Looking back at Marco's RD1/M8 comparison is fascinating. When you roll over the image to show the RD1 shot, although the detail takes a dive, the 3D effect actually increases. I think this shows how important colour contrast and deep shadow is to the brain's interpretation of space. This spacial depth/3D effect is one of the reasons why I haven't switched to Leica yet, as the Canons seem to provide more of it. Obviously IR filtration would have improved the M8's result dramatically in this case, but I think this flatness in the shadows is still visible in some of Guy's beautifully taken Yosemite pictures. It is a shame we can't compare those great pictues to their 5D/Leica-R/Zeiss equivalents.
brainiac wrote:
Looking back at Marco's RD1/M8 comparison is fascinating. When you roll over the image to show the RD1 shot, although the detail takes a dive, the 3D effect actually increases. I think this shows how important colour contrast and deep shadow is to the brain's interpretation of space. This spacial depth/3D effect is one of the reasons why I haven't switched to Leica yet, as the Canons seem to provide more of it.
Hmmm... To my eye, I think the M8 actually appears to have better color separation and shadow detail and appears more 3D than the RD1 image in that particular comparison...
However, I agree with you (drum roll please! ) that the shadow detail in the M8 is lacking compared to the 5D. IMO the M8 holds highlight detail extremely well, maybe better than even the DMR did, but this gain seems to come with a sacrifice at the lower end. I suspect this may have something to do with the 8-bit DNG output, but am not sure...
Thanks for all the comments on the Yosemite shots. What a fun trip that was! Shooting side-by-side with Robert (and his DMR) all day Saturday was really fun. We had a blast.
brainiac wrote:
Looking back at Marco's RD1/M8 comparison is fascinating. When you roll over the image to show the RD1 shot, although the detail takes a dive, the 3D effect actually increases. I think this shows how important colour contrast and deep shadow is to the brain's interpretation of space. This spacial depth/3D effect is one of the reasons why I haven't switched to Leica yet, as the Canons seem to provide more of it. Obviously IR filtration would have improved the M8's result dramatically in this case, but I think this flatness in the shadows is still visible in some of Guy's beautifully taken Yosemite pictures. It is a shame we can't compare those great pictues to their 5D/Leica-R/Zeiss equivalents.
I think the diffirences in highlights and shadow details are not inherent to the sensors. It probably is an effect of different curves in the RAW converters.
Pondria wrote:
Great shots. And you said you had used Mirror-lock-up ?
So, you believe in the "Myth" that MLU is effective
Pondria - yes, I used mirror lockup. I don't take any chances in those situations
Thanks for all the comments on the colors too. I learned a few tricks from Jack Flesher on how to process my landscapes. I owe Jack a big steak dinner for all the 1-on-1 tutoring sessions and special processing techniques.
Going back to the CS3 issue,
I have verified that the calbration setting works identical to CS2. Each calibration number work the same way. Thus, you can just carry the CS2 calibration over to CS3.
However there are "other" bunch of new knobs that CS3 added in other tabs. Those won't be compatible.
brainiac wrote:
That's not what the histogram says. The standard deviation of the colour is the measure of colour separation:
The RD1 reads 31.47 and the M8 28.66.
Yeah, but look at the peaks in the minor highlights -- as you know, the human eye is far better at perception of tonal differences in brighter areas, s owe tend to weight those more than gross shadow differences. The few highlight peaks are much farther apart in the M8 image and thus (IMO) add to the 3D effect. Also note, the overall exposure in the M8 is brighter, also adding to our ability to discern more difference in the shadows...
Mike Hatam wrote:
Pondria - yes, I used mirror lockup. I don't take any chances in those situations
Thanks for all the comments on the colors too. I learned a few tricks from Jack Flesher on how to process my landscapes. I owe Jack a big steak dinner for all the 1-on-1 tutoring sessions and special processing techniques.
If it takes just a big steat dinner, I should also try learning. I think he is in my neighbor
> ...The few highlight peaks are much farther apart in the M8 image and thus (IMO) add to the 3D effect.
Jack - I am surprised that someone who has "written resizing code that is used in the industry by large format printing professionals" wouldn't spot that those peaks are the sky, and that as flat colour at an undefined but very large distance, they are unlikely to convey much 3D info ;-)
Jack is the best I've seen at processing and printing fine-art landscape images.
But Pondria... you'd better be ready to pony up more than just a steak dinner And it took several long 1-on-1 sessions for me to learn these techniques.
Mike is being a bit modest though... He says "several long sessions" when the truth is Mike is just a very fast learner! It only took about 4 or 5 one-hour sessions together for him to master most of the processing techniques (and a few tricks) that I teach. The interesting thing about Photoshop, is that seeing it being done and being able to ask questions along the way is a much better way to learn it than by reading; a picture is worth 1000 words paradigm if you will. Anyway, the fact Mike is a darn fine artist didn't hurt a bit on these images either
Again, great series Mike -- can't wait to see some big prints!
Cheers,
Edited by Jack Flesher on Dec 16, 2006 at 02:56 PM GMT
I need a Schnaps...