Serious thinking of the Pentax 645 or shall wait? Locked

Started May 4, 2014 | Discussions
This thread is locked.
RedFox88 Forum Pro • Posts: 27,216
creative development

nvlass wrote:

I would be happy if you give me some advice, if you have, than a general improve my photography.

I am learning fast ....

The most growth in photographic results comes from developing your creative vision, not from camera settings, different lenses, different exposures, different filters.  Choosing better subjects, if photographing outdoors: having ideal/optimum light, stronger and more appealing compositions without extraneous elements, colors that complement each other, etc.  Those are facets of photography that you can't learn from one person's posts on the internet.

This is why many a person on here posts that they think their photography sucks or they don't seem to be improving anymore.  That's when they've come to understand the 35mm camera system, understanding how to control depth of field, ISO, and exposure bias.  Those are the easy parts of photography to learn. The harder elements are the creative ones, and it's the creative abilities that separates good photographers from average camera user and the good from the great.

RedFox88 Forum Pro • Posts: 27,216
Re: Serious thinking of the Pentax 645 or shall wait?

Hans Kruse wrote:


I am learning fast ....

The artistic and non technical aspect of photography is typically not learned as fast as the technical ones.... The only think you get our of a higher resolution camera is just that, more resolution which as such does not improve your photography. More DR also not.

Ha, should have read yours before I replied!  Spot on!  Just how people think that "moving to 'full frame'" will make them a better photographer or getting 36 MP of resolution will make them feel like an important photographer.  They won't.  What results in better photographs if better creative vision and execution.  You can't buy that, you have to develop it yourself.  That comes from being ruthless upon  your own photographs, i.e. being very critical of your photographs and choices made in creating them.

And I think the OP's 'hdr' images are very over the top and aren't anything I'd see in the professional realm.  They look amateurish.  One community photography show I saw, over 400 photo entered, had 2 large prints 20x30 or so of a very obvious 'hdr' image.  All photos were framed.  And about 15 to 20% went onto a month long exhibit at an art center.  Those two large HDR prints did not get selected.  This proves that big prints don't make a fair photo into one that people like, and the HDR that looks like it's a computer generated image doesn't fly well with art critiques.

The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 18,997
Re: Display

roustabout66 wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

You print more than most, yet you still claim the print medium is capable of exceeding 8 1/2 stops or even 12 stops. Where is the evidence of that? Where is a link proving that?

No, I said print is capable of displaying the detail (at both ends) of a high DR capture...even in cases in excess of 12 stops (paper and lighting paly a big part). Advances in Paper and printing technology/processing have made it a bit more common. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Also the actual DR of print has been increased in same cases. Fuji crystal papers would be an example. MOAB SlickRock metallic (vs simple gloss paper) is another example even consumer grade photo printers can get more DR from. KODAK PROFESSIONAL Inkjet Photo Paper, Metallic / 255g would be another paper that has an expanded DR vs older paper types. Seeing the comparison in person is really the only way to note the increase in an obvious way.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Each end is not the problem, it's all that stuff in the middle. So you do not have any evidence (links). Only your own personal experience (feeling) to prove print medium is significantly better than 8 1/2 stops (or more importantly 12 stops). I have not tried the metallic yet, but I have a Fuji crystal print 20x30 and the DR of my Canon sensor is easily more than that print.

It is not relevant that prints are 6, 7, or 10 stops. The important part is having enough DR at the capture level in order to compress to print.

Besides, I sell prints....try selling your digital file.

I sell prints too Dave...have for over 40 years. I have also worked in one of the largest photo finishers in the Midwest, so I know that most of the "facts" in this thread are pure 100% propaganda.

Then you should certainly understand you want to capture the full range of a scene in order to make the print.  The DR of the print is not relevant.   The fact that you cant comprehend something so incredibly basic makes me question your basic knowledge of printing.  I suggest you read Ansel Adams series on the negative and the print....the basic information there quite easily sums up why you want to capture the full range of a scene in order to compress and represent it on print.  If you have been doing something different....you've been doing it wrong for 40 years.  I wouldn't brag about that if I were you.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +16 more
riknash Veteran Member • Posts: 6,798
Re: Display

roustabout66 wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

You print more than most, yet you still claim the print medium is capable of exceeding 8 1/2 stops or even 12 stops. Where is the evidence of that? Where is a link proving that?

