[itshimitis]

A couple more from the lakes - all handheld...

[texandrews]

Thanks - I process in a very different way to a lot. I do it all on curves - rather than the blacks, whites, mid, shadow sliders. Why - because curves allows for a more gradual "curve" rather than harsh "transition" accross the range of tones. Once you master what seems a daunting tool at first - it really is the most wonderful tool to use.


Both scenes were also assisted by a lee soft edged 0.6 GND. The 645z might have one of the best dynamic ranges going - but there's a lot of scenes that even a 645z need a little help with.

I've also added to my stable a D850 - and trust me when I say this - there really isn't much in it between a D850 and 645z file. Pentax in this area is showing it's age - and really what we need is a 44x33 scaled up version of the BSI chip in the D850 to give a nice round 80mp or so - and a series of weather sealed zooms ala the 28-45 which remains to me the best wide angle lens on the market today. If they could produce a 45-85 or better still a 45-100 and a 100-250 that perform like the 28-45 in overall frame sharpness, weather sealing - the older len's really pump the dust in - the 28-45 doesn't at all they'd have a winning system - that would appeal to a lot of top flight professional landscaper's and seriously well heeled hobbyists. Sadly they haven't and it doesn't look likely now - Fuji have with, the GFX, cornered the entry level digital medium format market but I have a few misgivings around that system - namely reliability and the lack of credible wide zoom.

I crop square for a lot of reasons - namely I like the feel and asthetic of a square - and even 645 lens are slightly softer in the corners (this to me remains the big advantage of the 645 system - the lenses are pretty reliable in this regard compared to 35mm format ones).


Here's two that came off the D850...lens used 70-200 F2.8 FL ED - and it's pretty ok in the corners but longer lens's tend to be sharper.

Hard to make a reliable evaluation between the cameras with these examples----but they both seem "flatter" to me tonality wise. Here in these examples though it could be both the scenes themselves and the lens. But this is what I've observed between my FF files and my Z files.


While I "believe" you that there may not be "much" between the files from the 2 cameras, what i have found is that the small differences that I think do exist wind up making what to me are important differences for certain subjects.

[tuco]

As always your photo's are so extreme clean....wow!

Thank you. Medium format and larger negatives can scan without noticeable grain at a decent scan resolution and a small viewing size.

Yeah, tuco's mastery of film almost makes me glad I gave it up so I don't have to look over my shoulder at examples like these....

Thanks for that generous comment. I didn't sell off my film gear during the digital revolution because I hadn't accomplished what I wanted to learn with BW film before ending it entirely. The thing that really helps me on the developing and exposure end of picture taking was getting a densitometer.

[tuco]

Trying out Delta 100 + D-23's response with stainless steel (aka corrosion resistant steel) items.


The Start Of Tomato Soup by tuco, on Flickr



Kitchenware by tuco, on Flickr

[texandrews]

Trying out Delta 100 + D-23's response with stainless steel (aka corrosion resistant steel) items.


The Start Of Tomato Soup by tuco, on Flickr



Kitchenware by tuco, on Flickr

One reason I gave up on film was that I lost access to the darkroom I designed for the college where I taught---I packed it with some cool Zone VI Studios stuff and more and could keep on top of how clean it was and what was going on with the chemistry (one reason I just stuck with D-76 for me and the students). Once I had to use commercial labs (community labs were hellholes) things just got prohibitively expensive for me for 5-6 years until I changed careers---and then I had no time! By this time digital came along and I jumped in, especially after 2005 and I had an editing program I loved.

But if the these are images of your own kitchen, then I know I'd enjoy using your darkroom....

[tuco]

But if the these are images of your own kitchen, then I know I'd enjoy using your darkroom....

Film is a lot work of course and labor of love these days. But I made a machine that helps make the task of developing film less of a burden and something I don't mind doing at all.

Oh man, I haven't had an online darkroom for 15 years or so now. And it hasn't been by choice. I've been just been scanning for now. But I still have both of my enlargers and have future plans to build a darkroom again and add some old-school prints to my mix.

[SFTphotography]

Hard to make a reliable evaluation between the cameras with these examples----but they both seem "flatter" to me tonality wise. Here in these examples though it could be both the scenes themselves and the lens. But this is what I've observed between my FF files and my Z files.


