I\'d like to see what the results would be if you took the Blad lens and mounted it on the D800E ... then, with the projected image being the same, we\'d be able to see how much diff the sensor/algorithm makes vs. having the lens (projected image) & sensor (captured image) & processing algorithm (even @ raw) introducing variables (accepting sensor+algorithm @ raw = camera).
It\'s a \"look\" and it may have been shot on MF ... but MF had not nearly as much with achieving that look as the lighting and processing. Putting higher contrast/exposure light on the subject and low contrast light on the bg will yield a a contrast differential ... which is good technique at understanding how to \"draw the eye\" and create a sense of spatial difference based on contrast in conjunction with dof. The use of fill is also in play on the subject (or a really large light source), but not on the bg, further contributing to a visual distinction/separation perceived by the viewer.
There\'s no \"foul\" at doing these things to achieve your \"look\" ... but that is more about understanding light and human perception than using an MF camera instead of a FF camera, imo. The PP follows suit as part of the process to yield the \"look\".
Note the direction of the shadows/lighting @ subject vs. bg mountain shadows coming from opposite directions, also note the specular highlights on the gun barrel which should be in shadow based on the orientation/direction of the subject\'s key light (if it were the sun). Yes, this is a multi-light / mixed lighting setup and should not be compared to a natural light image. But in this instance (imo), the \"look\" isn\'t created because of the format.
I\'d like to see what the results would be if you took the Blad lens and mounted it on the D800E ... then, with the projected image being the same, we\'d be able to see how much diff the sensor/algorithm makes vs. having the lens (projected image) & sensor (captured image) & processing algorithm (even @ raw) introducing variables (accepting sensor+algorithm @ raw = camera).
It\'s a \"look\" and it may have been shot on MF ... but MF had not nearly as much with achieving that look as the lighting and processing. Putting higher contrast/exposure light on the subject and low contrast light on the bg will yield a a contrast differential ... which is good technique at understanding how to \"draw the eye\" and create a sense of spatial difference based on contrast in conjunction with dof. The use of fill is also in play on the subject (or a really large light source), but not on the bg, further contributing to a visual distinction/separation perceived by the viewer.
There\'s no \"foul\" at doing these things to achieve your \"look\" ... but that is more about understanding light and human perception than using an MF camera instead of a FF camera, imo. The PP follows suit as part of the process to yield the \"look\".
Note the direction of the shadows/lighting @ subject vs. bg mountain shadows coming from opposite directions, also note the specular highlights on the gun barrel which should be in shadow based on the orientation/direction of the subject\'s key light (if it were the sun). Yes, this is a multi-light / mixed lighting setup and should not be compared to a natural light image. But imo, the \"look\" isn\'t created because of the format.
I\'d like to see what the results would be if you took the Blad lens and mounted it on the D800E ... then, with the projected image being the same, we\'d be able to see how much diff the sensor/algorithm makes vs. having the lens (projected image) & sensor (captured image) & processing algorithm (even @ raw) introducing variables (accepting sensor+algorithm @ raw = camera).
It\'s a \"look\" and it may have been shot on MF ... but MF had not nearly as much with achieving that look as the lighting and processing. Putting higher contrast/exposure light on the subject and low contrast light on the bg will yield a a contrast differential ... which is good technique at understanding how to \"draw the eye\" and create a sense of spatial difference based on contrast in conjunction with dof. The use of fill is also in play on the subject (or a really large light source), but not on the bg, further contributing to a visual distinction/separation perceived by the viewer.
There\'s no \"foul\" at doing these things to achieve your \"look\" ... but that is more about understanding light and human perception than using an MF camera instead of a FF camera, imo. The PP follows suit as part of the process to yield the \"look\".