No, I said print is capable of displaying the detail (at both ends) of a high DR capture...even in cases in excess of 12 stops (paper and lighting paly a big part). Advances in Paper and printing technology/processing have made it a bit more common. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Also the actual DR of print has been increased in same cases. Fuji crystal papers would be an example. MOAB SlickRock metallic (vs simple gloss paper) is another example even consumer grade photo printers can get more DR from. KODAK PROFESSIONAL Inkjet Photo Paper, Metallic / 255g would be another paper that has an expanded DR vs older paper types. Seeing the comparison in person is really the only way to note the increase in an obvious way.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Each end is not the problem, it's all that stuff in the middle. So you do not have any evidence (links). Only your own personal experience (feeling) to prove print medium is significantly better than 8 1/2 stops (or more importantly 12 stops). I have not tried the metallic yet, but I have a Fuji crystal print 20x30 and the DR of my Canon sensor is easily more than that print.

It is not relevant that prints are 6, 7, or 10 stops. The important part is having enough DR at the capture level in order to compress to print.

Besides, I sell prints....try selling your digital file.

I sell prints too Dave...have for over 40 years. I have also worked in one of the largest photo finishers in the Midwest, so I know that most of the "facts" in this thread are pure 100% propaganda.

Then you should certainly understand you want to capture the full range of a scene in order to make the print.  The DR of the print is not relevant.   The fact that you cant comprehend something so incredibly basic makes me question your basic knowledge of printing.  I suggest you read Ansel Adams series on the negative and the print....the basic information there quite easily sums up why you want to capture the full range of a scene in order to compress and represent it on print.  If you have been doing something different....you've been doing it wrong for 40 years.  I wouldn't brag about that if I were you.

I think i understand this discussion to mean that the DR of a print is limited, but by having a greater DR on the "negative", the artist decides which components of the "negative" will be represented, not including by how they in whole or in part will be modified or replaced by something completely different to realize the vision of the "photographer"/artist. Like many artists, the work is never finished but rather always in transition to try and discover a better representation of that vision.

 riknash's gear list:riknash's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x HTC One
The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 18,997
Re: Display

riknash wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

You print more than most, yet you still claim the print medium is capable of exceeding 8 1/2 stops or even 12 stops. Where is the evidence of that? Where is a link proving that?

No, I said print is capable of displaying the detail (at both ends) of a high DR capture...even in cases in excess of 12 stops (paper and lighting paly a big part). Advances in Paper and printing technology/processing have made it a bit more common. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Also the actual DR of print has been increased in same cases. Fuji crystal papers would be an example. MOAB SlickRock metallic (vs simple gloss paper) is another example even consumer grade photo printers can get more DR from. KODAK PROFESSIONAL Inkjet Photo Paper, Metallic / 255g would be another paper that has an expanded DR vs older paper types. Seeing the comparison in person is really the only way to note the increase in an obvious way.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Each end is not the problem, it's all that stuff in the middle. So you do not have any evidence (links). Only your own personal experience (feeling) to prove print medium is significantly better than 8 1/2 stops (or more importantly 12 stops). I have not tried the metallic yet, but I have a Fuji crystal print 20x30 and the DR of my Canon sensor is easily more than that print.

It is not relevant that prints are 6, 7, or 10 stops. The important part is having enough DR at the capture level in order to compress to print.

Besides, I sell prints....try selling your digital file.

I sell prints too Dave...have for over 40 years. I have also worked in one of the largest photo finishers in the Midwest, so I know that most of the "facts" in this thread are pure 100% propaganda.

Then you should certainly understand you want to capture the full range of a scene in order to make the print. The DR of the print is not relevant. The fact that you cant comprehend something so incredibly basic makes me question your basic knowledge of printing. I suggest you read Ansel Adams series on the negative and the print....the basic information there quite easily sums up why you want to capture the full range of a scene in order to compress and represent it on print. If you have been doing something different....you've been doing it wrong for 40 years. I wouldn't brag about that if I were you.

I think i understand this discussion to mean that the DR of a print is limited, but by having a greater DR on the "negative", the artist decides which components of the "negative" will be represented, not including by how they in whole or in part will be modified or replaced by something completely different to realize the vision of the "photographer"/artist. Like many artists, the work is never finished but rather always in transition to try and discover a better representation of that vision.

Exactly.  i'm shocked anyone would claim you only need 6 stops because that is all there is on the print.  My gosh....

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +16 more
qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Serious thinking of the Pentax 645 or shall wait?

RedFox88 wrote:

Hans Kruse wrote:

I am learning fast ....

The artistic and non technical aspect of photography is typically not learned as fast as the technical ones.... The only think you get our of a higher resolution camera is just that, more resolution which as such does not improve your photography. More DR also not.

