landscape photography is not something you're familiar with. So, please don't offer advice on topics that you know little about. This the reason why many people stay away from forums like this.</strong><br>

<strong>The big reason when a higher ISO would help with landscape images is because subjects in the landscape frequently blow in the wind. Very small apertures (to maximized depth of field) combined with low light compounds the problem. Obviously, this is something that landscape photographers have always had to deal with, but I am always hoping for advancements.</strong><br>

<strong>The inability to stop wind-related motion often results in no results at all. So, it would be very, very nice to have an ISO that would allow fast enough shutter speeds. And I'm not asking for much. I'd love 1/30-second or 1/15th. But, I'm often shooting at 1 to 2 seconds.</strong><br>

<strong>However, if the 4433D offers a clean ISO 400, it still wouldn't give me much above what I do now: push 100 speed film to 200. ISO 400 would give me an extra stop plus I'd get another half-stop due of the smaller sensor (and how that affects hyperfocal distance). But, hopefully the ISO 640 or 800 won't be too bad. Finger crossed!</strong><br>

<strong>35mm cameras have a more limited dynamic range and a 3:2 aspect ratio that doesn't work out very well for landscapes. The "skinniness" or "narrowness" is the problem. Plus, with published full-page (8.5x11"), a good chunk of the image needs to be cropped off (or "transformed"), which can easily kill the picture. And now you have to crop off even more pixels from an already limited sensor.</strong><br>

<strong>However, the 4:3 ratio is very nice and produces full-bodied landscape images that fit almost perfectly on a full-page. And 645 film will easily outperform a Canon 16MP camera and allows for huge enlargements without having to fabricate pixels. (A 16MP camera only lets you make a 10x13" print at native resolution on an Epson printer without interpolation or loss of quality.) So, the right tool for "large fine art print landscape photography" is definitely not a 35mm digital camera. There needs to be "pixels between the pixels" in order to show as much detail as possible and not a bunch of mush in the distance. Granted, with film there's scanning involved and it's a lot less convenient in many ways. But, the information is there and there is a whole lot of it, too!</strong><br>

<strong>Temperature: Maybe a 5C difference in "the specs" (between the 4433D and the 645NII) doesn't mean much numerically, but if the camera stops working due to a few degrees, that's a problem. If my 645NII works at -15F, then it works at -15F, even though it's rated higher. Hopefully, this new 4433D camera will do MUCH better than it's rating says. Because -10C (18F) is not very cold and would eliminate almost all of my winter shoot. My 645NII can do -26C (33F degrees less than what the 4433D is rated at). </strong></p>

<p>Previous Lenses:<br />Though the crop factor turns my 33-55mm lens from one that I use 95% of the time into a lens that I'll use 5% of the time, at least there a 3 possible advantages:</p>

<ol>

<li>More DOF. And, the near focusing point for Hyperfocal Distance is even nearer, though I wonder if f/32 is going to present a sharpness issue with the digital sensor.</li>

<li>Sharper corners because they're lopped off.</li>

</ol>

<p>Chromatic Aberration Removal:<br />Very exciting!<br />(I spend too much time removing it in Photoshop because I make very large prints. It takes over 300MB if I do it in a layer. I also remove CA in Adobe Camera RAW after scanning with my Nikon 9000 into a NEF file, which eliminates the need for a PS layer. When I use Auto CA Removal in Nikon Capture NX for my Nikon D300 images, it's perfect and there's no work at all. It even works with non-Nikon lenses. And, it seems to be non-linear. So it will correct the color shifts ONLY where they're needed, unlike PS or ACR that seems to take a more global approach.)</p>

<p>

<p >Boris:</p>

<p >Active Pixels of 7264x5440 = 39.516 megapixels. QED</p>

<p >50K Shutter Releases: Photographers takes a lot more pictures when shooting digital and for many reasons:</p>

<p >1. HDR / Exposure Blending</p>

<p >2. Focus Stacking</p>

<p >3. Digital is cheap, why not take some extra shots?</p>

<p >4. Experimentation</p>

<p > </p>

<p >14-bit vs. 16-bit: I’m just comparing apples to apples here. If they claim their camera is a 645, which it is far from, then it needs to be compared to Hasselblad, Mamiya, etc. The Leica S2 is even smaller than the 645D and does 16-bit. If all the top players are doing it, there must be a very good reason.</p>

<p > </p>

</p>

<p > </p>

<p>I'm was hoping this camera would be a professional model, but now I'm wondering how it compares to Mamiya & Hasselblad.<br>

DOWNSIDE:</p>

<ol>

<li>HUGE MISNOMER of "645D." The sensor isn't even close to 645. It's way smaller. It's too bad they are trying to mislead people.</li>

