If ever there was a vindication for LF... [Archive]

philosomatographer

8-Dec-2010, 05:02

Ron Marshall

8-Dec-2010, 06:04

This should be in the Lounge!

Kirk Gittings

8-Dec-2010, 08:13

Comparisons between LF and other formats or forms of capture are ok.

Marko

8-Dec-2010, 08:24

So, where is the comparison? ;)

sanking

8-Dec-2010, 08:39

So, where is the comparison? ;)

"I am quite confident that, shooting my 50-year-old Symmar 150mm wide open even, I could create a much more detailed and convincing rendition of the scene (apart from the poorer contrast) simply because of camera movements. Never mind at f/14! That's a $100 lens on a $1000 camera."

Perhaps not a comparison, but a subjective opinion about LF versus other types of capture which makes Kirk's comment relevant and applicable, at least IMHO.

Sandy

Jack Dahlgren

8-Dec-2010, 08:45

So, where is the comparison? ;)

One can certainly imagine the same shot with a bit of front tilt.

Chris Strobel

8-Dec-2010, 08:59

Those sample images of the 645D over there are some of the worst I think I've ever seen shot with ANY format :eek:

Brian Ellis

8-Dec-2010, 09:07

Chris Strobel

8-Dec-2010, 09:55

And your point is? That the photographer isn't any good? That you're much better? That he doesn't know how to use his camera? That he has a defective camera? That his equipment isn't any good? I've seen thousands of horrible photographs on the internet - yes, even some made with a LF camera and submitted to the various image sharing threads here - that stunk. But it never occurred to me to pick a couple and start a thread about them just so I could gratuitously insult the photographer or the equipment he's using or whatever exactly it was that you're trying to do.

Calm down Brian.Its a professional review site.As such imho they really should pick images that technically show off a camera, artist vision has nothing to do with it.Did you actually look at their 645D sample images?You think these are images that show off the technical capability of the new 645D?I mean really the distracting shadows in those leaves, the poor lighting in that portrait, the blur in the schrubs of their night landscapes, it just kills the gelstat for me , ME thats my opinion.Surely we will see stunning images with this new Pentax, and as an avid Pentax fan, owner, and possible future 645D owner I'm dissapointed in DPR's samples thus far.For you to lay into me like this for stating an opinion just seems rude.

Perhaps you could show us some of your own photographs?

I don't claim to be anything other than a lousy hobby snap shooter, but ok here are a couple

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4043/4503250002_5590826c0a_z.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4002/4691590813_7e4ed2a487_z.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3297/3485166680_6365ba0c7a_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2589/3711543173_d6e644f780_o.jpg

cowanw

8-Dec-2010, 10:06

Nathan Potter

8-Dec-2010, 10:08

And your point is, indeed. The unknown variables affecting the image shown are almost "as the sands of the desert". I agree with Brian; there are no conclusions that can be drawn comparing LF to the image shown and each medium has its own advantages and disadvantages. With certain apologies the OP, his comments and intimations seem inane.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Jack Dahlgren

8-Dec-2010, 10:15

I think Brian was talking about the OP
"But it never occurred to me to pick a couple and start a thread about them just so I could gratuitously insult the photographer or the equipment he's using or whatever exactly it is that you're trying to do."
Regards
Bill

That is not how I read it. The OP said that a LF camera would capture the scene much better due to the ability to capture the entire ground plane in focus.

Chris is the one that said the images were some of the worst "ever seen".

I looked at the other images and although I don't really care much, I was surprised by the lack of effort put into them. They are not representative (I think) of what the camera can produce. I think that is all that Chris was trying to point out, not to insult the photographer or equipment, though someone at that site is responsible for selecting those images.

Chris Strobel

8-Dec-2010, 10:28

That is not how I read it. The OP said that a LF camera would capture the scene much better due to the ability to capture the entire ground plane in focus.

Chris is the one that said the images were some of the worst "ever seen".

I looked at the other images and although I don't really care much, I was surprised by the lack of effort put into them. They are not representative (I think) of what the camera can produce. I think that is all that Chris was trying to point out, not to insult the photographer or equipment, though someone at that site is responsible for selecting those images.

Thats exactly it Jack, lack of effort put into them.I would never insult any photographer and their vision, ever.But DPR exist to review cameras and as such post examples to show off the cameras capabilities.In their examples of this 10,000.00 MF camera, they have managed to blow highlights, miss focused, and included distracting motion blur in their technical examples of the 645D making the images look technically no better than snap shots with a cell phone camera.

cowanw

8-Dec-2010, 10:35

Jim Galli

8-Dec-2010, 10:38

This digital capture stuff has finally gotten SO sharp that it looks more like a Disney animation than a photograph to me.

I guess people like it, but it sure leaves me cold.

cowanw

8-Dec-2010, 10:39

I went backwards to http://dpreview.com/galleries/and it becomes evident this is for everybody to upload any example of picture they wish.
Regards
Bill

Chris Strobel

8-Dec-2010, 10:45

This digital capture stuff has finally gotten SO sharp that it looks more like a Disney animation than a photograph to me.

I guess people like it, but it sure leaves me cold.

Not all of it :)

http://www.williamneill.com/portfolios/impressions-of-light/index.html

cowanw

8-Dec-2010, 10:49

This digital capture stuff has finally gotten SO sharp that it looks more like a Disney animation than a photograph to me.

I guess people like it, but it sure leaves me cold.

funny you should say that. I just bought a sony to put a 50mm nikkor 1.4 ltm on, but I cut my eye on the first picture the supplied lens took;)
Regards
Bill

Chris Strobel

8-Dec-2010, 10:54

If I have interpreted the DP review site correctly these are photo's submitted by any one with a mind to, with no selection by DP regarding quality.
I agree with your view of the images
I thought Brian was referring to the OP when he said "starting a thread" cause Chris (very nice shots) didn't start the thread.
Two pages already. :eek:
I (we) all have too much time on our hands:o
Regards
Bill

Thanks Bill.Actually DPR started up user galleries a year ago that anyone can post into.But in the case of the 645D, as well as all their other camera sample photos, these are products of the DPR review staff.

Just Posted: Comparison samples from the Pentax 645D. We've had Pentax's long-awaited 40 megapixel medium format DSLR in the office for a couple of days and have used it to shoot our standard test scene. The $10,000 camera is the highest resolution camera ever to be pointed at our test subjects and its huge 44x33mm sensor has certainly done an impressive job. As well as providing a range of image settings for the studio scene, we've also prepared a small gallery of sample images. All the images and their raw files (DNG format for the 'real-world' samples) are available for download. (00:18 GMT)

Brian Ellis

8-Dec-2010, 13:05

"Calm down Brian.Its a professional review site.As such imho they really should pick images that technically show off a camera, artist vision has nothing to do with it.Did you actually look at their 645D sample images?You think these are images that show off the technical capability of the new 645D?I mean really the distracting shadows in those leaves, the poor lighting in that portrait, the blur in the schrubs of their night landscapes, it just kills the gelstat for me , ME thats my opinion.Surely we will see stunning images with this new Pentax, and as an avid Pentax fan, owner, and possible future 645D owner I'm dissapointed in DPR's samples thus far.For you to lay into me like this for stating an opinion just seems rude."

I thought it was pretty clear that my comments were directed at the OP since I talked about "start a thread." And I had already deleted the sentence that prompted you to post your photographs because I thought it was unnecessarily confrontational. But thanks for posting them anyhow.

philosomatographer

8-Dec-2010, 13:17

Wow, talk about posting an innocent-enough "lounge" topic, stepping out for a few hours, and returning to a storm in a teacup. I am surprised that, without my further participation, my post has been called - amongst other things - inane.

I simply shared the (technical) observation that, despite incredibly high resolution and stellar optics, a $10,000 larger-than-35mm-format digital SLR doesn't actually buy you much at those resolutions when photographing scenes like the one I specifically linked to.

Viewing the image at 100% magnification, it's quite striking how shallow the DOF really is even at f/14, and stopping down any further on that lens will start to seriously degrade resolution. Thus, my feeling is that a large print of this image will not at all benefit from the extremely high-resolution 645D, but the cheapest LF camera could likely render the scene more effectively. I though this was a positive thing to remark in these here LF forums.

Tough crowd.

Chris Strobel

8-Dec-2010, 13:23

Brian C. Miller

8-Dec-2010, 14:37

I simply shared the (technical) observation that, despite incredibly high resolution and stellar optics, a $10,000 larger-than-35mm-format digital SLR doesn't actually buy you much at those resolutions when photographing scenes like the one I specifically linked to.

I absolutely agree with you, just a little bit of tilt would go a long way here.