Ha, should have read yours before I replied! Spot on! Just how people think that "moving to 'full frame'" will make them a better photographer or getting 36 MP of resolution will make them feel like an important photographer. They won't. What results in better photographs if better creative vision and execution. You can't buy that, you have to develop it yourself. That comes from being ruthless upon your own photographs, i.e. being very critical of your photographs and choices made in creating them.

And I think the OP's 'hdr' images are very over the top and aren't anything I'd see in the professional realm. They look amateurish. One community photography show I saw, over 400 photo entered, had 2 large prints 20x30 or so of a very obvious 'hdr' image. All photos were framed. And about 15 to 20% went onto a month long exhibit at an art center. Those two large HDR prints did not get selected. This proves that big prints don't make a fair photo into one that people like, and the HDR that looks like it's a computer generated image doesn't fly well with art critiques.

Few HDR photos are really attractive on my taste. Most of those HDR photos have typical surreal look that look like paintings not photos.  This cheap plug-in if did correctly can generate natural look HDR.  The author said this cheap plug-in does HDR better than those expensive dedicated HDR programs.

http://www.joshuaguntherphotography.com/merge-to-32-bit-hdr-tutorial/

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Serious thinking of the Pentax 645 or shall wait?

rrccad wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Tim Devine wrote:

You could pickup a Sony a7R to tide you over. You'll need an adapter, but at least you can use your existing investment in lenses. The DR bump is quite noticeable, at least over the 5D II I have.

But MF is MF....

-Tim

+1.

To OP:

Unless you absolutely need 50mp and MF, you have some best lenses with such varieties and flexibilities in the world that you don't find in Pentax MF lens's lineup. I am sure Pentax has some very nice prime lenses but it doesn't have TS-E lenses.

Also suggested A7R. All your EF lenses work very well on A7R thru adapter. You will find it's much easier to use your TS-E lenses on A7R than on 5D III thanks to EVF and 7x/14x magnification that you can directly do it in EVF (imagining under bright noon sunlight) without having to toggle between OVF and LV as you'd do in 5D III.

If you really need 50mp, Sony 54 mp FF sensor likely will be announced by next year and will be implemented in A7R II.

tilt shift lens for Pentax 645:

http://www.dvdtechnik.com/?p=res&pn=&cur=usd&id=89&p_t=view&mid=127

Don't believe $715 Ukraine-made TS-E lens can close to Canon 24 TS-E II and 17mm TS-E. Its FF eq 35mm FL is not ideal in landscape also. Not in the same league.

The optics are by Zeiss, so it should be OK. The Canon TS-E are a bit special, however.

I've used their optics on a Pentax 6x7. Very good glass. I would say that this lens on the 645Z would have advantages over the smaller, lower rez and lower DR Canon regardless of lens choice. I just wanted to point out that there are T/S options to those without any knowledge or expereince with the Pentax MF system claiming otherwise.

I could be wrong, but this one isn't the digital series of super rotator tilt shifts.

these are adapted from Kiev-Arsenal medium format lenses, not Zeiss. with a 5.3um pixel pitch on the new 645 you may see it strain to keep up to the resolution.

now these ones:

http://www.hartblei.de/en/sr40if.htm

are delicious, however not suitable for MF systems only FF/APS-C

I will not take a $750 MF T/E lens seriously.  A good MF T/E lens only costs $750, are you kidding me?  They also look pretty cheap and rough made.

The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 18,997
Re: Serious thinking of the Pentax 645 or shall wait?

rrccad wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Tim Devine wrote:

You could pickup a Sony a7R to tide you over. You'll need an adapter, but at least you can use your existing investment in lenses. The DR bump is quite noticeable, at least over the 5D II I have.

But MF is MF....

-Tim

+1.

To OP:

Unless you absolutely need 50mp and MF, you have some best lenses with such varieties and flexibilities in the world that you don't find in Pentax MF lens's lineup. I am sure Pentax has some very nice prime lenses but it doesn't have TS-E lenses.

Also suggested A7R. All your EF lenses work very well on A7R thru adapter. You will find it's much easier to use your TS-E lenses on A7R than on 5D III thanks to EVF and 7x/14x magnification that you can directly do it in EVF (imagining under bright noon sunlight) without having to toggle between OVF and LV as you'd do in 5D III.

If you really need 50mp, Sony 54 mp FF sensor likely will be announced by next year and will be implemented in A7R II.

tilt shift lens for Pentax 645:

http://www.dvdtechnik.com/?p=res&pn=&cur=usd&id=89&p_t=view&mid=127

Don't believe $715 Ukraine-made TS-E lens can close to Canon 24 TS-E II and 17mm TS-E. Its FF eq 35mm FL is not ideal in landscape also. Not in the same league.

The optics are by Zeiss, so it should be OK. The Canon TS-E are a bit special, however.

