RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.5 #3 · Hasselblad vs Leica image quality (IQ) | |
Ne314satel wrote:
Yes, I've also shot on film and many other cameras. I mentioned the M9 only because, WITHOUT editing, its files are almost flawless in SOME shooting conditions. And in terms of color (subjectively), they're better than the M11 (I also have one), the X1D, and the X2D.
Of course, resolution, dynamic range, etc. can't be compared. But color... My sensor broke after 13 years (two years ago), so I might buy another M9 just for those "golden" hours of the day and the joy of color.
Our topic is about comparing the color of the Hasselblad with the Leica. Even after color correction in the Leica service, the M11 is worse in color than the X2D. But not the M9...Show more →
The topic / question is one of objectivity vs. subjectivity.
The simple example of your preference for the M9 being preferential to the M11 ... is the same discussion as folks who preferred Ektachrome vs. Kodachrome. The profiles are different. It's really that simple.
Going back to our film profiles, they were of course (relatively speaking) fixed by a standard (chemical) processing. Instructions to the lab to modify from those standards could yield something different than standard. But, for consistency the lab went to great care to ensure that all the parameters of the process were exactly the same (chemistry %, temp, time, etc.) in order to have the profile consistent to the OEM film makers profile. Inserting another step ... i.e. printing, offered an additional point of variation, but the salient point here is the effort to be one of consistency in expectation.
The indication that the M11 is worse in color (infers something else is better) than the X2D, suggests the X2D is better in color than the M11. Here again, are we discussing someone's preference for a given color palette, or are we discussion which tool is the more consistent one at recording the color as it naturally was, at time of capture.
Fujichrome (Velvia) leaned heavy into the greens and blues ... I used it as my "go to" for landscape, and everything else ... EXCEPT when it came to people. Then, I switched to Kodak VPS 160 for portraiture and wedding. The Kodak was warmer by comparison. So, even if folks prefer a warmer rendering in a different camera, there is no single profile that can satisfy the preferences of all folks, for all applications.
The closest one can come to having a single solution to fit all ... is to be perfectly neutral in capture / record of what it was. To that point, Hassy has embarked on the most precise approach toward this of any mfr (maybe Phase, IDK) camera models.
Again, for many folks, they are trying to use preference of rendering to their subjective palette as defining what Hassy has done as being "better" or not. The term "better" and "preference" or "subjective" aren't good bedfellows. Whenever the term "better" is in play, it must include the definition of "better" at "what". In this case, (imo) Hassy is better at consistently recording the color as it was at time of capture. 3500K / 0 = 3500K / 0 ... vs. ... 3500K / 0 = 3485 / -4.
Ask a different question or use a different "what" criteria ... such as preference toward skin rendering, and you can get a different answer on such subjective "what" criteria. The variance between M9 vs. M11 (et al) or Fuji vs. Sony vs. Canon all play in that subjective realm. Hassy is playing in the objective realm. You can still land it anywhere your heart desires, but your starting point is more oriented to be the tool of WYSWWYG, wherein the spectrum of color present was the spectrum of color captured / recorded ... sans rendering preferences.
Similarly, we know that different lenses render warmer / cooler, and folks have their preferences for those reason, too. And, from that folks will say things like lens X is better for portraits than lens Y. Again, variable definition of "better" at "what" ... inferring moving target of preferred application. Imo, the Hassy is "better" at not inducing bias into the color.
So, for some folks ... the matter is that of what it does. For others, it is a matter of what it does NOT do.
If folks want a warmer bias for shooting people, then Hassy likely does NOT do that better than another camera. If folks want a consistently neutral capture of the colors for their starting point, then Hassy may do that better than another camera.
Better is always a  term, regarding better at what. Better at objectivity vs. better at satisfying my subjective and preferential bias. Always part of the conversation when folks start using the term better, and it flips and flops around into a convoluted usage, when the defining criteria is absent.
YMMV
|