While I "believe" you that there may not be "much" between the files from the 2 cameras, what i have found is that the small differences that I think do exist wind up making what to me are important differences for certain subjects.

This is true - what I've noticed is 645z vs D810/D800 there is a much cleaner shadow recovery - with the D850 it's neck and neck.


What I like and dislike about the 645z files - they come out flatter - more neutral in colour needing less RGB shifting in curves - with the D850 usually the green and blue curves need shifting relatively the the red - with the 645z you can often get away with a straight luma curve adjustment - and maybe a green gama 1.02 value. This is based around DXO ONLY and leaving camera's set to the cloudy WB - for landscapes you rarely need to stray from this.


D850 files need maybe +20 saturation, 645z more like +40


Where I still prefer the Z is the shape of the files 4:3 and handling/build quality. You can see the price difference more with the camera - than with the files. If only Pentax made an interchangable back system so you could upgrade to a 100mp back - and get at the sensor for cleaning more easily.

[TDvN57]

What I like and dislike about the 645z files - they come out flatter - more neutral in colour needing less RGB shifting in curves - with the D850 usually the green and blue curves need shifting relatively the the red - with the 645z you can often get away with a straight luma curve adjustment - and maybe a green gama 1.02 value. This is based around DXO ONLY and leaving camera's set to the cloudy WB - for landscapes you rarely need to stray from this.


D850 files need maybe +20 saturation, 645z more like +40 .

Interesting observations, although I find quite the opposite. I find the 645z files to be slightly over saturated. It may be caused by the profiles I use in ACR. I usually use Adobe's version of Camera Landscape, or a custom profile I made some time ago which is a bit less saturated. WB I usually use in camera Auto and for 99% of what I do it is sufficiently close.

Could you share a bit more about the details of your observations? I'm always keen to learn more. BTW your landscapes are fantastic.

[itshimitis]

Another from this morning

[SFTphotography]

Interesting observations, although I find quite the opposite. I find the 645z files to be slightly over saturated. It may be caused by the profiles I use in ACR. I usually use Adobe's version of Camera Landscape, or a custom profile I made some time ago which is a bit less saturated. WB I usually use in camera Auto and for 99% of what I do it is sufficiently close.

Could you share a bit more about the details of your observations? I'm always keen to learn more. BTW your landscapes are fantastic.

To qualify I am soley using DXO PL4 as my sole editing/developing product. Why - I don't need the complex manipulations for landscapes and find a curves, sharpening adjustment is all that's needed and saturation of course. I wouldn't touch profiles in adobe, or presets for that matter - I do each image manually by eye.


When reviewing the files in DXO I'd say judging by their RAW engine 645z files are flatter than D850 ones giving the impression of more dynamic range. Shadow area's appear washed out and colours more muted - this is actually a good thing as it's a blank canvas to work with. They're also slightly red in hue but a slight increase in green gamma value on the curve corrects it, or if there is lots of room, bring the red black point in a bit. The trick with an RGB histogram is to have the red/green black points close together on the output chart - they may not be on the input - now this is a guide only - you really have to do it by eye on a good screen like an Eizo etc.


The D850 ones definitely appear more contrasty straight off the file - and the blacks often quite close to to edge - a simple gamma correction on curves usually to 1.15 or 1.20 brings out the shadow details very nicely and as clean as the 645z.

[itshimitis]

Another from yesterday with the GFX

[henkvanzuylen]

Thank you. Medium format and larger negatives can scan without noticeable grain at a decent scan resolution and a small viewing size.

Sure, but what I meant is that the scenery which you photograph are so super clean.

[tuco]

Sure, but what I meant is that the scenery which you photograph are so super clean.

Okay. Here is a recent one that has some garbage in the scene.


No Dumping by tuco, on Flickr

Mamiya C3, Sekor 65mm, Delta 100

[SFTphotography]

Some ICM with the 645z and 28-45 - Got w***ers cramp making these

Both taking in the Valle de Ordesa last November.

[itshimitis]

It was a damp day in the lakes today...

GFX 100s GF 35 - 70