Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > Digital Camera Discussion > Medium Format & Large Format Cameras > Shooting with a Pentax 645 D MF camera

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 25th, 2012, 10:45 AM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bordeaux
Posts: 5,772
Default Handheld, long focal, comparison between 5D Mk2 and Pentax 645D

As Asher as requested* here a handheld comparison, shooting flags on shore with long length with full frame DSLR and the MF Pentax 645 D, here we are, just hot shots…
Distance from camera to flags = 90 mètres / 296 feet.
All raw files edited in Lightroom 4.1 with nearly same settings. I tried to get them as close as possible to my taste, forgetting wich camera did shoot ; )

* Asher's requests are almost orders! ; )

A comparison between:
Canon EOS 5D Mark II - EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM @ 200 mm - 1/1000s - ƒ8 - ISO 200
and
PENTAX 645D - smc PENTAX-FA*645 300mm F4 ED [IF] (24x36 = 236 mm) - 1/1000s - ƒ8 - ISO 200





CROPS at 100% (Canon 1st, Pentax below each crop)




__________________
WEBSITE - FACEBOOK - INSTAGRAM
Please do no repost my images elsewhere than OPF without my permission.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old August 25th, 2012, 10:46 AM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bordeaux
Posts: 5,772
Default

CROPS at 100% (Canon 1st, Pentax below each crop)








__________________
WEBSITE - FACEBOOK - INSTAGRAM
Please do no repost my images elsewhere than OPF without my permission.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old August 25th, 2012, 10:46 AM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bordeaux
Posts: 5,772
Default

CROPS at 100% (Canon 1st, Pentax below each crop)








Of course the Pentax, at same aperture has less DOF, but look at that bokey! (and that's an even better advantage if you think about it)
__________________
WEBSITE - FACEBOOK - INSTAGRAM
Please do no repost my images elsewhere than OPF without my permission.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old August 25th, 2012, 08:02 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas Claris View Post
CROPS at 100% (Canon 1st, Pentax below each crop)









My dear friend Nicolas,

I'm so happy that you took up the challenge and help us with a real life comparison of the Pentax 645D and the Canon 5DII. The latter is a particularly good frame of reference, (for "yours truly", as I use one all the time. I notice the inside of the lamp housing in the Pentax is so well drawn in the Pentax and one not only sees the surface so much more clearly but also it conveys a sense of the material of the surface so it looks much more realistic and demanding of attention. In comparison, the rendering by the 5DII, although small is really just a swell done sketch and lacks the extra life.

That's my impression so far. Of course, one could use a Gretag MacBeth color card and correct each one to that for color, as they each deal with color differently. Still, I doubt that that correction would make any real difference! Perhaps the 5D III or the 1DX could stand a better chance!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old August 26th, 2012, 03:16 AM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bordeaux
Posts: 5,772
Default

Thanks Asher
I don't have a 5D III nor the 1DX (and do not foresee to buy any of them…)

Yes the colors are different, so is the auto WB from the Canon and the Pentax.
I have noticed that the Pentax has, in daylight, a cooler WB than the Canon.
But you see this only when doing comparison or while shooting with both camera the same event.

Another point, I have forgotten to say that, for this comparison, the focus has been set on the orange flag.
__________________
WEBSITE - FACEBOOK - INSTAGRAM
Please do no repost my images elsewhere than OPF without my permission.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old August 26th, 2012, 11:01 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas Claris View Post
As Asher as requested* here a handheld comparison, shooting flags on shore with long length with full frame DSLR and the MF Pentax 645 D, here we are, just hot shots…
Distance from camera to flags = 90 mètres / 296 feet.
All raw files edited in Lightroom 4.1 with nearly same settings. I tried to get them as close as possible to my taste, forgetting wich camera did shoot ; )

* Asher's requests are almost orders! ; )
A comparison between:
Canon EOS 5D Mark II - EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM @ 200 mm - 1/1000s - ƒ8 - ISO 200
and
PENTAX 645D - smc PENTAX-FA*645 300mm F4 ED [IF] (24x36 = 236 mm) - 1/1000s - ƒ8 - ISO 200






