Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-04-2016, 08:29 AM   #46
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,068
QuoteOriginally posted by bilbrown Quote
Seems like many people are saying that my "blacks are heavily crushed" like its a bad thing.

Why?
Perhaps because that look was popular back in 1960's. And it was commonly produced by people who were pushing processing film which can produce a crushed tonal scale the more you pushed the film. If you like that style then great. There is nothing wrong with it. Lots of people like it and shoot that way. You are not alone and that style is not unique. But it seems you could do that with a much smaller and more convenient camera for candid, handhold work in the digital era instead of hauling around a 645Z and its lenses.

03-04-2016, 11:52 AM   #47
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 219
P.S. 2 clicks in LR. Applied Mastin Lab's Pan-F preset. Done.
Attached Images
 
03-04-2016, 12:13 PM   #48
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 23
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by skytomorrownow Quote
I think your test is highlighting the fact that these cameras were designed with different photographers in mind. All of the cameras no doubt have excellent dynamic range and resolution. But, the first two (A7 and M240) seem to take that resolution and color and make some definite decisions about how to record or represent it, and thus present a certain look based on those choices; whereas the Pentax seems to just record the data in a more neutral way.

The A7's strategy seems to be to try to spread the color data out as evenly as possible throughout the tonal ranges. Its designers want the viewer to admire the detail in the highlights, the mids, the lows–just like a TV on display at CES. The Leica seems to try to just reach for the highlights. It seems to spread out the color data so that the extreme highlights are reached–but without the care to make everything even and nice like the A7. It just spreads the histogram out and reaches for the highlights. Which makes sense–they know the glass in front of the sensor can handle it. The Pentax seems to just not make the choice. It seems to just collect the data and record it. It seems to assume that the photographer wants the data as unadulterated as possible–each color in the bin it came in when it got to the sensor to be molded later.

That would make sense in that the photographers using the Sony and the Leica were designed for want amazing images out of the camera. Sony, like their TVs, wants to present the consumer with beautiful, detailed, 'nice' even images. Leica wants to make sure its reputation for contrast creating precision shows up out of the box. Whereas, I think the 645 photographer wants latitude to push the image as they like later. I'm not suggesting in any way that one couldn't get great pictures in-camera on the Pentax, or that one couldn't manipulate the Sony or Leica in post. I'm just suggesting that I think Pentax knows that their photographers want a fairly direct representation of the color data so that they can make it look a lot of different ways.

So, if my very speculative idea (I've only had my 645 for a couple of weeks) has any merit, it would back up your current hypothesis that the Leica has a look and that the Pentax is more formless and designed to be shaped by the photographer later (which you don't want to do). It seems that if you want to avoid post the Pentax isn't going to work. Perhaps a compromise is that you could develop the curves and parameter changes the Pentax needs to look like the Leica and apply them automatically.

I think that many of the photographers using the 645 like that 'ooooh' moment when they bring information out of the deep shadows. But, that's not really what you're after.



This of course makes sense.

One other thing I may want to point out. The glass makes a HUGE difference.

I just got the Fotix Hasselblad V adapter, and have started to try my standard Zeiss 80/f2.8. The differences in rendering are dramatic with the old glass. I'm not going to get into the differences between the 645 format and the 6x6 of the Hasselblad, but I will say that there is a significant difference in the way the glass renders to the sensor. Much closer to what I am used to. Makes me want to try some of the modern glass.


Also, thank you for not being nasty about this and hating on my choice of tools or saying I am not "worthy" because I don't want to sit in front of a computer and play with my renders all the time. That argument is just silly. Saying that the industry standard is to do it that way is also extremely silly. A lot (if not most) professional studios and sets have a Digitech to pull files and do the first edit, true, but I try to know my process well and start with the best options for my own look instead of depending on either my own time in an editing suite or other.

This is not to say I don't know how to do it. I do. Back in the day I was Adobe certified, and have a vast digital background (Maya, Avid, etc) for when I worked as an art director and a graphic designer. I would dare anyone to try to call me out on the broad overview of software solutions for imaging, you couldn't. I don't know everything for sure, but I know my way around Photoshop, Lightroom, Capture One, etc. The point is, I like cameras for what they literally do, with minimal technology. Lens, exposure, output. I'm not a purist by any means, or I would just shoot film, but I am minimalist.

Like someone said in another forum, it's about getting the shot you are happy with. I would say that 90% of the shots I have missed had ZERO to do with dynamic range and 100% to do with not having the right exposure or tools for the job, or just simply were on me, what I knew how to do.

The 645Z is an excellent camera, doing a little work gives fantastic images. But this seems similar to the Apple vs PC discussions of long ago, or iPhone vs Android. In other words, pointless to argue or feel some sort of superiority by calling one company's cameras "dentist cameras" or the like. I sometimes shoot with a Speed Omega 6x9 too. Heard of it? I hadn't, but it's pretty awesome and cost just over $100 with a lens. It's a useless discussion. You find the tools that work best for you as long as you are working, and I am indeed working.

I'd rather be shooting than having to worry about the geekery it takes to keep producing the images I produce. That's me. I shoot fast. I'm not a landscape photographer. I render people, and create iconography for the fantasy of fashion and fashion type images and art that is associated with the same. A look is close as you can get as a voice, and that's important.