I've used their optics on a Pentax 6x7. Very good glass. I would say that this lens on the 645Z would have advantages over the smaller, lower rez and lower DR Canon regardless of lens choice. I just wanted to point out that there are T/S options to those without any knowledge or expereince with the Pentax MF system claiming otherwise.

I could be wrong, but this one isn't the digital series of super rotator tilt shifts.

these are adapted from Kiev-Arsenal medium format lenses, not Zeiss. with a 5.3um pixel pitch on the new 645 you may see it strain to keep up to the resolution.

now these ones:

http://www.hartblei.de/en/sr40if.htm

are delicious, however not suitable for MF systems only FF/APS-C

You are correct. The one I used was a few years back on my friends 67. I dont know if there was a Mamiya RB adaptor....otherwise I would have run a few more rolls through my RB67.

I found them to work well on the Pentax 67 with Fujichrome Astia F. The smaller image circle should help somewhat as on 6x7, there was some softness at the edges. But for most of the frame, it was decent. It held up even on my 3200 ppi scan with the film fluid mounted. I would like to give one a try once I can use the camera for a couple of hours.

As a whole, I would still take the Hartblei on the 646Z over a Canon lens on a 5D3. There is more to an image than just edge sharpness.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +16 more
qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: True again

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

But not everyone wants to print, no mention billboard size. How large of your real estate can hold those big prints?

I see your point. Also really makes the virtues of cell phone only photography more obvious. A lot to be said for..."good enough for what I do" practicality. Keeps cost down too...added bonus. Likely the reason higher quality photography (top end of the spectrum) is on the decline and market share is getting to be such a tough nut to crack.

Printing is really an old-fashion and dying technology that will be replaced by high-end display in a decade.

Also a good point for your type of IQ requirements. Keeps the bar down and saves in both processing time and money...unless you start chasing display resolution. A lot to be said for limiting output medium. A lot of pluses to that type of workflow/expectations. Certainly makes advances in sensor tech less and less relevant for some. Who needs more anyways.

Just do a survey in this forum, how many actually are working in billboard business?

Most photos come from a cell and make it no farther than Facebook. In that regard your suggestion that resolution and DR aren't all that important is certainly valid for a large group. No denying that. I can absolutely see why IQ advances, of a certain nature, would be of little real use.

That's not my point. My point is that you still can enjoy high resolution and high DR photos on monitors. You don't must print photos. That's my point. Also it subjects to viewing distance. To view on larger monitor or larger print, you'd need to backward a bit to view from a bit far away.

I don't deny there are some of them there but not many, not me, not you that I am sure about.

Not you most certainly as you have stated so. Nothing wrong with that at all. I though go a bit further than that but certainly not weekly. I do print far more than most here, so I see why my experiences and requirements will obviously differ from yours. Yours are still valid points in relative terms. No need for you to buy a saddle when you don't ride.

Again you don't have to print to enjoy high resolution photos. I still enjoy my 36mp A7R photos at 36mp size on my 27" monitor but need to shift around. But again due to only 2560x1440 monitor resolution, it's better to view at 2560-wide size (actually my default to 2500-pixel wide) that looks better than full-size, sharper and fit monitor width perfectly. How easy to view your thousand photos on prints? Do you have and store thousand prints and have to retrieve them from archives? I can find my photos in 60K+ photos collection easily on computer. I enjoy photos more on monitors than on prints. How many photos people see on prints compared to on monitors everyday? No comparison. I still can enjoy 645Z samples on my monitor like everyone else did so far. What's problem?

But in other side, you can enjoy high resolution photos on today's monitor but inconvenience to shift photos around.

Always pros and cons

As I said I will see digital displays eventually will eliminate old-fashion physical prints, just like digital cameras replace film, just a matte of time and could happy in 5-10 years.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

roustabout66 Contributing Member • Posts: 703
Re: Display

Dave Luttmann wrote:

riknash wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

You print more than most, yet you still claim the print medium is capable of exceeding 8 1/2 stops or even 12 stops. Where is the evidence of that? Where is a link proving that?

No, I said print is capable of displaying the detail (at both ends) of a high DR capture...even in cases in excess of 12 stops (paper and lighting paly a big part). Advances in Paper and printing technology/processing have made it a bit more common. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Also the actual DR of print has been increased in same cases. Fuji crystal papers would be an example. MOAB SlickRock metallic (vs simple gloss paper) is another example even consumer grade photo printers can get more DR from. KODAK PROFESSIONAL Inkjet Photo Paper, Metallic / 255g would be another paper that has an expanded DR vs older paper types. Seeing the comparison in person is really the only way to note the increase in an obvious way.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Each end is not the problem, it's all that stuff in the middle. So you do not have any evidence (links). Only your own personal experience (feeling) to prove print medium is significantly better than 8 1/2 stops (or more importantly 12 stops). I have not tried the metallic yet, but I have a Fuji crystal print 20x30 and the DR of my Canon sensor is easily more than that print.