I wouldn't equate a failure of the photographer as a failure of the equipment, though. The 120mm lens is on the long side for photographing tire tracks. The format is 4.4x3.3, not 6x4.5, so everything that would be normal for my 645 is long for this camera. The 75mm lens is "normal" while the 120mm lens used for the shot is a bit long, and definitely long for the smaller format. So of course only a small amount of the picture is going to be in focus. The best choice here would have been to use the 55mm lens, and use the 120mm lens for the long shots.

cowanw

8-Dec-2010, 14:48

Viewing the image at 100% magnification, it's quite striking how shallow the DOF really is even at f/14, and stopping down any further on that lens will start to seriously degrade resolution. Thus, my feeling is that a large print of this image will not at all benefit from the extremely high-resolution 645D, but the cheapest LF camera could likely render the scene more effectively. I though this was a positive thing to remark in these here LF forums.

Tough crowd.
Yes, camera movements are great. But depth of field shouldn't be the issue.
Depth of Field is related to Magnification.
The DOF is determined by the camera-to-subject distance, the lens focal length, the lens f-number, and circle of confusion criterion
For a given fstop increasing magnification decreases depth of field.
A large print of this image should be viewed from a large distance away.

Seems to me, what you are really saying is that the Pentax 645D digital with a 120mm f/4 Macro lens doesn't do tilt.
Tilt is indeed a great reason to use LF, but to to poo-poo a high resolution 645D because it cannot make out of focus areas look sharp seems to be comparing apples and oranges.
Regards
Bill

Jack Dahlgren

8-Dec-2010, 16:30

Yes, camera movements are great. But depth of field shouldn't be the issue.
Depth of Field is related to Magnification.
The DOF is determined by the camera-to-subject distance, the lens focal length, the lens f-number, and circle of confusion criterion
For a given fstop increasing magnification decreases depth of field.
A large print of this image should be viewed from a large distance away.

Seems to me, what you are really saying is that the Pentax 645D digital with a 120mm f/4 Macro lens doesn't do tilt.
Tilt is indeed a great reason to use LF, but to to poo-poo a high resolution 645D because it cannot make out of focus areas look sharp seems to be comparing apples and oranges.
Regards
Bill

I think that he was celebrating how a cheap LF camera can do something that a wonderful and expensive camera can not. Of course it is apples and oranges. Apples are better for pie! No offense to oranges.

Drew Wiley

8-Dec-2010, 16:34

Well the dude certainly isn't doing Pentax any favors. There are plenty of gearheads
out there with a lot more money than competence. When shooting with this type of
MF system one needs to compose shots a lot different than with a view camera. Probably he borrowed the thing and had a limited amount of time to shoot it, so just pointed it at whatever was handy, like a lot of half-assed equipment reviews. Frankly,
I hated the equip reviews in View Camera mag also, because they were so generic and
superficial. One reason I quit subscribing long ago. Would be interesting to see what a
back like this one would do coupled to something like an SL66, which at least allowed
front tilt.

Brian C. Miller

8-Dec-2010, 16:50

Unfortunately, the 645D isn't just a back, it's the entire camera. Pentax never came out with a digital insert for the 645 camera. *sigh* Anyways, the SL66 also doesn't have a shift/tilt lens, or at least SL66.com didn't list one.

There are some kludge adapters to mount a box MF camera on the back of a view camera, so maybe that would help it along. There are also third-party shift lenses for Pentax 645, too.

Drew Wiley

8-Dec-2010, 17:05

Brian, the SL66 didn't need a tilt lens - a limited amount of tilt was built into the body
using a short section of bellows. You might be confusing this with the SLX or something more recent. Kinda a cult camera with a collector club of its own. My brother had a couple of them. The lenses and shutter softness were incredible, but the magazines were prone to light leaks. You could place an SL66 on a table, place a dime on end on top of it, trip the shutter, and the dime wouldn't tip! It was fairly compact for a MF SLR with tilt function. Still, a far cry from what one can do just with an ordinary 4x5 that costs a fraction of the price, and that probably weighs less as a
travel system too.

Merg Ross

8-Dec-2010, 17:06

Anyways, the SL66 also doesn't have a shift/tilt lens, or at least SL66.com didn't list one.

The Rollei SL66 has front tilt, one of the great features of the system.

Tony Karnezis

8-Dec-2010, 17:12

Below are a few quotes from a review of the Pentax 645D vs the Phase One P40+ on the Phase One DF camera body, with the Leica M9 and Canon 1Ds MkIII used for comparison. The basic conclusions were that the printed image quality from the MF cameras was similar, the Pentax seemed more intuitive to use, the Leica had incredible image quality, and the Canon didn't fare as well.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pentax_645d___a_first_review.shtml

...at this size of print [13x19] it was hard to tell the difference between test frames shot on the Leica M9 and the 645D. At 100% view on screen, the images matched in accutance, but the 645D rendered far more detail - no surprise there.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/2010_mini_medium_format_shoot_out.shtml

...the raw intuitiveness of the Pentax really shone. The accessibility of the controls and the ease/visibility of information feedback on the Pentax just make it a much easier camera to use. We both agree that the form-factor of the Pentax makes it more amenable to hand-holding, much as one prefers to use these beasties on a tripod.

While the size of the Leica file is smaller than those of the medium format cameras, and therefore display smaller at 100% magnification on screen, we observe that the Leica files have the best sharpness and resolution of all compared here. Will anyone flame me if I say the Leica is near perfect? You see, it kind of is. Put a 50mm Summilux ASPH on an M9 on a tripod, focus carefully, and oh-my-gawd.

The two 40MP cameras were obviously visibly “better” at 100%, because they have double the data and thus render more detail in the subject. On screen, at max-peep, there is no denying the quantitative superiority of the larger image. But qualitatively, the Leica was just lovely within its own megapixels.

While this set of image quality comparisons is not exhaustive, the visual evidence suggests that on the whole these medium format camera systems perform more or less equally, with small margins of advantage attributable to the one or the other, depending mainly on the imaging conditions and the lens. Considering the price difference between them and the vast ergonomic and interface superiorities of the Pentax camera relative to the Phase One 645DF, the Pentax system looks very promising indeed.

Brian C. Miller

8-Dec-2010, 17:41

Brian, the SL66 didn't need a tilt lens - a limited amount of tilt was built into the body using a short section of bellows. You might be confusing this with the SLX or something more recent.

The SL66.com site didn't show the bellows extended. There were a few eBay auctions showing the bellows. My oh my, the price on those just doesn't depreciate, does it? Yes, that's a lovely camera. 8 degrees of tilt, not bad at all. Oh, ufda, almost 1,000 parts in that camera.

Thanks Drew and Merg!

Merg Ross

8-Dec-2010, 17:57

The SL66.com site didn't show the bellows extended. There were a few eBay auctions showing the bellows. My oh my, the price on those just doesn't depreciate, does it? Yes, that's a lovely camera. 8 degrees of tilt, not bad at all. Oh, ufda, almost 1,000 parts in that camera.

Thanks Drew and Merg!

Just to add, I have two complete SL66 systems acquired in the mid-70's and both function flawlessly. I did have a CLA done on them a few years ago just to be safe. The bellows and the tilt are marvelous features and the lenses are excellent. I never have had the backs leak as Drew suggested, but they do need to remain with the original body, not shuffled around. I was not aware that they were holding their price, haven't had a reason to check!

Sirius Glass

8-Dec-2010, 18:01

Anyways, the SL66 also doesn't have a shift/tilt lens, or at least SL66.com didn't list one.
The Rollei SL66 has front tilt, one of the great features of the system.

OMG! The Great Brian made a mistake! Brian is the guy who will freely tell you that he only made one mistake in his life. That is when he thought he was wrong once and discovered that he was right anyway!

Folks did you see that! Merg just drop kicked the Great Brian over the goal posts and through the uprights!

The Great Brian made a mistake!
The Great Brian made a mistake!
The Great Brian made a mistake!
The Great Brian made a mistake!
The Great Brian made a mistake!
The Great Brian made a mistake!

[Brian likes raspberries ;) ]

Leigh

8-Dec-2010, 19:50

On this gigantic image, at high magnification, one very small plane of focus is extremely crisply rendered, with most of the shot completely out of focus. Surely, taken at f/14, this was not the intent.
The problem is we don't know the focus distance for the image. It's not in the EXIF data. The Subject Distance Range is shown as Close View, whatever that means.

If we assume a focus point of 10 feet, the DoF is only 2.65 feet at f/14.3. I think the actual focus point is closer than 10 feet. The image obviously encompasses a much larger distance, so one expects the majority of the details to be out of focus.

Perhaps you would do well to spend some time on research before criticizing other peoples' work.

- Leigh

Marko

8-Dec-2010, 21:47

Perhaps not a comparison, but a subjective opinion about LF versus other types of capture which makes Kirk's comment relevant and applicable, at least IMHO.

A comparison it definitely wasn't, since the poster did not post any examples to compare with. But that was a reason given for allowing it to remain here, instead of the Lounge, hence my question. (Correction, after browsing around, it seems that it was a reason for transferring the thread here from the Lounge! Just like the recent ill-fated 6x17 thread.)