<li>Uses tiny, slow SD cards.</li>

<li>14-bit, not 16-bit</li>

<li>Silly point & shoot modes</li>

<li>50K Shutter Releases is extremely low for digital photography even if it shoots at a slow 1.1 FPS </li>

<li>Works to -10 Celcius (or 18F). My 645N II has worked -26F (or -15C) though the film advance gets a bit whiney.</li>

</ol>

<p>UPSIDE:</p>

<ol>

<li>No Anti-Aliasing Filter for much sharper images.</li>

<li>39.5 MP with Sensor cleaning</li>

<li>DNG raw files may elimate forced upgrades to Photoshop CS4 in order to use the camera</li>

<li>Automatic CA Removal even with older lenses</li>

<li>HDR (if it works) could be a real coup</li>

</ol>

<p>THOUGHTS:</p>

<ol>

<li>They mention in the press release that the camera is also designed for professional landscape and outdoor photographers, which I am one. However, in order to switch to digital it's important to offer more than film. And, I really hope that it has low noise at ISO 800 (and definitely 400) otherwise I'll just push Fuji Astia 100F to 400 and save $10K.</li>

<li>They need to offer a VERY wide angle lens to match the previous 33-55mm of the film camera. And, that would be a 26mm and hopefully wider.</li>

<li>It's only being offered in Japan right now.</li>

<li>Interesting how the new 55mm f2.8 lens has a true 645 image circle to work on the film cameras, but won't autofocus on them.</li>

</ol>

<p>Mike</p>

<p>I'm wondering if 33-55mm will have trouble with the digital sensor. Optically, will this lens have a problem with resolution? And, will there be a problem with the way the light strikes the sensor, since sensors seem to like the light rays to come in "straight on" instead of at angles?<br>

My wish is that they'd come with a true 645 sensor (69.7mm diagonal) and slap 39 megapixels on it. That would be a slightly smaller pixel density as 31 MP on a 48x36mm chip. At 39 MP, it also puts it safely ahead of the newer 35mm cameras that are closing in on 30 megapixels. And, it'd allow me to use my 33-55mm lens and not have to wait for them to come out with a 28mm or a 28-45mm zoom. If they stick to the 48x36mm sensor and don't come out with a super-wide right away, there'd be no point in me buying it since I couldn't do any landscape work.<br>

What also caught my attention with the new camera was the option to have the anti-aliasing sensor removed for much sharper images.<br>

And, finally, I hope they allow AE-Lock to not "time out" and simply work like an on/off switch. The 645N and NII only remember the exposure for 20 seconds or so. This "Lock & Hold" feature is standard for even low-level Nikons. I wonder if the current Pentax cameras offer this.</p>

I visited the Pentax website today and there is no longer mention of any film

cameras or lenses, in particular their 645 and 67 medium format products. The

645 and 67 lenses, even the autofocus models, are now categorized

under "Historical Products." It was only a couple of weeks ago that I was able

to go to the Pentax website to find their medium format cameras and lenses.

 

As a result, Pentax has now abandoned the landscape photographer. Due to the

demands of a landscape image, not even the announced 31 megapixel camera can

match the quality, contrast, and color of a big film transparency. (I'm not

asking for a debate on this.) And, I recently learned from Pentax in Japan

that they have no plans to even introduce a superwide angle lens for the new

digital 645.

 

If nothing else, I'll be able to find used medium format equipment on eBay for

much cheaper now that they've discountinued everything.

Hi,

 

Yes, you can calibrate the projector, but it won't probably won't be quite as precise as you would normally get with a monitor unless you were always using the same projection screen, the same room lighting, and the same size image on the screen. But, it's going to be much, much better than winging it.

 

That said, you can actually point the colorimeter at the screen, making sure that you do not cast a shadow in the measurement area. You'll have to resize the projected color circle that the software generates to be very large, making wure that this color circle on the screen is all that the colorimeter is able to see. Who knows what the angle of view of the colorimeter is.

 

Additionally, you'll need a projector that allows you to adjust the individual Red, Green, and Blue levels, otherwise it's impossible to calibrate.

 

Mike

Bottom line: You must calibrate your monitor if you are dead serious about color matching. If you want your prints to match your monitor or your digitally captured images to look proper on your monitor, your monitor must first be calibrated and then profiled.

 

I use ColorEyes with the DTP94 Colorimeter Bundle and it's excellent.

 

Mike

Do you shoot film or digital? This is an important distinction. Also, are the files you are trying to resize (bigger) high quality scans or digital captures?

 

I shoot fine grain transparency film and make high quality scans including drum scans. I purchased one of the resizing tools by Fred Miranda about a year ago and it didn't do any better than what Photoshop can do by itself. If your files are digital you may get better results because you don't have to deal with the grain issue. I'd suggest going elsewhere for your plug-ins since his are based on existing Photoshop functions.