Nicolas,

It was so easy for me to challenge you but far more difficult to work on the result as they are all great! I'll tackle this first set. Hopefully other comments will follow!! :)

The most obvious differences relate to the larger format effect of the Pentax 645D at the relatively open aperture of f 8.0. Here, we have to choose what we value. For landscape images, we might really want to have the trees in the background very sharp with the form and colors perfectly drawn. So immediately, the Canon at 8.0 would do a far better job in the 35mm format. In fact, at any smaller aperture for the Canon lens, would lead to image degradation because of the tiny 5DII sensel size would show and define diffraction artifacts from the edges of the relatively tiny lens aperture.

OTOH, for isolating important subject matter, throwing the background out of focus with a pleasant blur is an advantage. So with the Pentax 645D, even at f8.0, the foreground flag is brought out so much more clearly against this softer background. That's an advantage for isolating a subject, especially in portrait. If one wants the same clarity of the background to appear, then one has to stop down considerably. I'd imagine that f22 would be about right. But then, one would have to push the ISO to 800 for the Pentax 645D which might mean noise reduction. However, likely as not, that would be accomplished with no degradation of the image.

For me, with a consideration of shooting portraits, the soft background of the Pentax 645D images is very pleasant. If one looks at the gaps in the leaves of the trees, there's a soft halo artifact. It's not jarring and doesn't degrade the photograph in any way, from my point of view. Still, one has to recognize that this edge effect is present. Could it be a jpg artifact? That I doubt too. Now one could describe that as painterly and desirable. Or perhaps it's a jog artifact, but that I doubt. It is almost as if the leaves are acting as a secondary aperture and we are getting artifacts.

Overall, at the chosen aperture of f8, the entire image, is obviously more satisfactory as a picture postcard from the 5D mark II, as everything is rendered well. However, that's not the subject of the test! Here it's just the flag and that's where the Pentax does an especially fine job, to be addressed in the following post.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old August 26th, 2012, 11:18 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,790
Default

The appearance of the flags! This is where both cameras were focused!



Obviously both images are stunningly sharp and the colors are vivid and there's great contrast and detail. There are no obvious disappointments! Of course, the Pentax 645D is larger and naturally more impressive. But there's something else at work. The pictures have a different aura to them, don't you agree.






Nicolas Claris: CROPS at 100% (Canon 1st, Pentax below each crop)


Bart knows more than I do about the math and science of human perception of images, but here's my best guess. What the MF Pentax 300 MM FA lens is doing here is to provide a gradient of planes of focus, where the parts of the flag in front of and behind the sharpest plane are less sharp by a subtle but really significant amount, enough to signal to the brain difference in depth. So this might be what we can appreciate in sensing something different in the MF imaging of the flag. It seems to be more dimensional. I am surpassed to see this effect, and if it does indeed come from the subtle difference in focus, then it's still very different from the major jump in drawing the detailed flag as a whole and the soft background.


So does anyone else agree that the flag seems more real and has more presence in the Pentax picture? Or is this just my idiosyncratic impression? Anyway, perhaps we might also see this effect with the Canon 5DII using f2.8. If so, then we are indeed looking at an effect of the planes of focus getting softer either side of the shapes plane in the flag.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old August 26th, 2012, 01:34 PM
Michael Nagel Michael Nagel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich/Germany
Posts: 2,289
Default

Asher,

The comparison is interesting, but the relative size of the sensors is IMHO a little bit unfair as you must account for difference in DoF and the (presumed) advantage in tonal nuances for the MF camera in this case.

The final outcome for Nicolas is a picture - according to his standards.
The question for him is AFAIK the usability of the camera and the available lenses.

The 645D has - for me - an edge compared to the Canon.

Best regards,
Michael
__________________
I do not call myself an artist, I just try to capture what I see.
If you need many words to describe what your picture means, it doesn't speak enough for itself.
my photos on flickr - here is the portion posted in OPF.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old August 27th, 2012, 12:55 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
So does anyone else agree that the flag seems more real and has more presence in the Pentax picture?
Certainly, yes. But the resolution on the Pentax is higher, so we see more details. Maybe a better comparison would be between the 645D and the Nikon D800.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old August 27th, 2012, 01:23 AM
fahim mohammed fahim mohammed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,361
Default

First, a big thank you to Nicolas for bringing this comparison for us.

