Skin tone Shoot out

Anthony said:

I believe you are incorrect here. The S3 default is not "more DR
than is needed." The default is auto DR, which means the camera
delivers what it believes to be the proper amount, not more than is
needed.

Click to expand...

Well, more than enough is certainly a matter of taste. Lets just say that the DR range of the 5D sensor was more than enough to record the brightness range of the scene. The S3 file, even in Auto mode provided a flatter image still. If you have enough DR, more is not better.

Anthony32599 said:

I can't say how this would have affected skin tones, but
obviously the tester realized that a photo with more DR in it would
make the photo stand out from the crowd. Of course, since you want
to run with the herd and pay more, that's your choice.

Click to expand...

Yep. Herd mentality of working pros. Where performance talks and BS walks.

Anthony32599 said:

Anthony32599 said:

An interesting point to note, one I almost forgot to note here is
that the purported Fuji S3 "14 bit" advantage apparently offered
no advantage. It should be noted for the newbs that 14-bit
rendering cannot be turned off.

Click to expand...

I would also note for the newbs that their wallets will be a lot
more empty if they buy a 5D for good skin tones. I'm afraid that
the extra cost is a feature that can't be turned off either.

Click to expand...

Hey, if the S3 suites ya, then great. I know a few portrait photographers here have moved to the 5D, some for the better DOF control others for the reduced artifacts, (easily seen in the S3 hair.)

no one shoots the S3 using only 1/2 its sensors for such work

I would shoot it in this mode as well. For as long as I have been in photography we have been shooting with pro films with the dynamic range that is a long as they could make. They just made the contrast fit the printing paper. This means that the film may have a latitude of 11 stops but by printing we could print from the shadows up or from the highlights down. The paper could only handle 7 stops out of the 11 that were recorded on the film.

If we had to shoot on a grey day or in a white painted studio with umbrella lighting or any other low contrast situation we shot on special high contrast film. The film had a range of only 5 stops but if the subject also had only five stops of range it would print these tones on the full 7 stop range.

We always tried to match contrast of the scene to the final output paper. Kodak made special films for that. Not shooting this camera in its highest contrast range when these conditions exist causes a lot of post processing trying to rescue the flat image to something printable.

It is Fuji that provides you with the variable tool so that you can suit the camera to the situation. All the modes are important but as many are not as well versed with a spot meter or incident meter to check scene contrast Fuji has given us the Auto Dynamic Range as default. It will provide for the best possible contrast matching no matter what the scene except in deliberate high key or low key shots.
Happy shooting

Rinus of Calgary/Kelowna

Artichoke said:

I suspect you have been here before using a different moniker &
with some amusement I note your repeatedly proclaiming how the 5D
is a "radical" camera, which clearly it is not ...it is a cheaper
iteration of a FF CMOS sensor with improved (greatly) noise
reduction

Click to expand...

Yeah, I was beginning to think the same thing. Seems to have a love affair with the 5D. I was just waiting for him to use "flabbergasted" or post some blue spots on a white shirt.

Is it possible that Rocky Rhoads only thinks his type of photography is demanding? Just a wonderin....
--
Ain't nothing friendlier than a muddy wet dog.

In a car's race contest runs all with the accelerator pushed (to fondo corsa). I have never seen a race where a pilot runs to the maximum and an other uses the half of the accelerator available.

Yeah.. SURE..
Happen's that..

But would want to say that who uses the accelerator to half is of one advanced category.

5d it has the advantages on the S3.
Speed, high resolution, autonomy.

But now it cannot be said that it has gained the 5D in the reproduction of SKIN TONE if the S3 has been head with half sensor.

I can ask that comparison is? I can ask why to want to by force put in head to one ranking a machine that its more serious contender has gained why had of the not lawful limitations?

Isn't serious..

If we must tell all togheter what 5D produce skin tone better THAN s3 they should be use a wide DR.
Why they have not made to work the 5d to 6,4 mp(12.8/2)?

