• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

1DS MKIII sample image

P

Paul Bestwick

pro member
This is a shot taken at a wedding on Saturday. I found a location with filtered light which was perfect for setting up a few family shots.
The detail is amazing.

1/200 sec @ f5.6. 24-70 2.8L 100 iso (no adjustments in ACR & no ps work)

1DSMK3a.jpg
 
B

Bart_van_der_Wolf

pro member
Paul Bestwick said:
The detail is amazing.
Click to expand...

Hi Paul,

It looks like you are having some 'serious fun' with the new workhorse. Talking about detail, I've seen many comments about the different/improved image qualities of the 1Ds3 on the various web fora and blogs regarding the AA-filter. Some state, without seroius testing, that the AA-filter is 'stronger', others state it is 'weaker', and anything in between.

Since you come across a lot of different types of fabric in your shots, like the groom's jacket in the image above, what is your impression about the sensitivity to moiré in practice sofar? Did it ever bite you in the past with your 1Ds2, and have you encountered it with the new camera?

Bart
 
nicolas claris

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Bart_van_der_Wolf said:
I've seen many comments about the different/improved image qualities of the 1Ds3 on the various web fora and blogs regarding the AA-filter. Some state, without seroius testing, that the AA-filter is 'stronger', others state it is 'weaker', and anything in between.
Click to expand...

Bonjour Bart

I think there is a main reason about all these differents comments we read or hear…

If we forget the photog skills, the lens and the conditions of shooting, in the real world the "problem" is the raw converter used. I have been really amazed by the superb quality of the incamera jpegs…

The RC that accepts the 1DS3 files, on Mac, are, by inverse order of good rendering:

LR
ACR
DPP
C1 beta2 (I really await for C1 pro 3.7.8 before the pro 4)
RAW Developer (very good for details) some problem with color, but I never used it before so…)
Sylkipix

There is a HUGE difference between all of these.
The good surprise is Sylkipix and RAW Developer (they do have a trial version)

I also 'tried to try' Bibble but had a magnificent crash when I tried to open it and got time to uninstall/reinstall
[EDIT] After having checked on Bibble website, Bibble 4.9 is not supporting (yet) the 1Ds3… [/EDIT]

I think there is still a lot of improvement, and certainly with moiré (which I haven't encountered yet).

Let's keep in mind that beside DPP the other companies haven't got a lot of time, for now, to develop their tool for the specific files of the 1Ds3 (I guess it is the same for the new Nikons)

So I suggest that any comments here about IQ do mention which raw converter were used.
I strongly beleive that there is a strong relationship between camera body/PPer/Raw Converter…
 
Last edited:
nicolas claris

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Hi Paul

May I suggest you, for your next shoot, to tell the bride not to wear sunglasses!

Seriously, it would be interesting to know what RC you used and if you could post some 100% crop of the flower and of some canvas so we can see if you got some moiré…

Thanks for sharing, no Europe sick?
 
R

Ralph Eisenberg

Member
Thanks Paul for posting the interesting sample.

Nicolas, your point is certainly well-taken (both in regard to the Raw converter used and the degree of experience with a specific converter) and it is worthwhile underscoring it once again as you do. I do think that DPP, if one forgets its workflow (that one would wish on one's worst enemy), should be able to eke out the detail of a 1Ds3 file, as heretofore it has been unsurprisingly recognized to do for Canon Raw files. (They do have inside information with respect to what's under the hood, at least I should hope so). Raw Developer also has had this reputation for 1Ds2 files. What is interesting are the results that you are getting with Sylkipix. I guess that we shall have to wait to evaluate this new camera until its files are fully supported by the major Raw converters and its users become more accustomed to the camera and the processing of its files.
 