The size ( physical dimensions and pixel ) of the Pentax helps it to show greater detail; in the flag and the lamp.
The texture details rendered in the lamp, as pointed out by Asher, is very apparent.

The shallower dof of the Pentax and the pleasing quality of the oof areas is an area I find most interesting.
The aesthetic possibilities available to Nicolas have just been increased considerably.

Asher has mentioned the ' planes of focus '. This is the feeling of depth that a viewer experiences on looking at prints from a MF as compared to ones from a 35mm full frame. Some call it a 3 dimensionality.
The Pentax is more geared to giving that feeling. Look at the flag pic from the Pentax.

Regards.
__________________
koffee and kamera
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old August 27th, 2012, 05:40 AM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bordeaux
Posts: 5,772
Default

Bonjour Asher, Michael and Fahim
Thank you for your inputs. I'll reply more in depth tonight while at home… ; )

For now, let me show you the first set of image post here Canon's and Pentax's) these are the frames showing the compete -not cropped- image.

I had previously (a month or 2 ago) some private chats with Bart about down sampling has it becomes difficult to get good results with such a down ratio… who could guess that 5 years ago, eh? : ) but I haven't find -yet- a good, easy and repeatable way of doing it.
So the ones shown on top of this thread where done from CS6 after some extra sharpening work (on both Canon's and Pentaxt's).
It shows artifacts and too much contrasts imo.

A liitle better are hereunder, direct exports from LR4:




__________________
WEBSITE - FACEBOOK - INSTAGRAM
Please do no repost my images elsewhere than OPF without my permission.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old August 27th, 2012, 06:31 AM
Joachim Bolte Joachim Bolte is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 151
Default

I think you shouldn't have done ANY postprocessing, just to be sure that all you see it the output of the lens. That would be a more fair comparisson. The images now clearly show signs of oversharpening and noise reduction combined.

Could you repost them using neutral settings in your developing tool?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old August 27th, 2012, 07:15 AM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bordeaux
Posts: 5,772
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joachim Bolte View Post
I think you shouldn't have done ANY postprocessing, just to be sure that all you see it the output of the lens. That would be a more fair comparisson. The images now clearly show signs of oversharpening and noise reduction combined.

Could you repost them using neutral settings in your developing tool?
Joachim
First, thank you for stopping by.

I am not comparing lens (focal is not excactly the same (200/236) and the Canon's 200 is stabilized) but sensors.
IMHO:
Therefore there is no objective truth and no neutral settings as the 645D has no demoisacing filter,therefore it NEEDS to have some sharpening done, therefore again, to be fair, the Canon file has too be sharpened too.

I am trying to establish real life comparison, and as said in the OP I have tried to work as objectively as possible on each file. You may find that they are over sharpened, and I can agree with you. Or not… but imho again, this does not really change the feeling we get from these different cameras.

You should
__________________
WEBSITE - FACEBOOK - INSTAGRAM
Please do no repost my images elsewhere than OPF without my permission.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old August 27th, 2012, 04:29 PM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas Claris View Post
I had previously (a month or 2 ago) some private chats with Bart about down sampling has it becomes difficult to get good results with such a down ratio… who could guess that 5 years ago, eh? : ) but I haven't find -yet- a good, easy and repeatable way of doing it.
So the ones shown on top of this thread where done from CS6 after some extra sharpening work (on both Canon's and Pentaxt's).
It shows artifacts and too much contrasts imo.

A liitle better are hereunder, direct exports from LR4
Hi Nicolas,

That's correct, Photoshop's default choice for downsampling, BiCubic Sharper (or Automatic), produces artifacts. Lightroom, since version 3, produces a much better downsampled image quality. After downsampling, a special sharpening can add a bit more punch to the image, but one should avoid creating new aliasing artifacts (stairstepping and halo).