 

The FM sharpening tool did not work either. At the time, he had "Before & After" pictures on his website that showed dramatic and misleading results. But, my actual results were just plain lame. I've since purchased FocalBlade that is a very advanced sharpening tool and not just some canned reiterative Photoshop action (sp).

Hi Albert.

 

Well, if I flatten all the layers this will probably clear up the problem, since there does seem to be some correlation with the Blending Options (in a layer) as Andrew has mentioned. Hopefully, Andrew will shed some more light on this problem.

 

When I get rid of the layer that using the Blending Option of "Overlay", it converts correctly and prints out correctly.

 

So, that would be a work-around to the problem, but it still shouldn't happen.

 

In my mind, Soft Proofing is similar to using Preview in Convert to Profile in that there is no physical conversion going on--think of Soft Proofing and Preview as a virtual conversion. They should both show the same results, and the thing is that they do! However, AFTER using Print Preview and setting the Source, etc. it prints out a print that doesn't match the Soft Proofed image.

 

So, to collect evidence and to test my idea, I decided to see what would happen if I actually physically Convert to Profile the image to the Printer's profile. While in the Convert to Profile window, I clicked PREVIEW and it showed me the same thing that Soft Proofing was showing. However, when the conversion took place, the image was very different than the Preview (and Soft Proof). But, most importantly, this crappy conversion DOES MATCH the crappy print!

 

When printing an image that is Soft Proofed, you really don't see the conversion being done since it happens behind the scenes. So, all I did was to take a peek at the man behind the curtain.

 

So, Andrew seems to be right. If, after Convert to Profile, I turn on and off the offending layer (which, is just a sharpening layer automatically created by PhotoKit Sharpener software), the COLORS in the images change dramatically. (I know that sharpening can change color a little, but not the big change that I'm experiencing.)

 

Do you see my logic here?

 

So, Albert, you are absolutely right. If I flatten everything, things should be fine. But, with big files (700MB to 950MB with layers, 300MB flattened), it seems to take a lot of time and if I need to keep tweaking the file, I have to flatten the thing over and over again.

 

Somehow, the folks at PixelGenius (makers of PhotoKit) or Adobe need to address this issue. Seems like a bug to me because I cannot find any documentation on this problem. It could very well be that there are people out there who may not be able to get a certain print right, but can't figure out the problem.

 

Thanks!

Hi Andrew.

 

You seem to have some experience with this.

 

The file definitely has layers, but I think it's having problems with the Layer Sets produced by PhotoKit Sharpener. It uses a Blend Mode of "Overlay" and two other sets use "Luminosity."

Patrick,

 

Thanks for your response.

 

It is perfectly valid to convert a file to the printer's profile and then print it straight color management in the printer's driver turn OFF. This is very similar to soft proofing, but instead it's actually physically changing the color numbers and, hence, creating a hard proof. However, I found this problem because I have been finding that my prints are not working through soft proofing and then found that if I would go into CONVERT TO PROFILE that the PREVIEW and the real result differ drastically. It is my contention that this PREVIEW works similar to Soft Proofing and is therefore is unreliable. Here's what I've been doing, which hasn't worked:

 

1) Color correct an ORIGINAL image to perfection.

 

2) Make a Duplicate (copy) of this image.

 

3) On the COPY, do Proof Setup for the Epson 4000 using Epson Premium Luster paper with Black Point Compensation and rendering intent of Perceptual. Confirm that PROOF COLORS is set. This essentially shows the picture as it would look like when printed on the specified paper.

 

4) Place the images side by side and continue to color correct the COPY to bring it back to the color, contrast, and quality of the ORIGINAL.

 

5) Once, the COPY is perfect, then PRINT PREVIEW is selected with the following settings:

 

SOURCE SPACE of "PROOF SETUP: Epson 4000 Premium Luster 250" (Could also select "DOCUMENT: ADOBE-1998" and it still works)

 

PRINT SPACE = Epson 4000 Premium Luster 250

 

INTENT = PERCEPTUAL

 

BLACK POINT COMPENSATION

 

Then, I turn off Color Management in the printer driver and send the thing to the printer, which ends up not matching. It looks kind of washed out.

 

HOWEVER, and here's the point, if I were to actually perform a CONVERT TO PROFILE (the EPSON 4000 Premium Luster 250), it would actually produce a different looking image than what I actually see what the COPY or soft proof version looks like (or just as amazing, what I see when I click PREVIEW when I'm actually performing the CONVERT TO PROFILE operation). I do notice that the CONVERT TO PROFILE, once performed, is a match to the print.