J

Joseph A. Kurkjian

New member
Nicolas Claris said:
Bonjour Bart

I think there is a main reason about all these differents comments we read or hear…

If we forget the photog skills, the lens and the conditions of shooting, in the real world the "problem" is the raw converter used. I have been really amazed by the superb quality of the incamera jpegs…

The RC that accepts the 1DS3 files, on Mac, are, by inverse order of good rendering:

LR
ACR
DPP
C1 beta2 (I really await for C1 pro 3.7.8 before the pro 4)
RAW Developer (very good for details) some problem with color, but I never used it before so…)
Sylkipix

There is a HUGE difference between all of these.
The good surprise is Sylkipix and RAW Developer (they do have a trial version)

I also 'tried to try' Bibble but had a magnificent crash when I tried to open it and got time to uninstall/reinstall
[EDIT] After having checked on Bibble website, Bibble 4.9 is not supporting (yet) the 1Ds3… [/EDIT]

I think there is still a lot of improvement, and certainly with moiré (which I haven't encountered yet).

Let's keep in mind that beside DPP the other companies haven't got a lot of time, for now, to develop their tool for the specific files of the 1Ds3 (I guess it is the same for the new Nikons)

So I suggest that any comments here about IQ do mention which raw converter were used.
I strongly beleive that there is a strong relationship between camera body/PPer/Raw Converter…
Click to expand...

Hi Nicolas:

I've been using Silkypix for quite a while now (since RSP closed down) and have been extremely pleased with the detail extraction (which does not come at the expense of noise or moire), DR, and colors rendered by this RAW converter. My Silkypix experience (split 50-50) is limited to landscapes and wildlife (I don't shoot humans) . I should point out that I shoot a lot of feathers and good detail extraction MINUS moire artifacts is very important to me. Also, I should mention that it doesn't matter if the files were created by my 10D, 30D, 40D, or 1DmkII, Silkypix simply comes through with a great job for the genre I shoot.

My question(s) to you is how does Silkypix perform when rendering pictures of human skin? Are the colors accurate, warm, cold, or what? Note, if anybody else (e.g. portrait photographers) can contribute with answers to my question please don't hold back, the more input the better it is for all of us. Oh, here is another question - did you (or anybody else) feel "forced" to use the Fine Color Controller to get accurate human skin tones? Thanks in advance for your response.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian
 
J

Joseph A. Kurkjian

New member
Paul Bestwick said:
This is a shot taken at a wedding on Saturday. I found a location with filtered light which was perfect for setting up a few family shots.
The detail is amazing.

1/200 sec @ f5.6. 24-70 2.8L 100 iso (no adjustments in ACR & no ps work)
Click to expand...

Paul, very nice looking colors on that shot. Thanks for showing that example. Do you have any plans to demonstrate a comparison between the 1DsIII, 1DsII, and 1DIII?

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian
 
nicolas claris

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Joseph A. Kurkjian said:
My question(s) to you is how does Silkypix perform when rendering pictures of human skin? Are the colors accurate, warm, cold, or what? Note, if anybody else (e.g. portrait photographers) can contribute with answers to my question please don't hold back, the more input the better it is for all of us. Oh, here is another question - did you (or anybody else) feel "forced" to use the Fine Color Controller to get accurate human skin tones? Thanks in advance for your response.
Click to expand...

Hi Joe

unfortunately, I don't shoot very much people…
I only can say that on some trial shots with the Ds3, faces (not portrait) looked less red than with the previous 1DS (and 1Ds2)… So your second question is not for me!

I have just start to learn the Sylkypix workflow, to find all the precise tunnings, so I'm not the best guy to answer you about the software.

I can only confirm after trials/tests of shots done for real assignements (industrial environment) that the files from 1Ds3 are stunning, lot of details in highlights and shadows (in the midtone to ;-).
200 ISO is noise free, in fact I discovered that working with this files requires (with all RCs) to set noise reduction (luminance and color) to 0 (ZERO) instead of 'default' and then tweak for noise. Otherwise you'll get the plastic look of files with too much noise reduction.
 