Note the direction of the shadows/lighting @ subject vs. bg mountain shadows coming from opposite directions, also note the specular highlights on the gun barrel which should be in shadow based on the orientation/direction of the subject\'s key light. Yes, this is a multi-light / mixed lighting setup and should not be compared to a natural light image. But, the \"look\"
I\'d like to see what the results would be if you took the Blad lens and mounted it on the D800E ... then, with the projected image being the same, we\'d be able to see how much diff the sensor/algorithm makes vs. having the lens (projected image) & sensor (captured image) & processing algorithm (even @ raw) introducing variables (accepting sensor+algorithm @ raw = camera).
It\'s a \"look\" and it may have been shot on MF ... but MF had not nearly as much with achieving that look as the lighting and processing. Putting higher contrast light on the subject and low contrast light on the bg will yield a a contrast differential ... which is good technique at understanding how to \"draw the eye\" and create a sense of spatial difference based on contrast in conjunction with dof. The use of fill is also in play on the subject, but not on the bg, further contributing to a visual distinction/separation perceived by the viewer.
There\'s no \"foul\" at doing these things to achieve your \"look\" ... but that is more about understanding light and human perception than using an MF camera instead of a FF camera, imo. The PP follows suit as part of the process to yield the \"look\".
Note the direction of the shadows/lighting @ subject vs. bg mountain shadows coming from opposite directions, also note the specular highlights on the gun barrel which should be in shadow based on the orientation/direction of the subject\'s key light. Yes, this is a multi-light / mixed lighting setup and should not be compared to a natural light image. But, the \"look\"
I\'d like to see what the results would be if you took the Blad lens and mounted it on the D800E ... then, with the projected image being the same, we\'d be able to see how much diff the sensor/algorithm makes vs. having the lens (projected image) & sensor (captured image) & processing algorithm (even @ raw) introducing variables (accepting sensor+algorithm @ raw = camera).
It\'s a \"look\" and it may have been shot on MF ... but MF had not nearly as much with achieving that look as the lighting and processing. Putting high contrast light on the subject and low contrast light on the bg will yield a a contrast differential ... which is good technique at understanding how to \"draw the eye\" and create a sense of spatial difference based on contrast in conjunction with dof. The use of fill is also in play on the subject, but not on the bg, further contributing to a visual distinction/separation perceived by the viewer.
There\'s no \"foul\" at doing these things to achieve your \"look\" ... but that is more about understanding light and human perception than using an MF camera instead of a FF camera, imo. The PP follows suit as part of the process to yield the \"look\".
Note the direction of the shadows/lighting @ subject vs. bg mountain shadows coming from opposite directions, also note the specular highlights on the gun barrel which should be in shadow based on the orientation/direction of the subject\'s key light. Yes, this is a multi-light / mixed lighting setup and should not be compared to a natural light image. But, the \"look\"
I\'d like to see what the results would be if you took the Blad lens and mounted it on the D800E ... then, with the projected image being the same, we\'d be able to see how much diff the sensor/algorithm makes vs. having the lens (projected image) & sensor (captured image) & processing algorithm (even @ raw) introducing variables (accepting sensor+algorithm @ raw = camera).
It\'s a \"look\" and it may have been shot on MF ... but MF had not nearly as much with achieving that look as the lighting and processing. Putting high contrast light on the subject and low contrast light on the bg will yield a a contrast differential ... which is good technique at understanding how to \"draw the eye\" and create a sense of spatial difference based on contrast in conjunction with dof. The use of fill is also in play on the subject, but not on the bg, further contributing to a visual distinction/separation perceived by the viewer.
There\'s no \"foul\" at doing these things to achieve your \"look\" ... but that is more about understanding light and human perception than using an MF camera instead of a FF camera, imo. The PP follows suit as part of the process to yield the \"look\".
Note the direction of the shadows/lighting @ subject vs. bg mountain shadows coming from opposite directions, also note the specular highlights on the gun barrel which should be in shadow based on the orientation/direction of the subject\'s key light. Yes, this is a multi-light / mixed lighting setup and should not be compared to a natural light image. But, the \"look\"
I\'d like to see what the results would be if you took the Blad lens and mounted it on the D800E ... then, with the projected image being the same, we\'d be able to see how much diff the sensor/algorithm makes vs. having BOTH the lens & sensor introducing variables.