---------- Post added 03-04-16 at 01:20 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Sperdynamite Quote
P.S. 2 clicks in LR. Applied Mastin Lab's Pan-F preset. Done.
Duh. But the point is it could have already been "done"

---------- Post added 03-04-16 at 01:25 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
Perhaps because that look was popular back in 1960's. And it was commonly produced by people who were pushing processing film which can produce a crushed tonal scale the more you pushed the film. If you like that style then great. There is nothing wrong with it. Lots of people like it and shoot that way. You are not alone and that style is not unique. But it seems you could do that with a much smaller and more convenient camera for candid, handhold work in the digital era instead of hauling around a 645Z and its lenses.
Yes. It's not at all unique as I said.

And I use the GR, as well as my Leicas mostly. The MF is just for higher res needs and a slightly more sophisticated render when needed. Plus, until there is a small MF option in digital like the Mamiya 7D (as awesome as that might sound, doesn't seem likely) we are stuck with rather largish bodies to carry around - except for the DSLR-like LEICA S, which I have been discussing in this thread.

Either way, I have the Pentax 645Z currently and I'll do what I have to to get the shots I want.

Last edited by bilbrown; 03-04-2016 at 12:46 PM.
03-05-2016, 09:22 AM   #49
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,756
I learned a few things and at this point the conversation seems to be devolving into a simple difference of opinion.

One camp says - I like this rendering SOOC and I'm unhappy with the other rendering. The other camp says, the rendering is easy to fix, why are you complaining.

I am impressed by the level of passion you folks have about this. Me I'm mostly happy to see great photos.

03-05-2016, 06:49 PM   #50
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: All over the place
Posts: 2,562
At the moment, the trend is for sensors to have high dynamic range. This means that SOOC images will be fairly flat. You can manipulate this either in post or in camera by simply underexposing. The joy of the Z is that you have much more room for error in the shadows. Personally I don't like the crushed blacks - though Flickr etc can crush them even more in their downsizing.
03-06-2016, 02:19 AM   #51
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 23
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
I learned a few things and at this point the conversation seems to be devolving into a simple difference of opinion.

One camp says - I like this rendering SOOC and I'm unhappy with the other rendering. The other camp says, the rendering is easy to fix, why are you complaining.

I am impressed by the level of passion you folks have about this. Me I'm mostly happy to see great photos.
Yes, it's something to that effect.

And some people are nasty pompous about it because they feel like they are being know it alls and it ruins a simple discussion from all because they have an inferiority complex.

It's all good.


It's like my friend Eric Kim said in a recent blog entry, "do we really NEED another camera? No. Not if the one you have does exactly what you need it to do."

The one thing the 645Z does exceptionally well is make MF digital exceptionally affordable in a modern sensor array that won't likely go out of fashion for some time. You can have the 100-200MP sensors if you need it, but 51MP is going to do most people for some time. Just like FF doesn't need to be much higher than it is, since even 135 scans are only about 25MP for most film.

It's all sort of evened out.

I'm sure the wedding shooters and landscape folk are exceptionally happy. Fashion/beauty people are just persnikity.

---------- Post added 03-06-16 at 03:31 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by itshimitis Quote
At the moment, the trend is for sensors to have high dynamic range. This means that SOOC images will be fairly flat. You can manipulate this either in post or in camera by simply underexposing. The joy of the Z is that you have much more room for error in the shadows. Personally I don't like the crushed blacks - though Flickr etc can crush them even more in their downsizing.
Right, and the trend may or may not be the best idea.

For instance, from what I understand what we call DR is only really perceivable to about 100DB with the human eye. Most sensors are at 60-80DB. I'm no engineer, so I wouldn't be able to tell you what that really means, except it may be we are pushing things way beyond their means.

It's a trend sure, maybe for good reason maybe not. I know just a few years ago to rid moire cameras had AA filters, now most are leaning toward not having them. Leica digital never has had an AA filter, and the Monochrome doesn't have a Bayer array. But truth be told, the little RICOH GR hits about the same SOOC as the Monochrome. So it really doesn't matter in the end...

As long as you get the images you want and are comfortable with the tools you use to get them none of this matters outside of (somewhat) friendly debate.


I think we all should maybe stop worrying about the tyranny of gear and just get down to what we do with it.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
645d, 645z, 645z vs leica, camera, cameras, exposure, flash, glass, image, images, jpg, leica, leica s, light, look, m8, medium format, pentax 645z 51.4mp, people, post, sensor, series, shadows, solution, systems, third
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax 645z unboxing and first look i83N Pentax Medium Format 2 07-01-2014 02:18 AM
Weekly Challenge Winners-Weekly Challenge #259 "Now that's a different look" charliezap Weekly Photo Challenges 9 10-05-2013 09:10 PM
Weekly Challenge Weekly Challenge #259."Now that's a different look" charliezap Weekly Photo Challenges 29 10-03-2013 08:29 AM
Getting That 1980's Fashion-Beauty Photography Blown Out Look benjikan Photographic Technique 9 06-27-2011 11:59 PM
That "Leica look" #2 FHPhotographer Photo Critique 8 09-06-2008 12:51 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:28 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top