 

Actually, what I'm learning is that using a Plug-in called PhotoKit Sharpener is contributing to the problem. It seems to add Layer Sets to the file and when final conversion to the profile is actually done (by the driver), it actually reproduces differently. In fact, normal sharpening elminates this entire problem altogether.

 

Probably, this is a Photoshop bug, since it should be able to convert the profile of a file with layers, no matter how many.

I use Photoshop 7.01 I'm experiencing the following problem:

 

1) Say my image has an embedded profile of Adobe 1998 and that's also

my working color space.

 

2) I go into Convert to Profile to convert to Epson 4000 Premium

Luster Paper using Perceptual rendering w/Black Point Compensation

and Dithering.

 

3) I click PREVIEW to see what the image will look like and there's a

small change, but not much.

 

4) Then, I actually convert to profile and the change is significant.

The difference between the Preview and the real thing is big.

 

I just cannot figure this out and it's causing my prints to turn out

incorrectly. I do soft proofing and I have a custom setting made for

Epson 4000 Premium Luster Paper w/Perceptual rendering intent. When I

have Proof Colors checked, it displays the image similar to that of

the Preview in Convert to Profile (showing a small change) Something

is wacky and I can't see if I'm doing anything wrong.

 

Please help.

 

Thanks!

 

Mike

Andrew Rodney,

 

Yes, I am experiencing the bug that you refer to: Preview in Convert to Profile does not accurately display the final result.

 

The ultimate conversion is much more pronounced than the actual preview. This also screws up Soft Proofing (Proof Setup and Proof Colors) as well because the simulation of the printer profile is similar to the preview and does not accurately reflect the true conversion.

I use Photoshop 7.01 I'm experiencing the following problem:

1) Say my image has an embedded profile of Adobe 1998 and that's also

my working color space

2) I go into Convert to Profile to convert to Epson 4000 Premium

Luster Paper using Perceptual rendering w/Black Point Compensation

and Dithering.

3) I click PREVIEW to see what the image will look like and there's a

small change, but not much.

4) Then, I actually convert to profile and the change is significant.

The difference between the Preview and the real thing is big.

 

I just cannot figure this out and it's causing my prints to turn out

incorrectly. I do soft proofing and I have a custom setting made for

Epson 4000 Premium Luster Paper w/Perceptual rendering intent. When I

have Proof Colors checked, it displays the image similar to that of

the Preview in Convert to Profile (showing a small change) Something

is wacky and I can't see if I'm doing anything wrong.

 

Please help.

 

Thanks!

 

Mike

Pal, thanks for the response. After further inspection, it seems that the focus was off in the middleground--not the distant trees or the foreground mounds of snow, but maybe 40 meters away at the top of the trees.

 

I did end up sending the lens back to Pentax and they changed the focusing rollers and supposedly that's going to fix things. There was play in the front lens extension and this may be causing the problem. Who knows. I have to put some more film through the camera to see if the problem was fixed.

 

By the way, I read somewhere in this forum that you said something about the 645NII not only having Mirror Lock-up, but also having mirror delay or something like that. I could not find that in the manual. What do you mean?

I use the Pentax 645N II for landscapes and, lately, when combined

with the 33-55mm zoom lens, I've noticed that the image (on Velvia

100F film) is quite soft around the edges as viewed through an 8x

loupe.

 

Today, I took the camera outside and aimed it at various subjects (at

distances of a distance of 10 feet or greater). I focused critically

at each subject using the center of the frame, then moved the camera

slightly to reframe the subject at an edge or a corner. It's clear

(to my eye) that there is definite softness at these edges.

 

Some things to note:

 

1) I just recently sent in this camera and lens to Pentax repair for

a yearly once-over, but I wonder if they caused the problem.

 

2) The "blurry-edged" shots were all taken in cold weather,

definitely below freezing and a couple of times around the zero

(Farenheit) mark. Could film flatness be affected by low temperatures?

 

3) I frequently use Graduated ND Filters (The big thick ones from

COKIN XP), which seem really flat and sturdy, but who knows if this

could contribute).

 

4) Simiilar shots of the same scene with the 55-100mm lens is much

sharper throughout, even with grad filters.

 

5) Also, there is play in this lens that Pentax says is normal. The

front part of the lens that extends when zooming or focusing tends to

droop a bit due to gravity. This may not do anything, but I can

definitely see the focus change a bit when I lift the front assembly

up. This may not be a problem since it may only change the plane of

focus slightly, though no longer parallel to the film plane.

 

6) It seems that the sharpness improves with smaller f-stops, which

makes sense.

 

7) I usually take a series of bracketed shots and in-camera dupes:

from 6 to 18 shots. I bracket by 1/3-stop changing shutter speeds.

 

I know that this lens lacks some edge sharpness anyway, but could

some of this problem be exacerbated by something being out of kilter?

 

Thanks for your time and expertise!