It is not relevant that prints are 6, 7, or 10 stops. The important part is having enough DR at the capture level in order to compress to print.

Besides, I sell prints....try selling your digital file.

I sell prints too Dave...have for over 40 years. I have also worked in one of the largest photo finishers in the Midwest, so I know that most of the "facts" in this thread are pure 100% propaganda.

Then you should certainly understand you want to capture the full range of a scene in order to make the print. The DR of the print is not relevant. The fact that you cant comprehend something so incredibly basic makes me question your basic knowledge of printing. I suggest you read Ansel Adams series on the negative and the print....the basic information there quite easily sums up why you want to capture the full range of a scene in order to compress and represent it on print. If you have been doing something different....you've been doing it wrong for 40 years. I wouldn't brag about that if I were you.

I think i understand this discussion to mean that the DR of a print is limited, but by having a greater DR on the "negative", the artist decides which components of the "negative" will be represented, not including by how they in whole or in part will be modified or replaced by something completely different to realize the vision of the "photographer"/artist. Like many artists, the work is never finished but rather always in transition to try and discover a better representation of that vision.

Exactly. i'm shocked anyone would claim you only need 6 stops because that is all there is on the print. My gosh....

Who claimed you only need 6 stops because that is all there is on a print?

Unexpresivecanvas Senior Member • Posts: 1,158
Re: Serious thinking of the Pentax 645 or shall wait?

Dave Luttmann wrote:

As a whole, I would still take the Hartblei on the 646Z over a Canon lens on a 5D3. There is more to an image than just edge sharpness.

I never heard of the 646Z!  which brand and model is this? Is this a Piaggio Scooter?

roustabout66 Contributing Member • Posts: 703
Re: See you did

Mako2011 wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

It is TOTALLY true that you can not capture 13 stops of DR in a PRINT. You make claims with no proof what so ever.

Print doesn't capture but reflects It is also true that you can also accurately and in a very pleasing way (no posterization) represent 13 stops of DR in print. As Dmax has improved...so has the ability to represt DR in print. The proof can be seen at 406 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611. I can also see it on my wall (dif in Papers of different Dmax...same scene).

Again...you seem convinced I said the DR of Print is 13 stops. I never said that...I think

When someone says "what good is a high DR sensor when you can only print 6 stops" I smile

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Where did I get the idea that you said a print can show "represent" 13 stops...your words.

Exactly. Very diffrent from "capture" 13 stops

"Said another way...the ideal that the 13 stops of DR in a single capture can't be accurately represented in print due to the DR limitations of the medium.... is false."

Also very different from saying the DR of print is now 13 stops.

Yes, it is represented by compressing it down to fit on the available print medium, just as I said in the beginning.

You just keep making outrageous claims with no evidence whatsoever. As a moderator of this forum you should hold yourself to a higher standard than that in my opinion. What you are saying is not true and you know it. Some of the newbies here probably actually think your comments are accurate.

they are accurate. You simply misinterpret.

Link please. You keep making claims with no proof. If there is a new fantastic print paper capable of anywhere near the claims you make they would state so in their advertising or product release info. Since you refuse to post a link to back up your claim it is obviously just your opinion.

If you are saying 13 stops being crunched down to the 6 to 8 1/2 stops of the medium equals "represent" say so and admit I am correct as far as the limitation of print media. Otherwise, if a paper print can "represent" 13 stops DR I will ask for the third time, show a link.

I gave you the address where a High DR capture (13 EV plus) is "Represented" in print quite well. Let me know if I was wrong.

-

The discussion is about print material and reflected light is it not?

roustabout66 Contributing Member • Posts: 703
Re: Display

Dave Luttmann wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

You print more than most, yet you still claim the print medium is capable of exceeding 8 1/2 stops or even 12 stops. Where is the evidence of that? Where is a link proving that?

No, I said print is capable of displaying the detail (at both ends) of a high DR capture...even in cases in excess of 12 stops (paper and lighting paly a big part). Advances in Paper and printing technology/processing have made it a bit more common. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Also the actual DR of print has been increased in same cases. Fuji crystal papers would be an example. MOAB SlickRock metallic (vs simple gloss paper) is another example even consumer grade photo printers can get more DR from. KODAK PROFESSIONAL Inkjet Photo Paper, Metallic / 255g would be another paper that has an expanded DR vs older paper types. Seeing the comparison in person is really the only way to note the increase in an obvious way.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Each end is not the problem, it's all that stuff in the middle. So you do not have any evidence (links). Only your own personal experience (feeling) to prove print medium is significantly better than 8 1/2 stops (or more importantly 12 stops). I have not tried the metallic yet, but I have a Fuji crystal print 20x30 and the DR of my Canon sensor is easily more than that print.