J

John_Nevill

New member
Hi Joe,

Nice to see you on OPF.

Your probably aware that I'm a resident Silkypix advocate (off topic, sorry Asher).

I've written an ebook and have just finalised a suite of 11 classic tastes emulating Aged Photo, Antique, Antique Light, Burnt Sepia, B&W High Contrast, Cold Tone, Cross Processed Agfa, Cross Processed Kodak, Polachrome, Cyanotype and Selenium.

Its funny, Pentax users seem to love Silkypix, yet others prefer LR (ACR) C1 etc.

As for skin tones, it has a flattering appeal, very true colours but unfortunately I find that the skin tone picker errs toward well-tanned skin tones.

I'd also be interested to see some 1DsMkIII outputs.
 
R

Ralph Eisenberg

Member
The question of skin tones with the 1Ds3 is also of interest to me. But I should also be interested to learn whether users who have made the upgrade from the 1Ds2 feel that for a broad range of shooting conditions and subjects it is an unquestionably worthwhile upgrade.
 
nicolas claris

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Ralph Eisenberg said:
The question of skin tones with the 1Ds3 is also of interest to me. But I should also be interested to learn whether users who have made the upgrade from the 1Ds2 feel that for a broad range of shooting conditions and subjects it is an unquestionably worthwhile upgrade.
Click to expand...

If you can afford it, buy it !
 
J

Joseph A. Kurkjian

New member
John_Nevill said:
Hi Joe,

Your probably aware that I'm a resident Silkypix advocate (off topic, sorry Asher).
Click to expand...

Hi John:

No, I was not aware of that. Because of your past work (EOSPIX profiles) it's nice to know an expert, and a discerning one at that, likes the same RAW converter I prefer (nice warm feeling all over). :)

FWIW I've done a few RAW converter comparisons (detail extraction versus noise) that you may be interested in (refer to the link below).

http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia/raw_detail_extraction_vs_noise

Let me know if any of my comparisons can be of help to you regarding the e-book; you are more than welcome to anything you want including the RAW files for my examples.

Joe
 
Last edited:
J

Joseph A. Kurkjian

New member
Nicolas Claris said:
Hi Joe

unfortunately, I don't shoot very much people…
I only can say that on some trial shots with the Ds3, faces (not portrait) looked less red than with the previous 1DS (and 1Ds2)… So your second question is not for me!

I have just start to learn the Sylkypix workflow, to find all the precise tunnings, so I'm not the best guy to answer you about the software.

I can only confirm after trials/tests of shots done for real assignements (industrial environment) that the files from 1Ds3 are stunning, lot of details in highlights and shadows (in the midtone to ;-).
200 ISO is noise free, in fact I discovered that working with this files requires (with all RCs) to set noise reduction (luminance and color) to 0 (ZERO) instead of 'default' and then tweak for noise. Otherwise you'll get the plastic look of files with too much noise reduction.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback Nicolas!

Joe
 
P

Paul Bestwick

pro member
Hi guys,

Joseph, I don't have the time or patience to do shots on the 3 cameras for comparison. My method is to post a shot here & there that takes my fancy & let you guys judge the shot on its merit. Having said that, I always take an interest in what the more technically inclined users have to say.

Ralph I reckon the upgrade is worthwhile. Canon stated with the MK3 release that it was a new system from the ground up. The idea of D!gic 3 processing, 14 bit colour, large screen, self cleaning had me sold.

In addition to that, the menu system & the controls are more to my liking. A few extra MP's was no real attraction given that I was already shooting with the 1DS MK2, & that was more than sufficient.
The only upgrade I regret was when I moved from my D30 to D60. I never saw much of an increase in the quality of the results I was getting.
 
C

Cory Silken

pro member
Nicolas Claris said:
If you can afford it, buy it !
Click to expand...

