Challenge: First 1D Mark III Headshot, add yours!

[John Maio]

Nothing too remarkable about this business headshot of an Associate Professor at the University of New Mexico - EXCEPT- that its my first session with with the new Canon 1D Mark III. Color match is very accurate. This is going to be a great tool for me!


http://www.johnmaiophotography.com/1D3headshot.jpg

[Asher Kelman]

Thanks John! Pretty damn good.

Was this a jpg out of the camera?

Also was there any moiré issue with the tie?

Asher

[Klaus Esser]

Hi John!

The picture looks obviously unsharp . . i can´t see if it´s motion-blurr or focus-blurr, the picture is too small.
But it´s a blurr . .
Maybe you used two strobs which had a very little delay? Looks a bit like two layers which doesn´t match exactly!

best, Klaus

[Asher Kelman]

Klaus, maybe, maybe not!

John just posted for fun! I'm sure we'll get more from him!

Also this is the first session with the camera!

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

Maybe, maybe not, Klaus!

Looks O.K. to me! It's the very first session. I just like the idea that we can get 1DIII images at last! There will be more!

Asher

[Klaus Esser]

"There will be more!"

Yes - please! I´m curious!

best, Klaus

[MArk Le]

we have a real life sample of what this new camera can do in studio.
thank you so much, while I like what I see in terms of pure resolution. I need to replace my 4 years old 1Ds and I was actually looking for a feedback like yours.
Please keep us posted ..

[John Maio]

Thanks John! Pretty damn good.

Was this a jpg out of the camera?

Also was there any moiré issue with the tie?

Asher

It was shot in RAW, converted in DPP and touched up in PSCS3 and converted (crushed is a better term) to JPG

No moiré issues that I could see.

[John Maio]

Hi John!

The picture looks obviously unsharp . . i can´t see if it´s motion-blurr or focus-blurr, the picture is too small.
But it´s a blurr . .
Maybe you used two strobs which had a very little delay? Looks a bit like two layers which doesn´t match exactly!

best, Klaus

I'm not at all sure what you are seeing.

[Paul Bestwick]

John,

thanks for posting................I like what I am seeing here.....wow.

Cheers,

Paul

[Asher Kelman]

Klaus,

You may have a monitor or software glitch somewhere. I can't find any evidence of layers! The file is perfect opened in Mac OS X Preview or iveiwmedia Pro (or CS2 via iview) on my MacBookPro.

There is no evidence of any double effect or layers. Good hair detail, great eyes, fine portrait!

Looking for more like this!

Asher


(For some reason, totally beyond my understanding, the perfectly good image in OPF in Safari becomes hypersaturated when opened directly in CS2! The image is in RGB. However which RGB it is I don't know! After simple adjustment, it is identical to the clean look in Safari and OS X Preview or iViewmedia Pro. Now I have to figure out why bringing it into CS2 directly makes it hypersaturated. Bringing into CS2 via Iviewmedia Pro is no problem, the image is perfect and is now in sRGB color space! !)

[KrisCarnmarker]

I see the same thing as Klaus. There is blur particularly on the professor's right side. Most prominently around the outer edge of his right eye.

[Ray West]

The image is only 87k - there is bound to be loss of detail, jpeg artifacts, etc. It is converted to adobe rgb, afaik, but the profile is not embedded. so when cs2 opens it, it will default to whatever it defaults to. If you save the file, then when it asks to assign the profile, and you set it to adobe rgb, it comes up colour true.

I'm guessing that the original image is just fine, I don't think John would have posted that he was pleased with it, if it wasn't. Maybe we can all get a bit of 'raw eye', to pixel peep?

Best wishes,

Ray

[John Maio]

Ok, so listen up my fellow pixel peepers ;-)

The Professor (a Persian man) chose the images he (and his wife) liked best for finishing. While the first sample above was RAW converted in Canon's DPP, the ones below were done in C1-Pro (my standard) V3.7.7 which only has PRELIMINARY support for the EOS 1D Mark III. V3.7.8 will have full support)

http://www.johnmaiophotography.biz/p_zarkesh-ha017_no_retouch.jpg

And this version has some light retouch (including airbrushing) applied:

http://www.johnmaiophotography.biz/p_zarkesh-ha017.jpg

Both are max JPG conversions so as to reduce any artifacts. I do hope you can see the details better.