Fotomat said:

Anthony said:

Canon 5D: $ 2,820.20

Fujifilm S3pro: $1,079.75

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

5d the triple one costs nearly. It must have had turns out to you triple results.

Instead it risks to remain behind also in a test to which the S3 participates "crippled".

Therefore 5d, exception made for some cases, it is not worth the price of the "ticket", IMO.

Fotomat said:

Answer me this why wouldn't these people who did this test NOT
try to make it as fair as possible? like it's some kind of
conspiracy or something ??

Click to expand...

It's CLEAR.
Also to the children I task.

5D it would have had to take one market share that belonged to the S3.Mission failed or nearly...
Or, at least, not like wanted "they(the boss : ) )".
And now they are played all the "papers" available..

Ok isn't serious... but it's marketing...

Regards.
Uru

P.S.
Forgive my poor english.

--
S3 Pro, Tamron 28-105 f2.8, Nikon 300 f4 Afs, TC14EII Afs
Quality is not subjective..

I understand camera and brand loyalty, but some of you are sounding like complete groupies!

First of all, putting down the 5D is not going to put the S3 any higher.

Secondly, on the topic of the S3 wide DR advantage, many of you have conceded that even on auto DR, the S3 probably would not have used the extra DR anyway on such a balanced exposure as the test subject. So what difference would it have made if it were on Auto DR or "crippled" by being forced into standard DR?

Third, if the extra DR did in fact fire up, then the out-of-camera jpeg image would have likely lacked contrast and immediate appeal if no postprocessing were allowed.

Simple test for subjective quality of S3 out-of-the-camera jpegs:

1) Shoot model with S3 in balanced studio lighting with standard-DR
2) Shoot model with S3 in balanced studio lighting with auto-DR
3) Notice they both look the same

4) Shoot model with S3 in balanced studio lighting with forced wide-DR
5) Notice how much 1 and 2 look better straight out of the camera

Also, to the previous poster who said:

Focus 3 said:

I guess you haven't heard of the F2 preset.

Click to expand...

F2 Velvia mode??? She would have looked like a clown! Surely you jest?

The S3 is already a great tool. But bashing other cameras aint gonna make it a better one.

KonradK said:

I guess you haven't heard of the F2 preset.

Click to expand...

"F2 Velvia mode??? She would have looked like a clown! Surely you jest?"

First of all my comment was intended to illustrate that you can use wide DR and not get a flat image.

And, I just happen to have an entire beauty portfolio produced exclusively on 120 Velvia. It was my prefered film for Beauty & Fashion work. You just have to figure out how to make it work for you.

There is much more to photographic ART than the narrow look that many of you embrace as " STUNNING".

Much More!

--
JB

Good morning, Arti

Since Will has posted the two files, I am taking another look at the 5D. I have been "going" to purchase the 5D for some time now, I just haven't done it yet. One of the reasons has been that I only have a coupe of Canon lenses, non of which are the "L" series.

I am really surprised at how well the S3 holds up to the 5D, especially since the 5D is at least 1-1/2 years newer and costing much more than the S3.

My goal is to make large family portraits, larger than 20X24. Clearly the 5D might give the larger prints just a little edge but it looks, from Wills test, not by much. The real advantage would be the high ISO, low noise feature of the camera. but then again, the 5D beats the S3 not by much.

I WILL NOT PURCHASE THE 5D AT THIS TIME. I WILL TAKE A WAIT AND SEE ATTITUDE TOWARD THE S3. I think we are getting close to where gains in digital quality will be in little steps. If the S5 performs slightly better(hopefully a lot better) than the S3 and doesn't cost an arm and leg, I WILL stick with fuji.

I don't think the sample print of the young lady looks plastic. I enlarged both files 200% and compared the two. I believe the Fuji file had a little more red in it but other than that my customers would be happy with either.
Happy shooting
Respectfully,
David Miller

KonradK said:

I understand camera and brand loyalty, but some of you are sounding
like complete groupies!

Click to expand...

Sorry but i dont understand the word "groupies".My level of English is low.
My translator can help me.I hope you will explain me this word.