It is not relevant that prints are 6, 7, or 10 stops. The important part is having enough DR at the capture level in order to compress to print.

Besides, I sell prints....try selling your digital file.

I sell prints too Dave...have for over 40 years. I have also worked in one of the largest photo finishers in the Midwest, so I know that most of the "facts" in this thread are pure 100% propaganda.

Then you should certainly understand you want to capture the full range of a scene in order to make the print. The DR of the print is not relevant. The fact that you cant comprehend something so incredibly basic makes me question your basic knowledge of printing. I suggest you read Ansel Adams series on the negative and the print....the basic information there quite easily sums up why you want to capture the full range of a scene in order to compress and represent it on print. If you have been doing something different....you've been doing it wrong for 40 years. I wouldn't brag about that if I were you.

Where did I say DR of a capture is not important? I will answer you the same way I did when you first made that snide remark. I have The Print and The Negative Dave. I have read them Dave. So what does Ansel say the DR of a print is Dave..come on Dave speak up..what does Ansel say the DR of a print is?

roustabout66 Contributing Member • Posts: 703
Re: Turn them away

Mako2011 wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

You print more than most, yet you still claim the print medium is capable of exceeding 8 1/2 stops or even 12 stops. Where is the evidence of that? Where is a link proving that?

No, I said print is capable of displaying the detail (at both ends) of a high DR capture...even in cases in excess of 12 stops (paper and lighting paly a big part). Advances in Paper and printing technology/processing have made it a bit more common. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Also the actual DR of print has been increased in same cases. Fuji crystal papers would be an example. MOAB SlickRock metallic (vs simple gloss paper) is another example even consumer grade photo printers can get more DR from. KODAK PROFESSIONAL Inkjet Photo Paper, Metallic / 255g would be another paper that has an expanded DR vs older paper types. Seeing the comparison in person is really the only way to note the increase in an obvious way.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Each end is not the problem, it's all that stuff in the middle. So you do not have any evidence (links). Only your own personal experience (feeling) to prove print medium is significantly better than 8 1/2 stops (or more importantly 12 stops). I have not tried the metallic yet, but I have a Fuji crystal print 20x30 and the DR of my Canon sensor is easily more than that print.

It is not relevant that prints are 6, 7, or 10 stops. The important part is having enough DR at the capture level in order to compress to print.

Besides, I sell prints....try selling your digital file.

I sell prints too Dave...have for over 40 years. I have also worked in one of the largest photo finishers in the Midwest, so I know that most of the "facts" in this thread are pure 100% propaganda.

So you're saying that a print can only "represent" 6 to 8 EV of DR/detail and there is no point in capturing more at the sensor for output other than 10 bit monitors, perhaps? What do you suggest we do with all the extra detail in the file? When someone comes to you with a D800/A7 file do you say...sorry, can't print that in a representative way and turn them away? When you take a picture of a DSC Labs 72-dB 13-Step GrayScale chart (with a High DR camera), what parts of the chart are not represented in the print?

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Where did I say that? And I did not say I work at the photo finisher now, I said I did work there. My day job has been in IT for many years. I have quoted you several times to prove my point yet you resort to claiming I said things I did not say. This is from my first post in this thread:

"You have some really nice images! I think the Pentax would be an improvement over your 5DM3 for landscapes due to the increased resolution....if you print large. The difference in DR may or may not be important. Do you plan to print? If you print, the dynamic range will be 8 1/2 stops or less in the print so whatever you use will have much more DR than the print."

What about that statement is not correct? You can depend on the same three or four people jumping in on almost any Canon discussion trying to turn the discussion to DR and trying to proselytize for the Sony sensors.

roustabout66 Contributing Member • Posts: 703
Re: Display

riknash wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

You print more than most, yet you still claim the print medium is capable of exceeding 8 1/2 stops or even 12 stops. Where is the evidence of that? Where is a link proving that?