That's good to hear! So are the Mark III photos more detailed than from the Mark II when you're hanging out the door of a helicopter flying sideways at 25kts, shooting a magayacht from 60 feet off the water with an 85mm at 1/15th at 1.2 at ISO1600 after sunset? And is the lighter weight noticeable when you've got one with a wide angle hanging around your neck, and you're shooting handheld with another with a 400mm on a 30' RIB in 30kts of breeze in a hail squall in Cannes?

In all seriousness now, Nicolas, have you taken any boat pictures with it yet? I'm interested to see the difference in fine details such as rigging, as well as how the 14 bits might make my sepia conversions cleaner.
 
nicolas claris

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Hi Cory
No not yet, two assignements (in Antigua) have been postponed to January or February due to some technical problems on both boats…
But as far as I have tried it yet with industrial shots, yes details are there… as for Sepia, can't tell, you know that's not my piece of cake (or my cup of tea?);-)

Hope to see you in March, we're coming around NYC and a wide tour around (wide to be taken as the European mean of it = small in US;-)

Are you down South right now or up under the ice?
 
R

Ralph Eisenberg

Member
Paul Bestwick said:
Hi guys,
Ralph I reckon the upgrade is worthwhile. Canon stated with the MK3 release that it was a new system from the ground up. The idea of D!gic 3 processing, 14 bit colour, large screen, self cleaning had me sold.
.
Click to expand...

Thanks Paul and Nicolas for your replies. But in actuality are you, for instance, seeing these enhancements expressed in the way the camera handles tonal and color gradations? Has there been an effective real-world improvement in the AWB (even for those who shoot in Raw as I do, it is nice to know that you are in the appropriate color ballpark)? Do you like the files that you are getting out of the camera for your respective uses? or, while liking them, sigh with all the PP that awaits you.
 
nicolas claris

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Bonjour ralph
I think I wrote it already, but yes the quality is there, for me the in camera WB is verygood, for now the PP needed is a lot of trials to test the best RC -for now-.

Today I have intensively worked on the same file (industrial shot made last week) with:
Bibble (still abeta but very stable)
C1B4.2
Bibble
Sylkipix
ACR
The problem is that they all have some advantage over the other one, but never for the same reason!

The WB is almost the same in everyone (except C1 that, already said, you have to set manually)

CIB4.2 handles highlight recovery and CA almost perfectly
Bibble extract the best details/gradient ratio
Sylkipix very slightly behind the 2 others…
ACR way behind…

Now I suggest, as you are in Paris to try to get one for a test, even just shoot the Canon guy an the workshop… and go back to the office for your own tests!
 
R

Ralph Eisenberg

Member
Nicolas Claris said:
Bonjour ralph

Now I suggest, as you are in Paris to try to get one for a test, even just shoot the Canon guy an the workshop… and go back to the office for your own tests!
Click to expand...

Bonjour Nicolas,

Meilleurs voeux pour les fêtes!!
It is always better to have good shooters like Paul and yourself do the testing !!! And besides, you know how the story ends when one has a fine camera in hand.... the hand goes to the pocket and the pocket has too many holes in it already.
 
nicolas claris

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
This was yesterday, tonight, Capture One 4 has been launched, and beleive me, they've done a very good job!
Perfect WB, handles DNG etc…

CI 4 is now on top of my list…

Nicolas Claris said:
Today I have intensively worked on the same file (industrial shot made last week) with:
Bibble (still abeta but very stable)
C1B4.2
Bibble
Sylkipix
ACR
The problem is that they all have some advantage over the other one, but never for the same reason!

The WB is almost the same in everyone (except C1 that, already said, you have to set manually)

CIB4.2 handles highlight recovery and CA almost perfectly
Bibble extract the best details/gradient ratio
Sylkipix very slightly behind the 2 others…
ACR way behind…
Click to expand...

[EDIT]I have no relation with Phaseone just being a user of the software for longtime, to be honest, I may say that I know earlier versions and V4 beta quite well and it is easier for me to immediately find the right settings that fit my tastes and needs.