"A subjective opinion about LF versus other types of capture" is wonderfully delicate, if a bit of a mouthful, euphemism for trolling... ;)

Speaking of opinions, subjective or otherwise, I'd much rather keep drivel like that in the gutter... err... the Lounge and have those P&S 6x17 images proudly displayed in the mainstream. If for no other reason than for the fact that they represent the true purpose of this board much better than those "comparisons" or opinions or whatever they are...

Just my subjective $0.02.

Marko

8-Dec-2010, 21:50

One can certainly imagine the same shot with a bit of front tilt.

As far as I remember, Novoflex and Zork were producing macro bellows with movements for both 35mm and MF cameras. Specialized equipment for specialized needs, and certainly less clumsy and more stable than some el cheapo fleaBay rig.

Jack Dahlgren

8-Dec-2010, 22:18

philosomatographer

9-Dec-2010, 02:33

Seems to me, what you are really saying is that the Pentax 645D digital with a 120mm f/4 Macro lens doesn't do tilt.
Tilt is indeed a great reason to use LF, but to to poo-poo a high resolution 645D because it cannot make out of focus areas look sharp seems to be comparing apples and oranges.
Regards
Bill

Bill, I did not by any stretch of the imagination "poo-poo" the 645D. It's a very desirable and capable system, by all accounts. My observation was that, when ultimate resolution is the quest, there comes a point where lens movements become mandatory - as illustrated by the sample image I linked to.

I never attempted to draw any comparison between systems for their own sake, all my statements were clearly related to the illustrated subject matter.

The point of my post (condensed):

Ooh shiny - look at the fantastic new 645D. I want!
Haha! Look at their sample images. The guy stpped down to f/14 to try and get the subject (a tilted flat plane) in focus.
At full resolution, it's striking how shallow the DOF still is, yet stopping down further would have started to kill resolution
Isn't it cool that a cheap, 50-year old large format camera can produce a technically superior version of this image?
Large format users rejoice!

I agree, I should have posted this in the Lounge, a small oversight on my part. I take it the Lounge is more partial to friendly banter than you guys?

Brian C. Miller

9-Dec-2010, 03:44

The Great Brian made a mistake!

But it's shift on the body! (of course I didn't see a shift lens) Cool feature! Too bad they didn't go further than that. (and they flooded their market, so they had to drop prices, so...)

I have a macro bellows for my Pentax 6x7, and a previous owner added a little adapter for view camera lenses. It can do swing, shift, and tilt. I don't use it for that because a Super Graphic weighs less and is more convenient.

I read that the company is back under employee management. I wonder if they will produce a SL66 again, but with a digital sensor like the 645D.

philosomatographer

9-Dec-2010, 04:04

Um... the small portion of the image being in focus is EXACTLY the point. We don't care what the focus distance is.

We just care that the camera only gets part of the image in focus, when a camera with front tilt could easily get the entire image in focus.

Please read carefully before accusing someone of criticism.

Wow, after 30+ garbage posts criticising me because they misunderstood my post, SOMEBODY finally gets it. Thank you Jack.

I must say, I sorely regret ever posting this. It seems that the majority of people on this forum is sitting... waiting for somebody to post and opinion... ready to POUNCE on them.

Lighten up people. Not that many young people pick up a LF camera and thoroughly enjoy it. I have recently started to do so, and spend all my week-ends in the darkroom eagerly printing my negatives. Forgive me for sharing my enthusiasm in this here "formal" and "important" forum.

philosomatographer

9-Dec-2010, 06:17

The problem is we don't know the focus distance for the image. It's not in the EXIF data. The Subject Distance Range is shown as Close View, whatever that means.

If we assume a focus point of 10 feet, the DoF is only 2.65 feet at f/14.3. I think the actual focus point is closer than 10 feet. The image obviously encompasses a much larger distance, so one expects the majority of the details to be out of focus.

Perhaps you would do well to spend some time on research before criticizing other peoples' work.

- Leigh

Leigh, you missed my point completely. The focus distance is irrelevant. My point was that, in this day and age of super-high resolution cameras like the Pentax, for certain goals (such as was clearly the intent of the sample image I linked to) a view camera with movements is the only way to capture the scene with sufficient detail.

I am not saying this like it's something new. Please get over yourself, we can all calculate depth of field.

You say that "one expects the majority of the details to be out of focus". Well, for certain images we do not expect this - that is the point!. The guy who shot the image at f/14 certainly did also not "extect" it, otherwise he'd probably shoot at a different aperture. With something like the 645D, you're outta luck, there is no solution to that problem with that particular $10,000 camera. With a view camera, your problem is solved.

Is this a vindication of the large format camera? YES! Did my post claim to be anything other than vindicating the large format camera? NO!

Thank you.

Emil Schildt

9-Dec-2010, 08:59

But it's shift on the body! (of course I didn't see a shift lens) Cool feature! Too bad they didn't go further than that. (and they flooded their market, so they had to drop prices, so...)

.

yes - a fantastic camera.

But the most fantastic "feature" is shown on my attached image....

Beat that Hasselblad....:D

rdenney

9-Dec-2010, 09:54

The old (and uncommon) Hartbei tilt-shift lenses can be easily adapted to the Pentax 645 mount. They came in 45 and 65 mm focal lengths. But I doubt those lenses, based as they are on Arsat wide-angle lenses for the Kiev 60 and 88, will look so good at actual pixels from a 40-megapixel sensor.

But I'm still buying lottery tickets.

Rick "who can't afford the Pentax but still wants one" Denney

Leigh

9-Dec-2010, 10:13

We just care that the camera only gets part of the image in focus, when a camera with front tilt could easily get the entire image in focus.
And why do you think that's desirable?

Depth of Field is a creative tool, to be used as the artist desires.

You shouldn't criticize another artist for using a tool that you don't understand.

- Leigh

Jack Dahlgren

9-Dec-2010, 10:21

And why do you think that's desirable?

Depth of Field is a creative tool, to be used as the artist desires.

You shouldn't criticize another artist for using a tool that you don't understand.

- Leigh

Are you claiming that I don't understand that camera? Are you claiming that the shot was intended to show creative use of depth of field? Are you claiming that the shot shown was intended to be "Art"?

I don't agree with any of those claims. On what grounds would you support them?

You should not criticize a person that you do not understand.

Leigh

9-Dec-2010, 10:28

Are you claiming that I don't understand that camera? Are you claiming that the shot was intended to show creative use of depth of field? Are you claiming that the shot shown was intended to be "Art"?
I don't agree with any of those claims. On what grounds would you support them?
The fact that the artist chose to publish (distribute/???) the image is sufficient evidence that he was satisfied with the results. You have no basis for questioning that except your own ego.

You should not criticize a person that you do not understand.
Why not? You did.

- Leigh

Leigh

9-Dec-2010, 10:34

You say that "one expects the majority of the details to be out of focus". Well, for certain images we do not expect this - that is the point!.
Your fundamental premise that "everything should be in focus" is fallacious.

It's a statement of your personal opinion. Obviously you have a right to same.

But to promote your own views as universal truths is a huge flight of ego.

- Leigh

Jack Dahlgren

9-Dec-2010, 10:35

Jack Dahlgren

9-Dec-2010, 10:39

The fact that the artist chose to publish (distribute/???) the image is sufficient evidence that he was satisfied with the results. You have no basis for questioning that except your own ego.

Why not? You did.

- Leigh

The fact that he was satisfied does not support the claim that it was intended to be a demonstration of artistic use of depth of field. They may have other reasons to be satisfied - perhaps it was a demonstration of dynamic range? Snow is a favorite for that.

Looking at the shots that are posted, I think it is pretty obvious that they were not intended to comprise a body of artistic work. It is a camera review site.

I still don't see any support for the claim that I don't understand the camera.

So, if you have support for your claims please present it.

Thanks.

Brian Ellis

9-Dec-2010, 10:46

Leigh, you missed my point completely. The focus distance is irrelevant. My point was that, in this day and age of super-high resolution cameras like the Pentax, for certain goals (such as was clearly the intent of the sample image I linked to) a view camera with movements is the only way to capture the scene with sufficient detail.

I am not saying this like it's something new. Please get over yourself, we can all calculate depth of field.

You say that "one expects the majority of the details to be out of focus". Well, for certain images we do not expect this - that is the point!. The guy who shot the image at f/14 certainly did also not "extect" it, otherwise he'd probably shoot at a different aperture. With something like the 645D, you're outta luck, there is no solution to that problem with that particular $10,000 camera. With a view camera, your problem is solved.

Is this a vindication of the large format camera? YES! Did my post claim to be anything other than vindicating the large format camera? NO!

Thank you.

Actually there is a likely solution with that or any other digital camera, which is to make several exposures focusing at several different points from near to far and then stitch them in Photoshop. Usually works very well as long as the subject doesn't move.

Leigh

9-Dec-2010, 12:18

I still don't see any support for the claim that I don't understand the camera.
I said you didn't understand DoF as a creative tool. It has nothing to do with the camera.

I would have shot the original photo just like its author did. Coming into focus as you move into the print, then out in the receding area gives a sense of depth and motion. That would be lost if everything was in focus, creating a flat two-dimensional image lacking interest.

I've been in many fashion shoots where the AD demanded absolute minimum DoF, to emphasize just the product or some aspect of the product while blurring distracting elements.

OTOH, have you ever shot sports with LF? I have (basketball and baseball). Not the best choice, but it got the job done with very good results.

There are certainly many situations where the movements of an LF camera can be put to good use. But using an artistic image in an attempt to somehow "vindicate" the existence of the format is ridiculous.

I don't understand why a particular camera type would require "vindication" at all. LF was the original format because enlargers didn't exist. If you wanted a large print you needed a large negative.

- Leigh

Jack Dahlgren

9-Dec-2010, 12:56

I said you didn't understand DoF as a creative tool. It has nothing to do with the camera.

You said: "You shouldn't criticize another artist for using a tool that you don't understand."

Selective DoF is a technique. A camera is a tool. That aside, what makes you think I don't understand using DoF? Have you looked at any of my work?

I would have shot the original photo just like its author did. Coming into focus as you move into the print, then out in the receding area gives a sense of depth and motion. That would be lost if everything was in focus, creating a flat two-dimensional image lacking interest.

I've been in many fashion shoots where the AD demanded absolute minimum DoF, to emphasize just the product or some aspect of the product while blurring distracting elements.

OTOH, have you ever shot sports with LF? I have (basketball and baseball). Not the best choice, but it got the job done with very good results.

There are certainly many situations where the movements of an LF camera can be put to good use. But using an artistic image in an attempt to somehow "vindicate" the existence of the format is ridiculous.

- Leigh

I guess I'm still looking for support to the claim that the shot was intended to be "artistic". And I still haven't seen you provide any yet. The shots posted don't appear to have that intent and I wouldn't expect it given the context.

But if you do, fine. I'm pretty much through responding unless you continue making unsubstantiated claims about me.

Drew Wiley

9-Dec-2010, 14:07

Merg - I don't know if you're still listening in on this thread, but my brother sold Rolleis
and Linhofs before he went into commercial photog, and had a rather chronic problem
with the backs for awhile. Of course, his own cameras were fine because he knew about the problem, and also corrected this issue for his customers. I still have all the
negs he took with the SL66 and hope to print some one of these days. While he was
still alive I printed some of his color work in Ciba, since he didn't do his own color
printing. Seems like that camera was really a notch up from the Hassie option back then.

Chris Strobel

9-Dec-2010, 14:07

Actually there is a likely solution with that or any other digital camera, which is to make several exposures focusing at several different points from near to far and then stitch them in Photoshop. Usually works very well as long as the subject doesn't move.

Good point.I use this program quite a bit http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html I shot this shell with 12 exposures adjusting the focus in even increments from the front of the board to the back thus rendering everything in focus.I wasn't aware you could do the same thing in Photoshop, but I'm still using CS3.Is this a feature on the newer versions, or is there something I'm missing in CS3?

http://www.pbase.com/cloudswimmer/image/131003900/original.jpg

philosomatographer

9-Dec-2010, 14:42

Your fundamental premise that "everything should be in focus" is fallacious.

It's a statement of your personal opinion. Obviously you have a right to same.

But to promote your own views as universal truths is a huge flight of ego.

- Leigh

Would you be so kind as to reproduce this alleged promotion of my own views as universal thruth?

Leigh, your assertion that I posted, anywhere in this thread or any other, a "fundamental premise that everything should be in focus" is patently incorrect, and the egotistic manner with which you make this (and other) assertions are absurd.

What I have claimed, is that, from the given camera position, the Pentax 645D could not reproduce that scene in complete focus, even if the photographer wanted to. And I maintain that, shooting at f/14, this was very likely the intent of the photographer, as f/14 is a curious aperture to use for "creative depth of field". This has always been the premise of my postings in this thread, yet you have not once addressed this - and nor do I even expect you to.

I would be very surprised if you have a comparatively larger body of work than I do which makes use of the device of shallow depth of field for artistic purposes. I regularly shoot large-aperture small-format lenses wide-open as a key element of the style of my work, including a 50mm f/1.2 and a 250mm f/2.0 - this is typical of my type of work:

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/053/2/f/Innocence_by_philosomatographer.jpg

You have chosen to insult myself and other forum members (e.g. Jack) by claiming an ignorance to this technique on (our) part, when in fact you display a basic inability to read others' posts carefully without your own preconceived notions.

The fact that the Medium Format SLR could not produce that scene in-focus in a single shot - even if the photographer wanted to - without a severe reduction in resolution, is a vindication to the view camera as a photographic tool, no matter what you say. Of course, so too is the fact that I can equally reduce the portion of my subject that is in-focus, with alternative movements. Yes, we "get" it - you're not the only one!

Please get off your high horse, I think it's starting to annoy most of us, and you clearly have nothing to add to this discussion. Perhaps you should have ignored this thread - which was started in the spirit of good faith and friendly banter - but which is ultimately spoiled by people such as yourself.

philosomatographer

9-Dec-2010, 14:47

Actually there is a likely solution with that or any other digital camera, which is to make several exposures focusing at several different points from near to far and then stitch them in Photoshop. Usually works very well as long as the subject doesn't move.

Of course you're right, Brian! I used to do quite a bit of focus stacking when I used to shoot a digital SLR. Wonderful technique for going far beyond the possibilities of the image field captured in a single shot.

I imagine, for a static subject, a focus-stacked Pentax 645D image to be a thing of beauty, considering the available resolution! Imagine the data storage requirements though... That 4x5in film holder is starting to look pretty good :-)

Leigh

9-Dec-2010, 15:16

What I have claimed, is that, from the given camera position, the Pentax 645D could not reproduce that scene in complete focus, even if the photographer wanted to.
In fact there are techniques such as image stacking (mentioned above) that would yield sharp focus over the entire image. Since the artist did not use them, one must accept the fact that the image was presented as desired.

And I maintain that, shooting at f/14, this was very likely the intent of the photographer, as f/14 is a curious aperture to use for "creative depth of field".
Yes, it was obviously the intent of the photographer.

As you say, f/14 is an unusual aperture. One must therefore assume that the artist chose it because it created the desire image.

Had that not been the case, he would have chosen a different aperture.

- Leigh

Leigh

9-Dec-2010, 15:24

I guess I'm still looking for support to the claim that the shot was intended to be "artistic". And I still haven't seen you provide any yet. The shots posted don't appear to have that intent and I wouldn't expect it given the context.
The fact that the artist posted the photo is sufficient evidence that it was as he intended. What gives you have the right to question that?

And why should anyone care about your expectations? You seem to have an inflated opinion of self.

- Leigh

pdmoylan

9-Dec-2010, 15:58

I must say that in deciding to recently sign up to LFP Forum, my expectation was that responders would cultivate intelligent, respectful and considerate discussion as a standard. Much to my dismay, there is more acrimony in just this series of threads than I find in many political blogs.

Perhaps it is the stress related to the recession which is to blame, or the creaping diminishment of an art medium which many wish to hold on to for dear life. One attribute that LF provides me is a way of seeing (incorporating movements) which cannot be compared to DSLRs, whether medium, full frame 35mm, APS-C or 4/3 format. It also allows, without the necessity for filters, much slower shutter speeds which for movement can be very useful. Color characteristics of film act very differently in low light than digital capture in my experience, and it is difficult to modify white balance to compare.

Another feature is the notably higher contrast images (and less dynamic range typically) I get from LF vs any digital format. There is a way of seeing with such limitations. Portability and the ability to intrinsically capture more highlight and shadow details is what makes digital capture compelling. If you still believe in film as I do, simply look at the stunning images produced in Galen Rowell's (now deceased) new book all from 35mm film for justification of its continued use. Look at the book First Light, of images taken in Yosemite by 4 very well respected kin, Charles Cramer, a then LF afficianado among them (now moved to Phase backs), and don't check the medium each uses. What I found is that even 35mm film captured subtle colors in a saturated manner whereas the digital images (though not Medium Format) held perhaps more information, but lost on contrast and color.

My point is simple, LF is losing ground but it still satisfies our hearts and minds in a way which digital perhaps cannot. Not lets have some peace.

Leigh

9-Dec-2010, 16:29

What I found is that even 35mm film captured subtle colors in a saturated manner whereas the digital images (though not Medium Format) held perhaps more information, but lost on contrast and color.
The same is true of MF. I shoot high-res MF, and find that although it reproduces very fine detail, it just doesn't have the "life" of a film image.

My observations may not be terribly accurate since I'm comparing color digital images with B&W film, but the "feel" is just not there in the digital.