No, I said print is capable of displaying the detail (at both ends) of a high DR capture...even in cases in excess of 12 stops (paper and lighting paly a big part). Advances in Paper and printing technology/processing have made it a bit more common. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Also the actual DR of print has been increased in same cases. Fuji crystal papers would be an example. MOAB SlickRock metallic (vs simple gloss paper) is another example even consumer grade photo printers can get more DR from. KODAK PROFESSIONAL Inkjet Photo Paper, Metallic / 255g would be another paper that has an expanded DR vs older paper types. Seeing the comparison in person is really the only way to note the increase in an obvious way.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Each end is not the problem, it's all that stuff in the middle. So you do not have any evidence (links). Only your own personal experience (feeling) to prove print medium is significantly better than 8 1/2 stops (or more importantly 12 stops). I have not tried the metallic yet, but I have a Fuji crystal print 20x30 and the DR of my Canon sensor is easily more than that print.

It is not relevant that prints are 6, 7, or 10 stops. The important part is having enough DR at the capture level in order to compress to print.

Besides, I sell prints....try selling your digital file.

I sell prints too Dave...have for over 40 years. I have also worked in one of the largest photo finishers in the Midwest, so I know that most of the "facts" in this thread are pure 100% propaganda.

Then you should certainly understand you want to capture the full range of a scene in order to make the print. The DR of the print is not relevant. The fact that you cant comprehend something so incredibly basic makes me question your basic knowledge of printing. I suggest you read Ansel Adams series on the negative and the print....the basic information there quite easily sums up why you want to capture the full range of a scene in order to compress and represent it on print. If you have been doing something different....you've been doing it wrong for 40 years. I wouldn't brag about that if I were you.

I think i understand this discussion to mean that the DR of a print is limited, but by having a greater DR on the "negative", the artist decides which components of the "negative" will be represented, not including by how they in whole or in part will be modified or replaced by something completely different to realize the vision of the "photographer"/artist. Like many artists, the work is never finished but rather always in transition to try and discover a better representation of that vision.

Totally accurate. I am glad someone grasps that simple concept.

Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 23,405
See

roustabout66 wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

It is TOTALLY true that you can not capture 13 stops of DR in a PRINT. You make claims with no proof what so ever.

Print doesn't capture but reflects It is also true that you can also accurately and in a very pleasing way (no posterization) represent 13 stops of DR in print. As Dmax has improved...so has the ability to represt DR in print. The proof can be seen at 406 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611. I can also see it on my wall (dif in Papers of different Dmax...same scene).

Again...you seem convinced I said the DR of Print is 13 stops. I never said that...I think

When someone says "what good is a high DR sensor when you can only print 6 stops" I smile

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Where did I get the idea that you said a print can show "represent" 13 stops...your words.

Exactly. Very diffrent from "capture" 13 stops

"Said another way...the ideal that the 13 stops of DR in a single capture can't be accurately represented in print due to the DR limitations of the medium.... is false."

Also very different from saying the DR of print is now 13 stops.

Yes, it is represented by compressing it down to fit on the available print medium, just as I said in the beginning.

Then we are back on the same sheet. Again I never once posted that the DR of print was equal to what the sensor captured. I did say the DR capability of print has increased recently. Combine that with lighting optimized for prints, and strives made in processing,  and we have a winner.

You just keep making outrageous claims with no evidence whatsoever. As a moderator of this forum you should hold yourself to a higher standard than that in my opinion. What you are saying is not true and you know it. Some of the newbies here probably actually think your comments are accurate.

they are accurate. You simply misinterpret.

Link please. You keep making claims with no proof. If there is a new fantastic print paper capable of anywhere near the claims you make they would state so in their advertising or product release info. Since you refuse to post a link to back up your claim it is obviously just your opinion.

http://layersmagazine.com/finestra-art-papers.html
"According to Finestra, both papers have a Dmax of 2.3–2.47, depending on which inks and printer you’re using" Nice improvemnet over the 1.7 for most matte prints or even the 2.3 with Premium Luster paper.

Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 23,405
Re: Turn them away

roustabout66 wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

You print more than most, yet you still claim the print medium is capable of exceeding 8 1/2 stops or even 12 stops. Where is the evidence of that? Where is a link proving that?

No, I said print is capable of displaying the detail (at both ends) of a high DR capture...even in cases in excess of 12 stops (paper and lighting paly a big part). Advances in Paper and printing technology/processing have made it a bit more common. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Also the actual DR of print has been increased in same cases. Fuji crystal papers would be an example. MOAB SlickRock metallic (vs simple gloss paper) is another example even consumer grade photo printers can get more DR from. KODAK PROFESSIONAL Inkjet Photo Paper, Metallic / 255g would be another paper that has an expanded DR vs older paper types. Seeing the comparison in person is really the only way to note the increase in an obvious way.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Each end is not the problem, it's all that stuff in the middle. So you do not have any evidence (links). Only your own personal experience (feeling) to prove print medium is significantly better than 8 1/2 stops (or more importantly 12 stops). I have not tried the metallic yet, but I have a Fuji crystal print 20x30 and the DR of my Canon sensor is easily more than that print.

