p.6 #2 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Imo, that is not possible to be natural lighting. There are several "tells", but the most obvious one is the side lighting ... then look at the pheasant still on the ground. The DR and falloff seem wrong also. It strikes me as a photograph of a painting.
p.6 #3 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
RustyBug wrote:
That is not possible to be natural lighting. There are several "tells", but the most obvious one is the side lighting ... then look at the pheasant still on the ground.
Rusty: the first shot is not natural light. The ambient is there, but the setup is 3 light. It would be impossible to capture this in only natural light and especially with MF digital..
p.6 #5 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Rusty: Indeed - the PP is there, but now we are coming back full circle - how can you insert the data not in the capture?
Besides, the PP here is not about skin as you can see - one of the reasons I chose the shot. So we could disregard the smooth skin tones..
p.6 #6 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
alundeb wrote:
In number two, I see nasty chroma shadow noise, with the signature
Yours sincerely,
Canon
A different sensor, be it a Nikon or MF camera, would help with that and thus also with the processing lattitude.
Of course it took a while before I noticed anything technical, but I am not supposed to comment on that
Alundeb: That what happens when you push the shadows in Canon RAWs. Though, shoot at higher ISO and blow highlights.
Also, I had to keep the ISO and F-stop as it was since I had my GW690III with me and shot few film rolls. They are still in the fridge as I don't have time to get to the shop to get them developed..
Aside from that - It's almost like that meme "If you noticed the chroma noise first - I have bad news for you..."..
p.6 #7 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Looking at Eugenoio's portfolio, what strikes me almost immediately is the lighting setups. He seems to take meticulous care to let each individual subject in all images receive a homogenous light (in both structure and WB), and apply overall tints in PP.
He also seems to use fill- and accent lights extensively.
What I would say is missing in the technical part of your two samples is:
1) a lack of real highlights to give the "shapes" a real impact. Those impacts should still be below clipping, but they should have good contrastual distance to the image average
2) you get mixed light WB, quite noticeable in the 2-stitch image. Applying a tint in PP to mixed lighting conditions is extremely hard if you want a natural looking result.
So, I'd suggest using more fill-bouncers, and adding that lost subject contrast back in PP. Then you get homogenous color transitions, and MUCH less color noise on the main subject too.
p.6 #8 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Low-light ambient. Hm, yes...
In situations where you shoot at F5.6 ISO400 with your current FF, then MF is going to get problematic. To get the same ambient light results while keeping shutter speed constant, you'd need to go F8.0 ISO800 on a medium size MF sensor like the P45+. In that case you WILL get quite a lot more noise than with your FF equipment, since all the MF sensors are highly low-ISO-optimized. They don't "scale down" in energy amount detection as well as sensors designed to work "equally well" at both ISO3200 and ISO100 - like normal FF sensors.
This will probably negate all the positives, i.e the image will be sharper, but with more overall noise and most importantly much less DR in reality since you'll have to apply more color noise reduction. The fine grain structure of the noise in a very high res sensor is one of the main things I'm looking for when shooting MF, and applying NR to it should be done with care.
MF will only give you that last piece of the puzzle when all lighting conditions are truly optimized. In sub-par lighting you might be better off with an FF camera with good lenses while continuing to work on practical lighting.
When shooting for effect, you always have to remember to do it in two sections. The final output is wholly dependent on PP, but what you CAN do (with acceptable results) in PP is determined at the point of capture - in camera. But keep them separate. If you want extremely clean transitions, add fill-light, and increase contrast in post in stead. That's where I'd start anyway.
p.6 #9 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Kro, your two samples look good to me. But as for 2nd sample, the stitch won't give you any advantage to simulate MF for your main subject. it is more like a pano Again, I, for sure can say D800/E will suit this type of work more.