- Leigh

Kevin Crisp

9-Dec-2010, 17:26

I have not found the SL66 backs trouble prone, I have 5 backs and use them interchangeably on two bodies. BUT, you have to know that the shutter must be cocked before you mate the back to the camera. If you force it on there despite a modest amount of resistance, you break it and you need a special hook to reach up inside and get the camera unlocked and ready to go. The system has lots of interlocks and when something doesn't move or go together easily, it is telling you something.

I'd have to agree that on a long trip, a decent travel 4X5 outfit with three lenses is much easier to lug around than the Rollei. It just depends on whether you want to deal with reloading film holders on the road.

Jack Dahlgren

9-Dec-2010, 21:24

The fact that the artist posted the photo is sufficient evidence that it was as he intended. What gives you have the right to question that?

And why should anyone care about your expectations? You seem to have an inflated opinion of self.

- Leigh

What gives you the right to continue to insult people? Or are you just a troll?

Brian Ellis

10-Dec-2010, 11:59

Good point.I use this program quite a bit http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html I shot this shell with 12 exposures adjusting the focus in even increments from the front of the board to the back thus rendering everything in focus.I wasn't aware you could do the same thing in Photoshop, but I'm still using CS3.Is this a feature on the newer versions, or is there something I'm missing in CS3?

http://www.pbase.com/cloudswimmer/image/131003900/original.jpg

Wow, 12 exposures! That's a lot more than I've done. I usually only make 3-4 exposures. Very nice photograph (as were the others you posted).

I'm not sure when the ability to make multiple exposures and stitch like this was first introduced in Photoshop. I've had almost every version of Photoshop from PS4 on and I have trouble remembering what came in with what version. I know I did this on CS4 and didn't do it on CS3 but that wasn't necessarily because it couldn't be done in CS3, I probably just didn't know how to do it back then. I learned the technique in workshop I attended about a year ago when I had CS4.

In that same workshop the instructor demonstrated the program you're using but I don't really know anything about it so I don't know whether Photoshop does the exact same thing you're doing or not. But in general I know you can do what we're talking about on CS4, I'm not sure about CS3.

Drew Wiley

10-Dec-2010, 16:43

Thanks for that clarification, Kevin. I was probably only about twelve years old when
my brother was shooting Rollei, and they were eventually stolen and never recovered.
The SL66 was used by Richard Kaufmann for his noteworthy carbon color prints of the
high Sierras back in that era. A backpacking friend of mine who carries an analogous
MF Contax outfit usually ends up with just as much weight as I do with a 4x5 and
conventional holders - both around 75 lbs for three or four days out. And no tilt feature with the Contax. The Zeiss lenses are marvelous, but no match for the much
bigger film size of 4x5 or 8x10.

John NYC

10-Dec-2010, 22:20

Over and over again I get convinced that the On Photography forum is the most counterproductive on this site. Give the OP a break, for goodness sake.

Chris Strobel

11-Dec-2010, 10:23

Wow, 12 exposures! That's a lot more than I've done. I usually only make 3-4 exposures. Very nice photograph (as were the others you posted).

Hey Brian,

Yeah for objects like the shell I've played around and 12 is about optimum.I've done some landscapes (very few) with up to 20, but it gets tricky when the light starts changing.I was wondering about photoshop because with Helicon I'm having trouble processing 16bit Tiffs with it.In 8bit it works great, and can process 12 images from my 5DmkII in about 3-4 min., but in 16bit it just stalls.So I'm always searching for new things to try.Thanks too for the kind word.

Chris

John NYC

11-Dec-2010, 13:16

Hey Brian,

I was wondering about photoshop because with Helicon I'm having trouble processing 16bit Tiffs with it.In 8bit it works great, and can process 12 images from my 5DmkII in about 3-4 min., but in 16bit it just stalls.So I'm always searching for new things to try.Thanks too for the kind word.

Chris

If you haven't seen this guy's work doing stack macro shots of insects, it's pretty outta sight. He uses Zerene Stacker.

This one is 150 exposures...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnhallmen/5237351583/

Rust Never Sleeps

11-Dec-2010, 23:06

...it's looking at the sample images of the (very tasty) Pentax 645D digital "medium format" (though it's on the small side of MF) camera. This one is particularly telling:

http://dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/742408/imgp1075?inalbum=pentax-645d-preview-samples
(I recommend looking at the original size (http://dpreview.com/galleries/3202320681/download/742408) - 16MB JPG)

Taken with a 120mm f/4 Macro lens stopped down to f/14 (already way past its optimum I should think). On this gigantic image, at high magnification, one very small plane of focus is extremely crisply rendered, with most of the shot completely out of focus. Surely, taken at f/14, this was not the intent.

The advantage over 35mm digital for this particular shot is minor at best. I am quite confident that, shooting my 50-year-old Symmar 150mm wide open even, I could create a much more detailed and convincing rendition of the scene (apart from the poorer contrast) simply because of camera movements. Never mind at f/14! That's a $100 lens on a $1000 camera.

Man, I'm glad I got into large format :-)

Digital opens some nice doors:
1 Able to change ISO in camera
2 Able to shoot until out of memory, no running out of film
3 Not have to worry about developing film, thus saving time and money
4 Able to send client a project the same day of shoot

After that I don't see what the big fuss over digital is especially after some of the bad doors digital opens:
1 Expensive and shitty resale value
2 Some cameras don't have much in the used market, so you have to buy new
3 A new camera comes out every year to year and a half, making the camera you just bought a couple of months ago obsolete and old school pretty quick.

I think it just pisses off some people that like philosomatographer stated, you can take a old camera like a Speed Graphic or a Tech IV with a lens from the 60's or 70's with modern B&W or color film and the result will spank digital. Folks for some reason think that if a certain technology is digital like CD's, DVD, or Digital Capture, it must be superior. I have heard high end turntables in nice audio systems that sound ridiculously good. Just like I have viewed well made 40x50 prints from 4x5 or 8x10 that floored me.

I used to shoot a Pentax 6x7 and while the camera was great and I learned a lot with it, getting near-far shots completely sharp was a pain in the ass and a lot of shots just couldn't be pulled off. A medium format issue not the Pentax 6x7 but the Pentax 645D will suffer from this too. I'm expected to put up with this for ten grand for the camera alone, um thanks but no thanks. I can see a portrait studio getting the camera but for landscape shooting it doesn't make much sense. I rather have a 35mm digital with tilt/shift lenses if I was dead set on getting into digital which I am not. Cheers...

Chris Strobel

12-Dec-2010, 10:08

If you haven't seen this guy's work doing stack macro shots of insects, it's pretty outta sight. He uses Zerene Stacker.

This one is 150 exposures...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnhallmen/5237351583/

Wow, thats pretty awesome and freaky work!Thanks for that link John.Just tried the Zerene Stacker demo.Works well, but takes almost twice the time of Helicon to stack on my aging machine.P.S. like your LF city shots quite a bit.Always like viewing them on you flickr site.Always inspirational.

Chris

Robert Hughes

13-Dec-2010, 14:09

Yeah for objects like the shell I've played around and 12 is about optimum.
Hmmph. Looks like a candidate for one good shot, with a better lighting setup.

John NYC

13-Dec-2010, 17:24

Wow, thats pretty awesome and freaky work!Thanks for that link John.Just tried the Zerene Stacker demo.Works well, but takes almost twice the time of Helicon to stack on my aging machine.P.S. like your LF city shots quite a bit.Always like viewing them on you flickr site.Always inspirational.

Chris

Thank you very much!

apconan

21-Dec-2010, 20:29

Please get off your high horse, I think it's starting to annoy most of us, and you clearly have nothing to add to this discussion. Perhaps you should have ignored this thread - which was started in the spirit of good faith and friendly banter - but which is ultimately spoiled by people such as yourself.

You need to get off your high horse. Not Leigh.

Let me sum up the sentiments of your original post:

Different cameras/formats do different things.

Thanks buddy, none of us knew that!

philosomatographer

21-Dec-2010, 23:15

Different cameras/formats do different things.

Thanks buddy, none of us knew that!

And where did my post claim to say anything otherwise? Nowhere, you say? That's the point.

So why, then, does my simple post deserve any of the rude, self-important replies from people who are clearly "above" a bit of friendly banter (and this on a forum which is supposed to be about how nice large format cameras are)? What's that? It didn't?

Of course it didn't. Instead, a bunch of people just had to attack a post, the content of which nobody has been able to disagree with. I am truly puzzled. The point is, Leigh (and some others here) are demonstrably rude. Why not just ignore my thread?

Way to go, guys.

Mike Anderson

22-Dec-2010, 00:05

And where did my post claim to say anything otherwise? Nowhere, you say? That's the point.

So why, then, does my simple post deserve any of the rude, self-important replies from people who are clearly "above" a bit of friendly banter (and this on a forum which is supposed to be about how nice large format cameras are)? What's that? It didn't?

Of course it didn't. Instead, a bunch of people just had to attack a post, the content of which nobody has been able to disagree with. I am truly puzzled. The point is, Leigh (and some others here) are demonstrably rude. Why not just ignore my thread?