It is not relevant that prints are 6, 7, or 10 stops. The important part is having enough DR at the capture level in order to compress to print.

Besides, I sell prints....try selling your digital file.

I sell prints too Dave...have for over 40 years. I have also worked in one of the largest photo finishers in the Midwest, so I know that most of the "facts" in this thread are pure 100% propaganda.

So you're saying that a print can only "represent" 6 to 8 EV of DR/detail and there is no point in capturing more at the sensor for output other than 10 bit monitors, perhaps? What do you suggest we do with all the extra detail in the file? When someone comes to you with a D800/A7 file do you say...sorry, can't print that in a representative way and turn them away? When you take a picture of a DSC Labs 72-dB 13-Step GrayScale chart (with a High DR camera), what parts of the chart are not represented in the print?

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Where did I say that?

And where did I say the DR of print medium is now 12 stops or even 8+? See...obvious misinterpretation led to poor assumptions/understandings

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

nvlass
OP nvlass Forum Member • Posts: 99
Re: creative development

RedFox88 wrote:

nvlass wrote:

I would be happy if you give me some advice, if you have, than a general improve my photography.

I am learning fast ....

The most growth in photographic results comes from developing your creative vision, not from camera settings, different lenses, different exposures, different filters. Choosing better subjects, if photographing outdoors: having ideal/optimum light, stronger and more appealing compositions without extraneous elements, colors that complement each other, etc. Those are facets of photography that you can't learn from one person's posts on the internet.

This is why many a person on here posts that they think their photography sucks or they don't seem to be improving anymore. That's when they've come to understand the 35mm camera system, understanding how to control depth of field, ISO, and exposure bias. Those are the easy parts of photography to learn. The harder elements are the creative ones, and it's the creative abilities that separates good photographers from average camera user and the good from the great.

Great advice and thank you for that.

From what I see most of the people here are right. I have to develop my vision and not thinking and studing again for one more time the cameras.

A question for all of you. On internet which site you think is a good resource for learning this kind of subject

I came across the http://www.betterphoto.com

site but I need your opinion. As my time is very limited i cannot go to a local school or to take other classes or workshop right now

Thanks again for your help

Nikos

 nvlass's gear list:nvlass's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM +5 more
tex Veteran Member • Posts: 7,176
Study art, not just photography

Image making in general is many millenia old, and I strongly feel the vast majority of people doing photography are consciously or unconsciously putting themselves in a photography only apartheid. It is very good to study the great photographers, but much, much better to get a grip on art history in general.

But most people not only don't want to put in the effort, but also seem to actually have an active aversion to the visual arts. I think I know why, but that's way OT.

BTW, I don't think you are off base looking at the Pentax 645Z, I am also---in fact I think I've crossed all my mental and other barriers and have pretty much committed to getting one, and I am not wealthy. For instance, I'll be shedding a lot of gear, probably leaving only my A7R and several lenses.

It's a slower way of shooting, and there's little question those are the best files you are going to get w/o spending a multiple of the cost. The cost of the Z is high, but it could also be pretty GAS-proof, as others have pointed out. Not much place to upgrade to realistically....thus you are left with yourself and your mind and eye.

-- hide signature --

tex_andrews, co-founder and webmaster of The LightZone Project, an all-volunteer group providing the free and open source LightZone photo editing software. Personal website: www.texandrewsart.com
"Photography is the product of complete alienation" Marcel Proust
"I would like to see photography make people despise painting until something else will make photography unbearable." Marcel Duchamp

 tex's gear list:tex's gear list
Pentax 645Z Pentax K-1 Pentax smc D-FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR Pentax smc D-FA 50mm F2.8 Macro Pentax smc D FA 645 55mm F2.8 AL (IF) SDM AW +24 more
Felix Mak Forum Member • Posts: 51
Re: Serious thinking of the Pentax 645 or shall wait?

Hi Nikos,

I am also considering moving to Digital Medium Fomat myself. Just with different and silly reason. Back in the old days (film, I am still keeping my Rolleiflex TLR), I find I have to slow everything down and think alot before pull my Rolleiflex out of my bag. I believe that's why I uave more keeper from a 6x6 TLR.

Nowadays, I shoot with my EOS 5D II 99.9% but I stil miss that slow and 'painful' process.

Hope you will enjoys the same when you get your new Pentax 645.

Felix

 Felix Mak's gear list:Felix Mak's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 DG OS HSM Sigma 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM +3 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads