New from Leaf

[Ken Lee]

Yair -

That image shows high resolution, and no noise - it's great - but because the subject itself is in bright sunshine, many of the leaves (like the clouds in the aforementioned photo) are plain white.

I don't mean to criticize the accomplishment. I'm a software engineer myself, so I have a sense about how many geniuses, and how much effort, it has taken to bring digital capture to this level.

Again I would politely refer you to some of these larger images, which show a more evocative range of tone and fidelity - keeping in mind that they have been downsized considerably to fit on a web browser. Many members of this forum could provide images of similar, if not greater, breadth. We use technology which hasn't changed much since the 1930's.

Here's one I made 2 days ago, with a subject brightness range of at least 13 f/stops.

And again, if you would like someone to make a few more evocative images with your equipment, I'd be delighted to volunteer

[mdd99]

In technology, everything is quickly getting cheaper, once the novelty has worn off. In two years, this will probably cost $16K or less.

80 MP back for medium and large format. About $32,000.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10...faptusII12.asp

[mdd99]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Yair -

That image shows high resolution, and no noise - it's great - but because the subject itself is in bright sunshine, many of the leaves (like the clouds in the aforementioned photo) are plain white.

I don't mean to criticize the accomplishment. I'm a software engineer myself, so I have a sense about how many geniuses, and how much effort, it has taken to bring digital capture to this level.

Again I would politely refer you to some of these larger images, which show a more evocative range of tone and fidelity - keeping in mind that they have been downsized considerably to fit on a web browser. Many members of this forum could provide images of similar, if not greater, breadth. We use technology which hasn't changed much since the 1930's.

Here's one I made 2 days ago, with a subject brightness range of at least 13 f/stops.

And again, if you would like someone to make a few more evocative images with your equipment, I'd be delighted to volunteer

[Brian Ellis]

$32,000...film never looked so good as now!

These things aren't made for you and I or probably anyone still using film. They're made for commercial photographers whose clients pay for them. A few years ago a friend of mine who's a commercial photographer bought something similar. He said it paid for itself with one catalog job. I think he's still using it and that was at least five years ago so by now it's paid for itself many times over.

[Ken Lee]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

So true !

I merely point out that to demonstrate the potential of such a wonderful instrument, the manufacturer should enlist the talents of a real virtuoso.

However, because no real virtuoso has stepped forward... I volunteer instead

[Brian Ellis]

So true !

I merely point out that to demonstrate the potential of such a wonderful instrument, the manufacturer should enlist the talents of a real virtuoso.

However, because no real virtuoso has stepped forward... I volunteer instead

Since any photography equipment that costs $32,000 doesn't interest me I haven't gone to the link. But how can you evaluate any photograph from a technical standpoint on a computer monitor? Wouldn't you need to see a print to know what it can really do?

[Peter Mounier]

It would be nice to see the images, but the links don't go anywhere anymore.
I guess the discussion is just for the few that have seen this thread from the beginning.

Peter

[Ken Lee]

Since any photography equipment that costs $32,000 doesn't interest me I haven't gone to the link. But how can you evaluate any photograph from a technical standpoint on a computer monitor? Wouldn't you need to see a print to know what it can really do?

People like us have perfectly calibrated equipment: what we see on the monitor, matches what we see in the final print. (Just kidding)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't printers have a more restricted gamut than monitors - as well as a narrower dynamic range ?

If that's the case, then what we see in a final print, will be only a limited view of what the sensor can capture, and what a good monitor can show. That's why scanner software like VueScan - and image editing software like Photoshop - have built-in tools to show colors that are out of gamut. Mine is configured to show those values in lime green.

I may be mistaken, but the subject usually has the widest range of colors and tones, and the sensor captures a slice of that. The monitor shows a reduced portion of that capture. Finally, the print reveals a narrower slice of that.

[Brian Ellis]

People like us have perfectly calibrated equipment: what we see on the monitor, matches what we see in the final print. (Just kidding)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't printers have a more restricted gamut than monitors - as well as a narrower dynamic range ?

If that's the case, then what we see in a final print, will be only a limited view of what the sensor can capture, and what a good monitor can show. That's why scanner software like VueScan - and image editing software like Photoshop - have built-in tools to show colors that are out of gamut. Mine is configured to show those values in lime green.

I may be mistaken, but the subject usually has the widest range of colors and tones, and the sensor captures a slice of that. The monitor shows a reduced portion of that capture. Finally, the print reveals a narrower slice of that.

I wasn't thinking so much of color matching or out-of-gamut colors, which are unimportant in this context since we don't know or care what the original subject looked like and we're not planning to make a print from whatever images were shown in the link, but rather of the difference between viewing an image on a low resolution device like a computer monitor and a print from a high resolution device like a good printer. Aren't we probably viewing it on our monitors at something like 100 ppi whereas we'd likely be making at print at something like 300 ppi? I would have thought that difference affected perceptions of detail but then I'm no computer/printer expert.

[Ken Lee]

We can zoom in and out, and see the image at any resolution we like.