Way to go, guys.

Don't let it get you down. Sometimes the group dynamics get out of whack and hard to understand.

...Mike

Jack Dahlgren

22-Dec-2010, 00:28

Don't let it get you down. Sometimes the group dynamics get out of whack and hard to understand.

...Mike

Indeed. Where did apconan the one post wonder come from?
Best to let it pass.

Leigh

22-Dec-2010, 08:23

Instead, a bunch of people just had to attack a post, the content of which nobody has been able to disagree with.
I and others have commented on the fact that your fundamental assertion that everything should be in focus is nonsense.

Perhaps that doesn't constitute "disagreement" in your version of English, but it does in mine.

The point is, Leigh (and some others here) are demonstrably rude.
If questioning your ridiculous pontifications is rude, then I'm rude. Tough beans, Gwendoline.

You need to grow up. People who can't accept criticism are called children.

- Leigh

philosomatographer

22-Dec-2010, 08:53

I and others have commented on the fact that your fundamental assertion that everything should be in focus is nonsense.

Leight, are you cognitively impaired or something?? Good god man, have you even read a single one of my replies??

Not only did I never make such a fundamental assertion, I have repeatedly proven this through the construction of logical arguments based on earlier posts, and I have even posted a sample image of my typical style, which involves shallower DOF than what you could likely ever use, unless you regularly use the 300/2.0 Nikkor lens. What on earth more could you want from me? You are wrong, plain and simple, and being rude about it.

You cannot disagree with assertions I did not make, so I will maintain that nobody in this thread has disagreed with what I have said. You last of all. In fact, you consistently seem unable to interpret any of my posts. Forgive me for living in South Africa, where english is not my first language, but I doubt the problem here is my "version" (sic) of English.

For the fourth time, my argument is thus: Please follow CAREFULLY (I will break it up into little bite-size bits), please relate it to my original post, and please stop attacking my posts due to your inability to UNDERSTAND that:

If the user of the $10,000 Pentax 645D had so chosen
(and the subject matter at hand, as well as the taking aperture of f/14, suggests as much)
to attempt to render the entirety of the (flat) subject into crisp focus
he would not be able to, no matter what he does
unless he resorts to focus stacking
or a drastic reduction in resolution or print size.
A $500 large format camera, however
with a 1950s lens
could do so with higher pictorial quality

This has been my only argument, and I firmly stand by it. Please go ahead and disagree with that, and then we can talk.

And yes, we all know this. I didn't title my post "Did you guys know...?" or "Who would have thought..." or "Contrary to common belief". I said "If ever there was a vindication for large format (in this digital age)". My thread was in good faith, in the company of fellow large format users.

What on earth is your problem? You construct no argument, and your statements are demonstrably false, yet you persist in accusing assertions I never made of being "nonsense".

Leigh

22-Dec-2010, 09:01

If the user of the $10,000 Pentax 645D had so chosen
(and the subject matter at hand, as well as the taking aperture of f/14, suggests as much)
to attempt to render the entirety of the (flat) subject into crisp focus

But the user did not choose to do so. He used the tool that he felt was appropriate to the task. Your opinion of his decision is totally irrelevant.

Had he wanted greater DoF he could have used a smaller aperture. The fact that he did not is prima facie evidence that such was not his desire.

There's absolutely nothing in the original image to suggest that he was somehow "unable" to achieve the desired rendering.

You have no basis for __assuming__ that he wanted to do something other than what he did, but was somehow unable to do so because he failed to use equipment that you thought was more appropriate. What crap.

could do so with higher pictorial quality

So you're claiming that anyone who uses DoF or similar techniques is not a legitimate photographer.

And who appointed you as the authority on pictorial quality? We couldn't care less what you think. Just another example of your inflated ego.

You make an assertion based on whimsy, then criticize other photographers for not following your edicts.

What BS. :eek:

- Leigh

John NYC

22-Dec-2010, 09:17

Hey, Leigh, this is what is known as a personal attack...

"We couldn't care less what you think. Just another example of your inflated ego."

For the most part, this forum is really civil, even when things get heated. Ideas are OK to criticize, but when you get down into ad hominem attacks, it just makes it unpleasant for everyone.

Leigh

22-Dec-2010, 09:19

Ideas are OK to criticize, but when you get down into ad hominem attacks, it just makes it unpleasant for everyone.
You're absolutely right.

My apologies to you and the other civil members of the Forum (exclusion obvious).

If you'll look at my first post in this thread (#34), you'll find a simple comment about DoF as relates to the original image.

In post #41 from our OP you'll find "get over yourself". I don't believe I was the first to get personal.

- Leigh

philosomatographer

22-Dec-2010, 09:41

OK, Leigh, let's play:

But the user did not choose to do so. He used the tool that he felt was appropriate to the task. Your opinion of his decision is totally irrelevant.

No he did not use "the tool that he felt was appropriate to the task". The linked work was likely not intended as an artistic work - since this is from a staffer at dpreview.com - not somebody who "chose" the 645D as a tool - and who is used to testing small-format (mostly point and shoot, if one looks at their volumes) cameras. I don't believe they've ever even tested any other medium format camera, and the reviewer admittedly had a short time span to spend with the camera.

Had he wanted greater DoF he could have used a smaller aperture. The fact that he did not is prima facie evidence that such was not his desire.

No, he could not have. Two reasons: The Pentax 120 Macro only stops down to f/32. The extent of the circle of confusion in the most out-of-focus areas indicate that, even at f/32, these would be nearly in focus. With the 645D's pixel pitch, using a smaller aperture should start to visibly blur the image due to diffraction, which would be counterproductive to their "sample images" showing the performance potential of the camera.

There's absolutely nothing in the original image to suggest that he was somehow "unable" to achieve the desired rendering.

See above. I never claimed to know his desired rendering. I have, since the start, openly said "if his desired effect were to render the entire flat plane in focus".

You have no basis for __assuming__ that he wanted to do something other than what he did, but was somehow unable to do so because he failed to use equipment that you thought was more appropriate. What crap.

Let me get this straight. You make very strong and insulting assumptions about me, my abilities, and my understanding of certain photographic styles based on nothing more than your mis-interpretation of my posts (including the ones that attempt to correct your misunderstandings, as well as ignoring the ones that challenge you to simply reproduce my alleged assertions), and then you attack me personally after making statements that are completely demonstrable if one has even a trivial grasp of lenses, depth-of-field, and different camera types. Statements which I never claimed as being anything other than common knowledge.

So you're claiming that anyone who uses DoF or similar techniques is not a legitimate photographer.

Again, I challenge thee, please reproduce any post of mine where I ever make such insulting claims? Just because you seem to like to do it, doesn't mean that everybody else launches unprovoked personal attacks. And what part did you miss about me actually using shallow DOF all the time?

And who appointed you as the authority on pictorial quality? We couldn't care less what you think. Just another example of your inflated ego.

I have several times clarified that, for the purposes of this discussion, I refer to the resolution only of the image. In therms of information transfer, this relates directly to the extent of the subject in the focus field. I have never referred to (or attacked, as you like to do it) any aspect of any image here with regards to artistic or compositional merit. This is a deeply personal thing.

Resolution, however, is not - the information transfer through the lens/camera system is governed by simple physical laws. You have not addressed any of the actual assertions that I made in any (never mind civil) manner, you keep on inventing ever more rude false claims.

You make an assertion based on whimsy, then criticize other photographers for not following your edicts.

What BS. :eek:

- Leigh

My assertion (yes, the one - the bulleted list that you quoted, so you are getting warmer...) is not based on whimsy, it is based on fact. A $10,000 camera without movements could not (if the photographer so wished) have captured the entire subject in focus with the chosen lens and composition in a single shot. Plain and simple. One would have to user focus stacking, etc.

This is not rocket science. What was your point again?

edp

22-Dec-2010, 09:46

You could have got all of that picture of a baby's foot in focus if you'd used a bit of tilt.

Brian Ellis

22-Dec-2010, 10:24

OK, Leigh, let's play: . . . My assertion (yes, the one - the bulleted list that you quoted, so you are getting warmer...) is not based on whimsy, it is based on fact. A $10,000 camera without movements could not (if the photographer so wished) have captured the entire subject in focus with the chosen lens and composition in a single shot. Plain and simple. One would have to user focus stacking, etc.

This is not rocket science. What was your point again?

Saying "a $10,000 camera without movements could not . . . have captured the entire subject in focus . . . One would have to use focus stacking, etc." is pretty much saying "a $10,000 camera without movements could not have captured the entire subject in focus unless the photographer wanted to capture the entire subject in focus."

Merging multiple exposures to get everything in focus or so close to being in focus that you can't tell the difference isn't rocket science, it's simple, quick, and is done every day by who knows how many different photographers.

apconan

22-Dec-2010, 11:11

No he did not use "the tool that he felt was appropriate to the task". The linked work was likely not intended as an artistic work - since this is from a staffer at dpreview.com - not somebody who "chose" the 645D as a tool - and who is used to testing small-format (mostly point and shoot, if one looks at their volumes) cameras. I don't believe they've ever even tested any other medium format camera, and the reviewer admittedly had a short time span to spend with the camera.