Anyway this is not a question of "camera and brand loyalty".

For professional deformation i'm usual to say that things prescind the personal opinion.Truth are not in the any single opinion.
Truth simply exsist.
Independently from what the people think.

If tomorrow i said what into chemical reactor with adiabatic catalytic layers the job pressure should be greater I could be an assassin..
The truth will be far far away from me...

Sure.. everyone can have your opinion.But it's a different thing.
The truth is a complicated function of knowledge, experience and intelligence.

Sincerely i task that your attitude is not appropriated.

( i not use SOME.. ..i task that the clarity and the correctness is the first qualities that everyone must have in order to lead one argument in civil way.)

Premised this fact I would want to continue if possible.

KonradK said:

First of all, putting down the 5D is not going to put the S3 any
higher.

Click to expand...

...
Is not this the problem.

The problem is the correctness of the test not the position of the S3 against the 5D. I do not know if I succeed to explain itself.

KonradK said:

Secondly, on the topic of the S3 wide DR advantage, many of you
have conceded that even on auto DR, the S3 probably would not have
used the extra DR anyway on such a balanced exposure as the test
subject.

Click to expand...

(I see as you use the words "probably","conceded"..etc. etc..This thing capture mine attention.And i find strange as it can not capture yours.)

In any case..
It's a reason in more in order asking why never they have excluded it.
Why disabled it?

A correct test would have had to contemplate also a S3 photo with the DR abled (allowed).

What you think about?

The issue of the scene of resumption (7 fstop approximately) it does not regard properly.Pixels R does not produce only DR.
And their sensibility counts in the quality of the found information.

KonradK said:

Third, if the extra DR did in fact fire up, then the out-of-camera
jpeg image would have likely lacked contrast and immediate appeal
if no postprocessing were allowed.

Click to expand...

Sorry..
But this is a process to the intentions.
The rows would have had to be exposed.
Then would have been judged it.
No one can to judge somethinig what there isn't.

KonradK said:

The S3 is already a great tool. But bashing other cameras aint
gonna make it a better one.

Click to expand...

Perhaps there is a problem of competitiveness.
Does it not exist in this case.

People say that the test is learns (not corrected) not that the S3 is better than 5D.
This last problem is another complicated function of a lot of variables.
Everyone is free to find to its solution.

Even if obviously, as I said over, the comparison has one single "correct" answer.

With respect.
Uru.

--
S3 Pro, Tamron 28-105 f2.8, Nikon 300 f4 Afs, TC14EII Afs
Quality is not subjective..

Most people are still thinking that there is only the super saturated Velvia available. The newest Velvia that came on the market last year was balanced for good skin tones, it is called Velvia 100F or RVP100F.

The new Velvia the RVP100F was made with less yellow and red to get better skin tones as opposed to the RVP50 and RVP 100. I believe it is only available in 120/220 size.
I am not sure if 100F or 100 is available to the US in 35mm.

Yes, good skin tones are important but the S3 Velvia setting may or may not be for skintones at all. I do know that it limits dynamic range so that it looks more like the slide film.

No, it is not recommended for standard portraiture and wedding but some products can be made to look brilliant if the lighting is right!

Happy shooting
Rinus of Calgary/Kelowna

I was speaking of the "original" 50 ( supposedly ) ASA Velvia.
--
JB

I found the skin tones way too dark and reddish like my models had been in the sun too long.

Good that it worked for your shoot. You could use the S3 on Velvia to do the same but I would think that family pictures and weddings are not at its best this way.
--
Rinus of Calgary/Kelowna

http://www.focus3.ws/beauty_gallery.html

I agree about weddings and family portraits. I always used Kodak 400VC or 100VC back then. Now everything is S3/S2 and my Rolleis are rotting. Oh... the pain!
--
JB

I can see that you would use the higher contrast Kodak films as the film of choice for print.

You like snappy colors and fairly high contrast. It does not look out of place in your shots.
Very nice indeed.
--
Rinus of Calgary/Kelowna

I looked at your site... Very nice work.. I love the photo of Ashley!
--
JB