It\'s a \"look\" and it may have been shot on MF ... but MF had not nearly as much with achieving that look as the lighting and processing. Putting high contrast light on the subject and low contrast light on the bg will yield a a contrast differential ... which is good technique at understanding how to \"draw the eye\" and create a sense of spatial difference based on contrast in conjunction with dof. The use of fill is also in play on the subject, but not on the bg, further contributing to a visual distinction/separation perceived by the viewer.
There\'s no \"foul\" at doing these things to achieve your \"look\" ... but that is more about understanding light and human perception than using an MF camera instead of a FF camera, imo. The PP follows suit as part of the process to yield the \"look\".
Note the direction of the shadows/lighting @ subject vs. bg mountain shadows coming from opposite directions, also note the specular highlights on the gun barrel which should be in shadow based on the orientation/direction of the subject\'s key light. Yes, this is a multi-light / mixed lighting setup and should not be compared to a natural light image. But, the \"look\"
I\'d like to see what the results would be if you took the Blad lens and mounted it on the D800E ... then, with the projected image being the same, we\'d be able to see how much diff the sensor/algorithm makes vs. having BOTH the lens & sensor introducing variables.
It\'s a \"look\" and it may have been shot on MF ... but MF had not nearly as much with achieving that look as the lighting and processing. Putting high contrast light on the subject and low contrast light on the bg will yield a a contrast differential ... which is good technique at understanding how to \"draw the eye\" and create a sense of spatial difference based on contrast in conjunction with dof. The use of fill is also in play on the subject, but not on the bg, further contributing to to visual distinction/separation perceived by the viewer.
There\'s no \"foul\" at doing these things to achieve your \"look\" ... but that is more about understanding light and human perception than using an MF camera instead of a FF camera, imo. The PP follows suit as part of the process to yield the \"look\".
Note the direction of the shadows/lighting @ subject vs. bg mountain shadows coming from opposite directions, also note the specular highlights on the gun barrel which should be in shadow based on the orientation/direction of the subject\'s key light. Yes, this is a multi-light / mixed lighting setup and should not be compared to a natural light image. But, the \"look\"
I\'d like to see what the results would be if you took the Blad lens and mounted it on the D800E ... then, with the projected image being the same, we\'d be able to see how much diff the sensor/algorithm makes vs. having BOTH the lens & sensor introducing variables.
It\'s a \"look\" and it may have been shot on MF ... but MF had not nearly as much with achieving that look as the lighting and processing. Putting high contrast light on the subject and low contrast light on the bg will yield a a contrast differential ... which is good technique at understanding how to \"draw the eye\" and create a sense of spatial difference. The use of fill is also in play on the subject, but not on the bg.
There\'s no \"foul\" at doing these things to achieve your \"look\" ... but that is more about understanding light and human perception than using an MF camera instead of a FF camera, imo. The PP follows suit as part of the process to yield the \"look\".
I\'d like to see what the results would be if you took the Blad lens and mounted it on the D800E ... then, with the projected image being the same, we\'d be able to see how much diff the sensor/algorithm makes vs. having BOTH the lens & sensor introducing variables.
It\'s a \"look\" and it may have been shot on MF ... but MF had not nearly as much with achieving that look as the lighting and processing. Putting high contrast light on the subject and low contrast light on the bg will yield a a contrast differential ... which is good technique at understanding how to \"draw the eye\" and create a sense of spatial difference. The use of fill is also in play on the subject, but not on the bg.
There\'s no \"foul\" at doing these things to achieve your \"look\" ... but that is more about understanding light and human perception more than using an MF camera instead of a FF camera, imo. The PP follows suit.
I\'d like to see what the results would be if you took the Blad lens and mounted it on the D800E ... then, with the projected image being the same, we\'d be able to see how much diff the sensor/algorithm makes vs. having BOTH the lens & sensor introducing variables.