The new sample (dag chasing) you supplied is looking great to almost surreal with obviously lots of setup there, but to me, this is just (one of many) 'A' type of photography/art. For studio setup fashion, model works, there is no question about MF's advantage over FF as for now, If that is your intention and priority, I'd say go for it.
p.6 #10 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Krosavcheg wrote:
it's a 3 light setup but the capture doesn't change.
2 soft lights to the left of the camera and one just behind the camera.
You mean what I tried to achieve with my shoot?
Something along these lines.
Light in the reference is different, but principle is same - it's a natural light shot.
I don't understand why you posted the Eugenio link. He uses Canon, so it doesn't answer my question of what you are looking for in medium format. That is why I asked about Graham:
p.6 #11 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Joakim: On low light shooting, I thought very much the same. So, perhaps the MF is not quite the answer.
On Eugenio's lighting - it does vary between images, but indeed, the meticulous lighting setup makes his shots. Though a lot of his shots are natural lights only. Fill can be obtained indirectly from a nearby lit surfaces - all you need to do in that case is to place subject accordingly.
In my shots, the frustrating part is that I can see the light but camera doesn't capture it as I see it Basically, the difference here is - I saw the opportunity and shot, rather than creating an idea and construct the light setup to produce result.
One more thing to add, rather than concentrating on how model was lit, I notice the surrounding. I am more impressed of the light dispersion on the wall than the model itself (gentleman with the bike series).
Hope that makes sense.
Carsten: There we go.. It turns out my PP sucks. That was kind of my initial suspicion anyway. In Graham's gallery the next to last shot stands out for me in that sense - gentleman with a hat. Though it is artificially lit, so I couldn't quite see how it illustrates the natural light capture.
Funny you mention the 6th-7th shots - they are pretty much in that region..
Edit: Actually, Eugenio does shoot a variety of gear. Canon happens to be one of the line.
Zhang: The effect I was after was exactly panoramic. Not quite the large file - just framing.
Well, perhaps renting a back for a day or so will clear a lot of questions.
p.6 #12 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Interesting discussion.
Carsten, Graham's images shout flash at the viewer, too sharp and too harsh for the look Kro is after. Looks to me like there was a relatively small light source, which was too close to the subject. I think theSuede is right, for the 'Eugenio look' you need a lot of light, soften it by making the light source physically very big and thus make it look like a large, soft ambient light source with subtle gradients. Next, add contrast and apply levels to taste in post.
p.6 #13 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Peter: Pretty much. A lot of it boils down to planning time and environment. You wouldn't need a massive soft light source if you are in the environment where light say comes down straight and bounces of a light wall and then floor thus wrapping subject in a "light box". Adding a diffusion+grid controlled source to the subject would be sufficient. That is unless you want to control light colour for instance - in that case you would need to add more precisely controlled gelled sources.
Is it so that detail in the MF taken shots is really due to the resize of a larger scale capture? I have a little hard time putting this in writing, but assuming a 20Mpx capture with a high resolving sensor and lens to match on resize to 1200x900 will not compress detail as a 60Mpx capture equivalent? I mean, to me it feels as if detail was drawn, not captured.
Here are more examples. Not mine obviously. Kelby's Nikon shot to compare with those Sinar back of Graham or perhaps even a suitable (lightingwise) from Frank Doorhof's portfolio.
Just disregard PP for a moment. I have difficulty matching similar light setups for DSLR and MFD since it requires finding a similar subject, light setup and PP and I don't trust vendor's Product XXX vs Product ZZZ....
Edit: had a look at the video showcasing a P40+ here. This should potentially illustrate the effect. The lighting setup is rather easy - one octabox diffused strobe.
p.6 #14 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Joakim: Actually, to illustrate the ease of the natural light setup with black reflectors (i.e taking away light as opposed to adding) Somewhat NSFW
The setup is super easy - large lightly diffused light source (window covered with veiled curtain), blacked out to model's right from the background to about 1m in front of her, black reflector to her left.
EXIF is in the shot - I had to bring down exposure and bring up shadows actually in post to black out background to liking. But you can see the light in action.