NOTE: I CANNOT SEEM TO MAKE THESE LINKS WORK THROUGH THE FORUM - QUITE POSSIBLY BECAUSE THE IMAGES ARE TOO LARGE. SO GO TO MY SOFT PROOFING WEBSITE, WWW.JOHNMAIOPHOTOGRAPHY.BIZ AND PASTE JUST THE IMAGE NUMBERS ABOVE IN MANUALLY, RIGHT AFTER THE MAIN PAGE URL ON YOUR BROWSER. IF THIS IS A BIG ISSUE, I CAN ADD YouSendIt LINKS LATER ON.

NO RETOUCH = p_zarkesh-ha017_no_retouch.jpg

LIGHT RETOUCH = p_zarkesh-ha017.jpg

Its proably worth the extra hassle because then you can see much better what the 1D3 is capable of.

I JUST FOUND A BETTER TRICK (AT LEAST USING MY FIREFOX BROWSER) :

WHEN I CLICK ON THE FULL URL EX:
http://www.johnmaiophotography.biz/p_zarkesh-ha017_no_retouch.jpg

This forum says "Forbidden - blah blah - but if I just put my cursor in the browser's URL bar and hit enter again, it takes me where I want to go. Try it and let me know..

John

[Paul Bestwick]

OK.......I am going to repeat myself. Let the record state that I have said before & I will say it again...This camera is going to exceed the expectations of many. I firmly believe, even at this late stage that most observers have underestimated the potential of this device.
I have come so close to slapping the bucks down for one myself & if I had not been using 1DS series bodies for the last 4 years I would have already...............Seems like the 1DS MKIII will be announced in September. I reckon I will wait till then. In the interim. I am looking forward to seeing some awesome images out of the 1DMK III

Cheers,

Paul

[Klaus Esser]

"You may have a monitor or software glitch somewhere."

definitely not - i´m doing all my work as an professional advertising photographer (working with digital backs of 39MPx very often - Leaf and PhaseOne - and scanning my analogues on a drumscanner) with a carefully calibrated Apple 23" CinemaDisplay and a Quato TwoPageProfessional CRT which is also hardware-calibrated and is the final control.
They´re very sharp and reliable and i see sharp pictures sharp ;-) - proofing is no problem with this
configuration.

I guess it´s a downsizing-fault.

P.S.: Asher - i didn´t realize it was you, i´m answering at . . . you knew already :-) :-)

best, Klaus

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I'm not at all sure what you are seeing.

It is probably due to the down-sampling for the Web.

Bart

[Jörgen Nyberg]

Ditto, Klaus and Kris, looks like two layers misaligned or as severe camera shake. Could it be a DPI question? I use 1680 x 1050 on a 21 inch.

On the upside, the fullsize you linked to John, look excellent :-)

[Klaus Esser]

"or as severe camera shake"

yeah - could be a mirror-shaking also. That would mean, he used continouos light or had a long enough exposure-time with strobes so that the focusing-light of the flash-heads were involved.

What kind of lights did you use, John?

best, Klaus

[Ray West]

There are jpeg artefacts on the first large image I see, so there are bound to be on the smaller one first posted. I see no other blur, shake, double images, or whatever. The models rhs shoulder is slightly oof, and is more grey than his lhs shoulder. The jpeg conversion, on his lhs, higher contrast, gives a distinct halo (white sharpening type) effect. The other side, since the contrast is less, just makes it look blurred.

It seems to be a mighty fine camera, for what a lot of people want. Pixel peeping any jpeg image is not much use in assessing anything, other than the jpeg algorithm.

Best wishes,

Ray

[John Maio]

Ditto, Klaus and Kris, looks like two layers misaligned or as severe camera shake. Could it be a DPI question? I use 1680 x 1050 on a 21 inch.

On the upside, the fullsize you linked to John, look excellent :-)

So please then, restrict your comments to the fullsize links.

The image was made using 4 studio strobes, 1 key, 1 fill, 1 hairlight and 1 background light - all triggered by pocket wizards at 1/200 X-synch, ISO 125. f 8.0.