The task was to test the camera for dpreview. So yes, he chose the tool that was appropriate to the task.

My assertion (yes, the one - the bulleted list that you quoted, so you are getting warmer...) is not based on whimsy, it is based on fact. A $10,000 camera without movements could not (if the photographer so wished) have captured the entire subject in focus with the chosen lens and composition in a single shot. Plain and simple. One would have to user focus stacking, etc.

Ok, to show you how trivial, pointless, and inane your entire thread/point is, let me put it in perspective.

"
[Insert a large format sports photo here].
Taken with a 4x5 camera with 150mm lens, this shot is of very high resolution. However, the timing isn't the greatest and the eye-level angle is kind of boring. Surely, with a 35mm or digital camera with 7 frames per second shooting and up to 1/4000th of a second shooting, and a compact size, we could come up with a much more creative and dynamic sports photo! And this fool spent over a thousand dollars and many hours building that camera, what a senile idiot! You could get a Nikon F5 for much less!

Get the picture? People use different cameras/formats for different usages. Don't make a thread attacking someone else's camera choice/images. It is probably a sign that your photos are bad.

Jack Dahlgren

22-Dec-2010, 11:23

The task was to test the camera for dpreview. So yes, he chose the tool that was appropriate to the task.

Ok, to show you how trivial, pointless, and inane your entire thread/point is, let me put it in perspective.

"
[Insert a large format sports photo here].
Taken with a 4x5 camera with 150mm lens, this shot is of very high resolution. However, the timing isn't the greatest and the eye-level angle is kind of boring. Surely, with a 35mm or digital camera with 7 frames per second shooting and up to 1/4000th of a second shooting, and a compact size, we could come up with a much more creative and dynamic sports photo! And this fool spent over a thousand dollars and many hours building that camera, what a senile idiot! You could get a Nikon F5 for much less!

Get the picture? People use different cameras/formats for different usages. Don't make a thread attacking someone else's camera choice/images. It is probably a sign that your photos are bad.

Ha!

The OP didn't attack anyone.

He/she was just happy that an old $500 camera could get a better shot of leaves on snow than a $10,000 camera.

You/Leigh are the ones who took it as an attack on the camera tester's artistic intent.

You are off to a poor start in this forum. May I suggest you try dpreview instead?

Happy Solstice!

Marko

22-Dec-2010, 11:49

Ha!

The OP didn't attack anyone.

He/she was just happy that an old $500 camera could get a better shot of leaves on snow than a $10,000 camera.

But his premise is questionable and IMHO false (see my direct response below). If the OP was happy that his cheap old camera can get beautiful pictures, nobody would be taking an issue. Especially if he bothered to post some as an illustration.

And even then somebody would likely respond that it was a photographer and not a camera...

But he chose to:

Start with a derogatory comment about someone's review of the camera he himself never used.
Make a handful of both technical and artistic assumptions about the author based on a single image taken out of context
Launch an imaginary comparison without posting any examples of his own
Present subjective opinion as reasonable conclusion

Sorry to say, but that does not sound like a good faith posting. I'm more inclined to view threads like this as trolling. All two gazillion of them on this forum.

Jim Michael

22-Dec-2010, 12:09

Jack Dahlgren

22-Dec-2010, 12:18

But his premise is questionable and IMHO false (see my direct response below). If the OP was happy that his cheap old camera can get beautiful pictures, nobody would be taking an issue. Especially if he bothered to post some as an illustration.

And even then somebody would likely respond that it was a photographer and not a camera...

But he chose to:

Start with a derogatory comment about someone's review of the camera he himself never used.
Make a handful of both technical and artistic assumptions about the author based on a single image taken out of context
Launch an imaginary comparison without posting any examples of his own
Present subjective opinion as reasonable conclusion

Sorry to say, but that does not sound like a good faith posting. I'm more inclined to view threads like this as trolling. All two gazillion of them on this forum.

You can't troll if there are no fish. But we have a lot of fish don't we! I worry that the troller's lines will get tangled.

Time to move on I think.

Marko

22-Dec-2010, 12:20

For the fourth time, my argument is thus: Please follow CAREFULLY (I will break it up into little bite-size bits), please relate it to my original post, and please stop attacking my posts due to your inability to UNDERSTAND that:

If the user of the $10,000 Pentax 645D had so chosen
(and the subject matter at hand, as well as the taking aperture of f/14, suggests as much)
to attempt to render the entirety of the (flat) subject into crisp focus
he would not be able to, no matter what he does
unless he resorts to focus stacking
or a drastic reduction in resolution or print size.
A $500 large format camera, however
with a 1950s lens
could do so with higher pictorial quality

This has been my only argument, and I firmly stand by it. Please go ahead and disagree with that, and then we can talk.

OK, I will bite:

If the user of the $10,000 Pentax 645D had so chosen
(and the subject matter at hand, as well as the taking aperture of f/14, suggests as much)
to attempt to render the entirety of the (flat) subject into crisp focus
he would not be able to, no matter what he does
unless he resorts to focus stacking
or a drastic reduction in resolution or print size.
unless he resorts to focus stacking

I will strongly disagree with this because there are several ways to bring an entire flat surface into the plane of sharp focus using a MF or even an SLR camera:

1. T/S adapter for regular lenses - Zörk adapters (http://www.zoerk.com/pages/p_pshift.htm)
2. T/S bellows for macro use - Novoflex T/S bellows (http://www.novoflex.com/en/products/macro-accessories/bellows-systems/tilt-shift-bellows/)
3. T/S lens such as Hartblei Super Rotator (T/S) (http://www.hartblei.com/lenses/lens_45mm.htm)
4. What's wrong with focus stacking?

A $500 large format camera, however
with a 1950s lens
could do so with higher pictorial quality

1. Price is a purely emotional factor
2. Pictorial quality is a purely subjective attribute
3. Equipment vintage is both emotional and subjective

Therefore:

- If your goal is to compare technical abilities, all three are non-arguments.

- If, on the other hand, your goal is to compare pictorial qualities, you would have to post comparative examples (please note plural) of BOTH systems. Even then, price and vintage would remain totally irrelevant.

Your turn.

Marko

22-Dec-2010, 12:20

You can't troll if there are no fish. But we have a lot of fish don't we! I worry that the troller's lines will get tangled.

Time to move on I think.

I think you are right... :)

apconan

22-Dec-2010, 12:45

You are off to a poor start in this forum. May I suggest you try dpreview instead?

No thanks. I think you'll find that every forum has people who want to degrade/talk down to other people. The only difference is that some forums like dpreview, users attack other users. In some cases, like this thread, the user has chosen to attack a userbase outside of this website, in an attempt to gain credibility on this site. You may think I am trolling, but this topic got to me enough to finally make a post after having been a member for almost a year.

The internet by nature can allow for incredibly engaging conversation. OP, you say this is friendly banter. I'd argue that even friendly banter requires some substance to carry it.

Brian Ellis

22-Dec-2010, 14:06

The photo was used in an editorial context, so things like image stacking should be off-limits. It should be a straight photograph. That still leaves some room for an artistic presentation, but who has time for that with all these digicams flooding the market? "Hey Ed, hurry up with that shot, wouldja, got another truckload of 'em in and we gotta get 'em posted today."

I wasn't suggesting that the person doing the tests should have stitched photographs in a test report, of course he shouldn't, at least not without explaining what was being done. But the statement to which I was responding was that "the camera" couldn't get everything in focus and it could, just not in one shot.

philosomatographer

22-Dec-2010, 14:39

No thanks. I think you'll find that every forum has people who want to degrade/talk down to other people. The only difference is that some forums like dpreview, users attack other users. In some cases, like this thread, the user has chosen to attack a userbase outside of this website, in an attempt to gain credibility on this site. You may think I am trolling, but this topic got to me enough to finally make a post after having been a member for almost a year.

The internet by nature can allow for incredibly engaging conversation. OP, you say this is friendly banter. I'd argue that even friendly banter requires some substance to carry it.

It's like you people are on a completely different plane of reality. Where did I "attack" a user outside of this website? Is it an attack to make the (joyful) observation that a large format film camera has superior capabilities in some circumstances than the latest and greatest $10,000 DSLR? Do you disagree? What would give my post more "substance"? One of my LF darkroom prints?

"Reaching for the light"
http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/221/c/8/Reach_for_the_light_by_philosomatographer.jpg

There. Oh, and Leigh, note that this image was taken at f/5.6 with a purposeful shallow DOF. Of course, again, you would need a tilt/shift lens on a DSLR to do this (and none of them have quite this shallow DOF - now the argument has gone in the opposite direction!) Another?

