Contax ND

[Guest]

Marc and Irakly,

Would you mind if I emailed each of you a jpeg of this shot so you could examine it more carefully as it is difficult to accurately describe?

John

 

[Guest]

Even the slightest bad make-up application will show up in harsh direct sunlight. The girl is squinting from the light. None of the digitals are all that great in severe contrasty situations.
Most films would fail such a test also.

I'll up-load a flash shot of a bride fixing her make-up...and the crop will show why she was fixing her face.

 

[Guest]

To Roger:

We need to know what settings do you use when developing RAW files in order to be specific. According to my experience, Photoshop is needed to kill moire, but colors are fine right from the box.

 

[Guest]

Upfront to Marc, Irakly: Thanks for the effort you've taken. The results are very interesting.
---
In my experience (and maybe that's only me), EVERY digital image needs some tweaking in PS or elsewhere. Whatever I used, I had about 1% of all shots perfect coming out of the box.

I also have to object against the believe, JPEG was the "best" setting one could use. Truth is - again only in my experience - that althoug JPEG1 on the ND is outstandingly good and very very close to the TIFF, the better format is RAW.
However, JPEG1 is the best trade off between quality and speed.

It took me ages to work out RAW developer (2.0 that is! 1.0 is simply disfunctional) settings, that produce consistent results. To contain the color reproduction, I paired these settings with a custom color profile that I apply when opening the converted image in PS (and then immediately converting it to AdobeRGB).

Between 25 and 100 ISO this produces rock solid 16 Bit TIFFS that are pretty close to the final adjustment in PS (on a well lit subject, just tweaking Levels to the planned output does it all). These images only occasionally suffer from minimal color bleeding. I actually never had a case of moire with my settings and the noise is very acceptable. Going beyond ISO 100 is something I am working on as this seems to require a slightly different curve to avoid noise.

I would be interested in the RAW Developer version and settings used by Marc and Irakly.

Bottom line: The RAW Developer 2.0 is cumbersome, slow, and still has many quirks (like leaving the TIFF without any EXIF data...) but it can be used to actually produce really good results.

Christian

PS: If anyone is interested, I can upload my settings files (except the color profile) to this forum around Tuesday next week (I'm traveling).

 

[Guest]

Luca,
You can see the posted pictures in the gallery.
The problem area is primarily between her eyebrows and then the upper right part of the picture that encompases her forehead. Maybe this is the picture just beginning to be blown out by the sun, I don't know, but this has occured many times in daylight.
John

 

[Guest]

Hi Irakly, I mainly shoot on location with strobes or in a studio and my problem usually appears in the skin tones which is made even more difficult when there is no true white or neutral grey to s&le. I have tried different combinations of settings and have minimized them to: Adobe RGB / white balance at shooting / edge 0 / Histogram 0 / Tone curve Linear / Noise Off / 8 bit. I seem to get better results when using Photoshop on this non-enhanced tiff that the raw developer gives me. I am making some progress but it just takes so long to edit the many captures from a shoot. I shoot slide film differently than print film and likewise with black and white, I may need to simply find the way to light and expose for the digital medium as well. I am going to make some tests today and would appreciate and tips. I am also going to exploree jpeg mode to see if it is a usable option.

 

[Guest]

Hi Christian, Yes please upload your settings, I would be very interested. Thanks, Roger

 

[Guest]

Hi John, the make-up/foundation has been applied unevenly over her face. = The harsh light contributes in showing up the problem has it increases the contrast values between the different areas of her skin. Applying = foundation to a model's face is a very difficult craft. It acts on a person's face similarly to a PS mask over a picture. It should be applied so that discolorations, blemishes, greasier areas, all appear even under the = light conditions you're taking the picture in. High contrast make-up can be = very dramatic and beautiful but it will only work with a very strong direct = light facing the subject (sunset/sunrise or a key studio light placed in front = of the subject slightly above her/his eye line) to minimize shadows, or it = will work in very soft 'open-shadow' situations where the soft, even light = will render the contrast in the make-up softer. I have little experience with = the N Digital, I only tested it for a couple of days and found it to be 'imperfect' like all Contax products the first time out, but also with a strong personality due to the zeiss glass...lots of room for = improvement. I mostly shoot film, or Medium Format digital backs straight into a = Computer. I do play around with a bunch of prosumer Digital (Olympus 5050, Sony = etc etc) and other more professional cameras, generally speaking I find the contrast and the sharpness of these cameras (ALL DIGITAL CAMERAS = including Canon and Nikon Pro reflex digital) very annoying when in high contrast light situations involving a person and/or a model. I seem to find a = good compromise in setting those cameras at least to notches down both for sharpness and contrast. My philosophy is that it's much easier to add contrast and sharpness later in PS rather than dealing with shot blacks = and overexposed highlights etc etc A quick word about the general ongoing discussion about RAW against TFF and JPG. I think the choice is dictated = by the assignment (or the desired end result) rather than a technical race = to get the 'BIGGER BETTER FILE'. In the end, if you're only delivering 8X10 prints and you're using good light and good make-up, the highest = resolution JPG will do the job faster and with very similar results of RAW and TFF. = If you're shooting your 8X10 in terrible light conditions because you have = no choice and you can immediately tell your digital file will need lots of retouching later...than go RAW or TFF because it will allow you to = retouch more professionally. If you're shooting a big sky landscape and you'll = want to make gigantic prints of it...then TFF will be barely enough. Look at = it this way, digital, in the end, mimics film, so consider your JPGs like = 35mm negatives and your TFF like medium format negatives and choose = accordingly. I hope this helps. Thank You Luca Babini

 

[Guest]

Hi guys, Thanks all for sharing the info here.

I don't own a ND. But looking at test pictures "Lena", it appears to me that the lighting situation was just beyond the latitude of digital media and even film can capture. My experience with digital photography is that exposure is more critical than films. The ratio of high light and the shadow detail (zone III and zone VII in B&W negative) show keep within 4 or 3 1/2 stops when shooting digital. When I shoot negative or slide that required digital output (from scanning), I always keep the ratio issue in mind. And light my subject according.

Roger is right about using different technique when shooting negative, chrome, B&W. There is also true for Digital. Like most of the photographers, I have spent painful (or joyful) years to experiment films, papers, chemicals, development, printing, filters, lighting, metering, etc. Now, I am doing the same thing in Photoshop and printers, and try to enjoy the learning process.

 

[Guest]

Albert, you are absolutely right. CCDs and CMOS sensors on different cameras act in a way like different emulsions. I learned that Contax N Digital in its dynamic range and color reproduction is closer to reversal films, namely Fuji Astia or Agfa RSX 100, if you just develop a RAW file with default contrast and chroma settings at 16 bit per channel in Adobe RGB mode.