The bottom line is that my client is very satisfied even if some of the critics here aren't

NEWSFLASH: Adobe has just released Camera Raw 4.1 which, among other improvements, now fully supports the EOS 1D Mark III

[Klaus Esser]

"The image was made using 4 studio strobes, 1 key, 1 fill, 1 hairlight and 1 background light - all triggered by pocket wizards at 1/200 X-synch, ISO 125. f 8.0."

Sorry for my insiting in that point, John - that´s an interresting issue. How long did you exposure?
Could there be a slight delay between flash-firing your 4 heads? What brand of strobes did you use?
how much focussing-light do they have?
Cause i´m using studio-strobes, i don´t know those pockt wizards - what´s that?

It´s fine, your client is satisfied . . but there indeed is something irritating. Ok: i´m extremely critical - but it seems not only me seeing it. I´m curious about the technical reason behind. Please, don´t see it as critisizing your picture - it´s just technical, not aesthetical.

best, Klaus

[Asher Kelman]

John,

Sorry there are are hyper pixel peeping guys, but we all really appreciate so much your sharing and want more! It's only because this is the very first portrait we see from the 1DIII. Since we have pros here, they want to know that obsessional bit more to help understand the camera.

One of the best wedding photographers in San Francisco did a shoot that everyone admired. I was looking at the loss of detail in the bride's veil due to over exposure! It peeved me! However, the pictures are superb.

Don't be put off, just give us more. We are hungry!

Asher

[Paul Bestwick]

Here is a buisness portrait i took a week ago. This is on the 1DSMKII. I am posting this for the purpose of comparison, it is the same resolution as the op's image. I hope this may prove useful.

http://www.studio58.com.au/opm/alex%20mackelden.jpg

Cheers,

Paul

[Asher Kelman]

Paul,

That is a nice 1DII shot and good to see following John's 1DIII shot. Thanks for the effort and for sharing.

At the resolution shown, its hard to actually make a comparison except for color and dynamic range unless 100% crops are provide of the suit, skin eyes and hair or else 11x14 or 16x20 prints are made.

I'd wager that a well exposed picture taken with a Canon XTi or a Pentax 10D would look equally impressive at this size.

Of course, the 1DIII has to perform in this circumstance.

However, the tougher test is in an active fashion/runway shoot or in sport and news photography.

So while these pictures are so essential for understanding what the camera can achieve, we need a lot more pictures and 100% samples. CR2 files would be a blessing. Let me know if anyone can contribute them for our RawImage Bank.

Asher

[Cem_Usakligil]

...I'd wager that a well exposed picture taken with a Canon XTi or a Pentax 10D would look equally impressive at this size.
...
I agree fully! Although, the list might be somewhat extended to include amongst others the Nikon D80, D200, etc <grin>

Cheers,

[Klaus Esser]

I agree fully! Although, the list might be somewhat extended to include amongst others the Nikon D80, D200, etc <grin>

Cheers,

Hi!

Well, i tested the 1DMkIII at a job on monday. It´s fast and it´s good - no question. But it´s not full-frame . . . and therefore related to the price, i´d prefer a 5D.
Compared to a Nikon D2x i would prefer the D2x for people-/fashion-shots.

In my eyes the 1DMkIII is an exellent camera for journalism and sports. As an advertising guy i prefer fullframes and digi-backs, but also did a lot of jobs with the D2x - that´s because of my preference for Nikon-lenses. Up to A4+, the D2x is absolutely exellent. For A3 it has to be at least 16MPx.

Up to A4, a 20D does it very well - related to the price perfectly, when a Nikon-lens is mounted.

But - honestly: an 1D series feels much better, is very sturdy and reliable. No question.

best, Klaus

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

"The image was made using 4 studio strobes, 1 key, 1 fill, 1 hairlight and 1 background light - all triggered by pocket wizards at 1/200 X-synch, ISO 125. f 8.0."

Sorry for my insiting in that point, John - that´s an interresting issue. How long did you exposure?

He exposed at 1/200th sec. f/8.0 OSO 125. That would require pretty strong/close modelling lights to achieve a meaningful exposure, and some strobes even switch off the modeling lights at the moment of exposure. He synchronized the 4 (mono?)heads with radio-controlled PocketWizards (http://www.pocketwizard.com/) (which are faster than the X-sync time, and they fire the heads at the same (1/2000th sec after releasing) moment).

I´m curious about the technical reason behind. Please, don´t see it as critisizing your picture - it´s just technical, not aesthetical.