"Stormy Mossel Bay"
http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/053/9/c/Stormy_Mossel_Bay_by_philosomatographer.jpg

I do know how to print in the darkroom, and how to use camera movements. That was not the point of my post, however, nor of any of what I have said. I have no specific interest in gaining "credibility" or whatever other ulteriour motives you may think of. Most of my prints have never been scanned, because I do not practice my hobby to show to other people online, I do it for the enjoyment thereof.

I recently switched from a $10,000 DSLR system to B&W film (well, 3 years ago almost). To be honest, I probably did this for the challenge thereof more than anything else.

I find it soothing to be out of the rapid-upgrade-cycle race of the digital world (especially since, in the era that I "participated" in - 2000 to 2006, things were still much less stable than what they are now). Still, these are my personal choices and opinions, and I have never attacked anybody on the basis thereof.

My original observations were not intended (nor rendered, I believe) as attacks of any sort. I found it soothing to not be tempted by the release of one of the greatest digital cameras yet made. I found it satisfying that a $500 camera could out-do a $10,000 one in certain very real use-cases. After having endured many (unsolicited, I believe) attacks in this thread, though, it's difficult to remain neutral.

I stand by my original statements, though. What astounds me is that my statements were so blatantly obvious (as several replies so rudely pointed out to me: "different cameras are good at different things" - DUH), yet I have received nothing but flak for what seem to be contraversial statements.

Is it wrong to revel in the fact that a $10,000 DSLR can't do everything better than a $500 camera, as most would expect? Some of you clearly seem to think so.

rdenney

22-Dec-2010, 14:51

Merging multiple exposures to get everything in focus or so close to being in focus that you can't tell the difference isn't rocket science, it's simple, quick, and is done every day by who knows how many different photographers.

It's available, but I would challenge that it's usable in all situations. And on my computer, it is not quick. All methods that require multiple exposures depend on a completely static scene. For many of my photos, I have stood at the camera, cable release in hand, waiting for that one leaf I'm using as a wind detector to become still. Many large-format images show the effects of movement during exposures (for images that freeze motion, small-format cameras are better, with the trade-off of more limited print sizes). Multiple images work sometimes--maybe they would work half the time in the photos I make. But it is not always a viable solution to having camera movements, otherwise the 17 and 24mm TSE lenses from Canon would not be so popular despite their vast price.

The obvious solution isn't really all that difficult: Pentax needs to make some tilt/shift lenses for the 645D. Given the smaller sensor, they could remount their 35mm wide-angle lens in a tilt/shift mount easily enough. Then, photos like the one pointed out by the OP would could be brought into focus with a single exposure, at only 25 or 30 times the cost of a good, usable 4x5 kit.

Rick "who has tilting capabilities at 24, 45, 55, 80, and about 10 other focal lengths for his Canon" Denney

rdenney

22-Dec-2010, 14:56

No thanks. I think you'll find that every forum has people who want to degrade/talk down to other people. ...

The internet by nature can allow for incredibly engaging conversation. OP, you say this is friendly banter. I'd argue that even friendly banter requires some substance to carry it.

No offense, but is the experience of three posts sufficient to judge the banter standards of a forum?

Rick "wondering when this substance standard suddenly started being enforced" Denney

Leigh

22-Dec-2010, 15:16

Is it wrong to revel in the fact that a $10,000 DSLR can't do everything better than a $500 camera, as most would expect?
And why would any reasonable individual expect that to be true?

An F-350 pickup can haul more trash than a Harley. :eek:

Different products built to different standards for different purposes.

A fish swims better than a rock. So what. :confused:

- Leigh

Jack Dahlgren

22-Dec-2010, 18:23

And why would any reasonable individual expect that to be true?

An F-350 pickup can haul more trash than a Harley. :eek:

Different products built to different standards for different purposes.

A fish swims better than a rock. So what. :confused:

- Leigh

I challenge your assertions! I've seen more trash on Harleys.

Leigh

22-Dec-2010, 19:18

I challenge your assertions! I've seen more trash on Harleys.
Perhaps you're right. :p

I should have said Yamaha. :rolleyes:

- Leigh

Marko

23-Dec-2010, 08:24

I am quite confident that, shooting my 50-year-old Symmar 150mm wide open even, I could create a much more detailed and convincing rendition of the scene (apart from the poorer contrast) simply because of camera movements. Never mind at f/14! That's a $100 lens on a $1000 camera.

I found it soothing to not be tempted by the release of one of the greatest digital cameras yet made. I found it satisfying that a $500 camera could out-do a $10,000 one in certain very real use-cases.

[...]

Is it wrong to revel in the fact that a $10,000 DSLR can't do everything better than a $500 camera, as most would expect? Some of you clearly seem to think so.

You keep repeating yourself way too much for someone who's really happy about what they have.

And BTW, I just notice, based on what you say, that your El Cheapo dropped full 50% in only a couple of weeks! Doesn't sound very reassuring to me... ;)

Sirius Glass

23-Dec-2010, 10:10

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ...

philosomatographer

23-Dec-2010, 10:16

You keep repeating yourself way too much for someone who's really happy about what they have.

And BTW, I just notice, based on what you say, that your El Cheapo dropped full 50% in only a couple of weeks! Doesn't sound very reassuring to me... ;)

No, Marko. The insane repetition is in response to Leigh, who just doesn't get what I am saying.

I am very happy with what I have. And it doesn't matter whether you use a $500 or a $5000 LF camera. I don't think the value of my old Linhof is dropping, no.

The entire point of this thread is long gone, it's best everybody just moves on.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz indeed.........

Brian Ellis

23-Dec-2010, 10:37

It's available, but I would challenge that it's usable in all situations. And on my computer, it is not quick. All methods that require multiple exposures depend on a completely static scene. For many of my photos, I have stood at the camera, cable release in hand, waiting for that one leaf I'm using as a wind detector to become still. Many large-format images show the effects of movement during exposures (for images that freeze motion, small-format cameras are better, with the trade-off of more limited print sizes). Multiple images work sometimes--maybe they would work half the time in the photos I make. But it is not always a viable solution to having camera movements, otherwise the 17 and 24mm TSE lenses from Canon would not be so popular despite their vast price.

The obvious solution isn't really all that difficult: Pentax needs to make some tilt/shift lenses for the 645D. Given the smaller sensor, they could remount their 35mm wide-angle lens in a tilt/shift mount easily enough. Then, photos like the one pointed out by the OP would could be brought into focus with a single exposure, at only 25 or 30 times the cost of a good, usable 4x5 kit.

Rick "who has tilting capabilities at 24, 45, 55, 80, and about 10 other focal lengths for his Canon" Denney

I never said it was usable in all situations. Certainly the statement of mine that you quoted doesn't say that. In fact in an earlier post I specifically referred to moving subjects as a situation in which it isn't available. And of course neither are movements on a LF camera available for the purpose under discussion in all situations. So I don't know what your point is.

I originally mentioned the use of multiple exposures because the OP said " . . . in this day and age of super-high resolution cameras like the Pentax, for certain goals (such as was clearly the intent of the sample image I linked to) a view camera with movements is the only way to capture the scene with sufficient detail." I thought that was incorrect because sufficient detail in "the scene" and the "sample image" under discussion clearly could have been captured by using multiple exposures and Photoshop blending. But I didn't say then or IIRC in any later post that such a technique could be used in all situations.

I have no idea how simple it would be for Pentax to make a T/S lens nor do I know (or care) how often you might use multiple exposures and blending to achieve the same result or how popular T/S lenses are. None of that is germane to anything I said.

rdenney

23-Dec-2010, 12:20

I never said it was usable in all situations. Certainly the statement of mine that you quoted doesn't say that.

The way I read your statement suggested (even if it didn't say it in so many words) that merging multiple images was a viable alternative to using a camera with movements to control the focus plane. That is only the case sometimes, and I wanted to point out the many cases where that wouldn't work.

But a tilt-shift lens on the Pentax would address that need in every case, it seems to me, albeit with less flexibility (and at much greater cost) than using a view camera.

That's all. No pistols at dawn needed.

Rick "wondering why this thread is bringing out so much defensiveness" Denney

Brian Ellis

23-Dec-2010, 19:06

The way I read your statement suggested (even if it didn't say it in so many words) that merging multiple images was a viable alternative to using a camera with movements to control the focus plane. That is only the case sometimes, and I wanted to point out the many cases where that wouldn't work.

But a tilt-shift lens on the Pentax would address that need in every case, it seems to me, albeit with less flexibility (and at much greater cost) than using a view camera.

That's all. No pistols at dawn needed.

Rick "wondering why this thread is bringing out so much defensiveness" Denney

O.K.

Brian "who never said that merging multiple images was a viable alternative in all situations and who in fact specifically mentioned one situation in which it isn't available, just as tilt and swing aren't available to adjust the plane of focus in all situations either, and who doesn't think it's being defensive to correct someone who puts words in his mouth that he never uttered but who also isn't proposing pistols at dawn" Ellis

.