Now, assume the light is a completely open ceiling with tall walls, such as an industrial location or as in case of Eugene's shot I posted as example earlier - you can easily get away with natural light.
p.6 #15 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
If you had to reduce the exposure and lift the shadows, that is like reducing contrast, meaning you are not getting the most of your light and IQ. With the thin shadows of recent Canon cameras, I can understand why the look is a bit crunchy. I know of pros using Canon who get beautiful supply exposures and nice skin tones, but they are masters of light control. I would look more at that.
In your case I would use more fill. If you want to keep it natural, you need lots of daylight, maybe mid-day north light or something. From my knowledge of Fujiyama, if you have a studio facing it, you are most likely south of it, right? That should fit then. You could place some white sheets or reflectors around to bounce more of the natural light on her.
p.6 #16 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Krosavcheg wrote:
Joakim: Actually, to illustrate the ease of the natural light setup with black reflectors (i.e taking away light as opposed to adding) Somewhat NSFW
The setup is super easy - large lightly diffused light source (window covered with veiled curtain), blacked out to model's right from the background to about 1m in front of her, black reflector to her left.
EXIF is in the shot - I had to bring down exposure and bring up shadows actually in post to black out background to liking. But you can see the light in action.
Now, assume the light is a completely open ceiling with tall walls, such as an industrial location or as in case of Eugene's shot I posted as example earlier - you can easily get away with natural light....Show more →
Yes, that's more like it.
But what I reacted to in you earlier sample was overall impression of
1) global vs detail contrast - and
2) smoothness or "flow" of absolute color over the subject.
I ran a clean operation on it too, which I probably shouldn't have since it detracts from what I was trying to show.
What I spent ten minutes trying to do was to make the absolute color around the girl more homogenous, i.e make the transition from highlight to shadow more smooth. Then I increased overall contrast a bit, and there I think it's ok.
p.6 #17 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
I tried to make BOTH hue and saturation change transition over contrast more smooth. That's the main edit in the image.
I kept a bit of the green bounce light, leaving her a bit yellow in some surfaces, but I think that was part of the image.
p.6 #18 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Joakim: Certainly looks better than my PP. I found the cluprit - Corel Aftershot. I decided to move to a different processor from ACR and just got carried away, I suppose. Not entirely software's fault but it's extremely easy to modify channel data and end up in destroyed tones.
The only thing in your PP that does stand out (albeit a little) is the banding just below her left shoulder. But then again, you didn't have a RAW. If you want to try I can give you the original raws to play with.
In addition to that - the light in the stitches was direct to model's left. That itself creates a contrast that is difficult to soften. So, I was being a daft git in the situation..
p.6 #19 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Carsten:
In that last shot I needed a black reflector to kill the light spill bouncing into model.
The area I shoot in is limited (I'm in Japan..). The BW shot I posted needed the background (less that 0.5m behind the model) to be completely textureless and black. When I brought down the exposure in the camera an the shots came out underexposed. In post I ended up copying Blue and Green channel data into red to add more texture.
Shadows are just as important as light in order to create shape - after all the shadows are attribute of light. The aim is not to create perfectly flat image, but have a defined volume to the subject.
I could have brought out the 1.5m x 1m softbox I have with one of the 640W strobes and add the fill to model from the front, but I might just as well kill the window light and just blast with softbox at max power. It will surely give the necessary light at the cost of washing out the background which I will again have to bring down in post....
p.6 #20 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
In your situation, I would work on maximising your results from your existing setup, and keep going until everyone pretty much agrees that there is no more IQ/look to be had from it. If at that point you are still unhappy, then by all means, get a medium format digital setup, but keep in mind that it comes with a whole slew of its own quirks, and MF is not a drop-in replacement for 135 format DSLRs. It will be a *lot* of work to get up to speed with it, and you might need to use artificial lights to take full advantage.
Maybe some of Graham's stuff?