I don't see it, although the small samples presumably did suffer from down-sampling losses. That would just take some sharpening to fix.

Bart

[MArk Le]

Here is a buisness portrait i took a week ago. This is on the 1DSMKII. I am posting this for the purpose of comparison, it is the same resolution as the op's image. I hope this may prove useful.

http://www.studio58.com.au/opm/alex%20mackelden.jpg

Cheers,

Paul

Paul,
beside the lighting (which is very very good) I believe that your shot was cropped (to 8x10?)... or even more :)

I seriously doubt that this new 1DIII will compete with a 1DsII in terms of pure resolution. Maybe will compete with the classic 1Ds (that I use) but again there is the "pixels happy with lots of room" concept in effect there to win, and it won't be that easy ...

LOL

[Paul Bestwick]

hey Mark,

yea, that is what I am looking for, a bit of commentary comparing those particular units. I wondered, actually I believed the 1DMKlll would challenge the 1SDMKll. If I am wrong, then I wait for the 1DSMKlll. Either way, my current unit will make a nice backup. Seriously though, this new body looks to be very good. I reckon it will be the biggest selling pro Dslr to date.
(yea I cropped the image to match the op's)
Cheers,

Paul

[Klaus Esser]

"I don't see it, although the small samples presumably did suffer from down-sampling losses. That would just take some sharpening to fix."

I tried a sharpener - besides usm, i used FocusMagic´s "focus blurr" and "motion blurr" (convolution-sharpener). It gets sharper - but there still is some irritation. Maybe, it´s really a downsizing issue.

best, Klaus

[Klaus Esser]

Hi Ray!

Honestly: i´m absolutely no "pixel-peeper"! To me it doesn´t matter if an image is sharp or not - if it´s a good photograph.
But when it come to new cameras or lenses, a close and critical look at it under pure technical aspects seems just logical to me :-) .

best, Klaus

[Paul Bestwick]

Klaus I am with you on that call. I, like you am no pixel peeper..........no dust whinger either. But yes, I think minute examination of a new tool is essential. Put it under the microscope. Subject it to the most intense going over. Get the frickin hubble on the sucker. This is one time I am going to pay some serious attention to those chart shooting, aperture analyzing, shutter sequencing, curves calculating, levels leveraging types.


Cheers,

Paul

[Asher Kelman]

"I don't see it, although the small samples presumably did suffer from down-sampling losses. That would just take some sharpening to fix."

I tried a sharpener - besides usm, i used FocusMagic´s "focus blurr" and "motion blurr" (convolution-sharpener). It gets sharper - but there still is some irritation. Maybe, it´s really a downsizing issue.

best, Klaus

Klaus,

Are you looking at the consequence of a less effective anti-aliasing filter?

Asher

[Klaus Esser]

"Are you looking at the consequence of a less effective anti-aliasing filter?"

what could it mean "less effective"? Either it works fine or not. If it doesn´t work fine, it´s useless. If it works fine, you don´t realize the filter. . . . :-)

An AA-filter, which cost resolution definitely IS useless.
An AA-filter, which smears details definitely IS useless too.

An AA-filter, that is effective doesn´t cost visible resolution nor does it smear details or produces artifacts.

It really is that simple . . . ;-) in my eyes, the best AA-filter is the one, you don´t need.

best, Klaus

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Either it works fine or not.

The effect is a trade-off between losing effective resolution or losing artifacts. There are design choices involved, and they are all not perfect.

An AA-filter, that is effective doesn´t cost visible resolution nor does it smear details or produces artifacts.

Unfortunately, the design of an AA-filter is a no-win proposition. One reason is that the green filtered sensels take more samples than the red and blue filtered ones. Therefore Red and Blue need a stronger AA-filter than Green, but we only have one (compromise) for all.

The most important reason is that in order to eliminate all aliasing risk, the filter needs to be so strong that we'd lose say half of the effective resolution of the Red and Blue or close to 1 quarter of the sampling resolution. Instead we now only lose a few percent in luminance resolution, but also don't eliminate all aliasing. Sad but true.

Bart

[Asher Kelman]

I'm looking forward to more portraits with a link to download a RAW image if that's O.K. with the client!

Let's see what is possible!

If Benjamin can make th Pentax K10 shine, let's push the 1DIII too!

Asher