I wish to add that Sylkipix and Bibble do very good job too, just a little under for MY taste, it may be different for others…[/EDIT]
 
R

Ralph Eisenberg

Member
Very good news. Do you miss Magne's profiles?? I have found that they appear to make a difference with 1Ds2 files in Capture One 4.

A bit brain dead here. It took a while for me to register the wisdom of your remark about stuffing sea-urchins preventively in one's pocket. Great advice.
 
B

Bart_van_der_Wolf

pro member
Nicolas Claris said:
CIB4.2 handles highlight recovery and CA almost perfectly
Click to expand...

While you probably base your evaluation on your 1Ds3 (or did you revisit some previous 1Ds2 Raws?), I find that the highlight 'recovery' (pulling exposure) renders pink highlights on my 1Ds2 conversions.

I'm much less impressed about that, compared to ACR4's performance in keeping a neutral tone, which is phenomenal. ACR4 highlight recovery does make the highlights murky, and CO4 (official release) adjusts tonality in a more pleasing way (but doesn't change the pink much).

Overall (automatic) CA reduction works fine, but when CA becomes too much, one is stuck with colored edges. I'd have prefered to have manual control over the degree of reduction, even if only for damage control in bad cases, now I'm forced to also use another tool to tackle it.

Bart
 
nicolas claris

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Hi Bart
The highlight recovery is a bit "tricky" in C1 4
You have to balance beewteen Highlight slider and exposure slider (to down) to find the right setting to avoid that pink color (it does exist too in C1 3.7)

I agree on CA reduction (auto) but for the same pic between all RCs I tested, C1 delivers the best result… (check it with the last Ds3 file I did send you)
 
R

Ralph Eisenberg

Member
Using Capture One 4 on 1Ds2 files, I haven't been bedeviled by the problem you mention of a color cast to the highlights following highlight recovery. I also have found that Magne's Lo Sat profile works much better than the generic, and gives a broader dynamic range. They seem to have jacked up the tone curve for some reason in this version, with the result that you get Highlight and Shadow clipping warnings that do not appear in C1 Pro v3.7.7 for the same file. I hope the new Pro version will have little resemblance to the Lt version, and that it will finally be graced with a true point-Curves tool comparable to that obtaining in ACR 4, which allows you to surmount the murkiness of the otherwise excellent highlight recovery in that converter. My .02
 
nicolas claris

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Did I say
The highlight recovery is a bit "tricky" in C1 4
Click to expand...
?

One must be very, very carefull on what tool (exposure/HDR/levels/curve and combination of the above to achive the best results… Here, one must have an eye on the histogram and the other eye on the image…

We have there a very powerfull -hence 'dangerous'- tool…
 
B

Bart_van_der_Wolf

pro member
Ralph Eisenberg said:
Using Capture One 4 on 1Ds2 files, I haven't been bedeviled by the problem you mention of a color cast to the highlights following highlight recovery.
Click to expand...

This is what I'm talking about (1Ds2 Raws), seems hard to miss:
CaptureOne V.4.0
5653-6_CO40_Crop.jpg


Adobe Camera Raw V.4.31
5653-6_ACR431_Crop.jpg


The image crop on the left was marginally underexposed (2 sec. f/9), and the crop at the right was overexposed (5 sec. f/9), as two exposures in a 7 exposure bracketed HDR sequence. The only difference between the left/right crops is Exposure correction in Raw conversion. In C1-4 it didn't matter if I used the Dynamic Range Highlight adjustment, it only changed tonality, not color.

Also notice the insufficient auto CA correction in C1-4 resulting in green residual fringes, whereas ACR had no problem in removing them from the same Raw files. The problem with C1-4 is that the CA is partially corrected, so subsequent processing will not be able to remove the green fringes without showing red fringes. If it had been possible to deactivate or control CA reduction manually, then it could have been reduced in other software.

Bart
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top