Cheers,
Bart
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old August 28th, 2012, 08:24 AM
Joachim Bolte Joachim Bolte is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas Claris View Post
...as the 645D has no demoisacing filter,therefore it NEEDS to have some sharpening done...
I suppose you mean an AA filter?

But then again, what purpose does it serve to compare two completely different sensors in two different configurations, with different glass in front of them? What will (CAN?) be your conclusion?

Also you are referring to some nice Bokeh effect, but I really can't judge that, because it is blown to pieces by the postprocessing.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old August 28th, 2012, 08:48 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joachim Bolte View Post
I suppose you mean an AA filter?

But then again, what purpose does it serve to compare two completely different sensors in two different configurations, with different glass in front of them? What will (CAN?) be your conclusion?

Also you are referring to some nice Bokeh effect, but I really can't judge that, because it is blown to pieces by the postprocessing.

Joachim,

In the end, it is what it is, window into the move up from 35mm DSLR to MF at a relatively modest price where AF lenses are plenty and cheap on the used market and where the finest lenses are also being made purpose built for this MF camera. So for me, for example, interested in giant portraits, the "presence" given by the Pentax 645D at the distance from the camera necessitated by the format, can be sensed already. This interests me a lot. It also tells me why such pictures in LF and ultra large format works so well.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old August 28th, 2012, 09:45 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart_van_der_Wolf View Post
That's correct, Photoshop's default choice for downsampling, BiCubic Sharper (or Automatic), produces artifacts. Lightroom, since version 3, produces a much better downsampled image quality. After downsampling, a special sharpening can add a bit more punch to the image, but one should avoid creating new aliasing artifacts (stairstepping and halo).
Continued, with some more details (pun intended).

I've just done a quick test and have come to the following conclusion, and recipe:

For an image that was exported with downsampling in Lightroom (I used LR 4.1) without additional sharpening in the Export process, and assuming correct sharpening at the full size, Lightroom will produce only mild aliasing artifacts (certainly when compared to Photoshop and others):


Depending on the subject, it may help to sharpen the downsampled result, but it should not create halos, and not introduce clipping. For halo free sharpening of LR downsampled images one can use the following filter in Photoshop (make sure your image is in 16-b/ch mode!):


To suppress clipping, it is best used in combination with a Luminosity Blend-if layer style for the sharpening layer with settings like this:


So, one downsamples the image on export with Lightroom, one creates a duplicate layer with a Luminosity Blend-if layer style in Photoshop, and one applies the above filter for sharpening to that duplicate layer which is positioned above the original in Photoshop. That still leaves the possibility to adjust the opacity of the sharpening layer, and or mask-out areas which create issues. It is very simple to combine all the Photoshop steps in a single action, which will remember all the blend and filter settings and executes them with one mouse click.

It's too bad we can't do it properly in one application, but such is today's reality.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. I've inserted a note in the above recipe, that the Custom filter should be used in a 16-bit/channel image mode. I have noticed that at 8-b/ch, presumably due to rounding errors, the image becomes darker than it mathematically should.
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.

Last edited by Bart_van_der_Wolf; August 30th, 2012 at 02:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old August 28th, 2012, 12:33 PM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bordeaux
Posts: 5,772
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joachim Bolte View Post
I suppose you mean an AA filter?

But then again, what purpose does it serve to compare two completely different sensors in two different configurations, with different glass in front of them? What will (CAN?) be your conclusion?

Also you are referring to some nice Bokeh effect, but I really can't judge that, because it is blown to pieces by the postprocessing.
Joachim
I draw and keep most of my conclusions for myself (one of the conclusions is that I switched from 1Ds3 to the Pentax 645, keeping the 5D2 as a back-up only).
Everyone can make his own advise, taking into account or not what I show here. They are many other posts on the net to help them too.
My purpose here, is to show real life shooting (normally I shoot to get my beef-steack at the end of the month) with some gear that many pros have. Canon or Pentax are the one I have. Many are wondering, as I did some months ago, if they should or not switch from one system to another one. Maybe and maybe only, I can help to make up their mind…

There are no lens that you can mount on a Canon AND on a Pentax. Sorry, I don't have more lens to compare with the exact same focal.

Yes I meant AA filter. Sorry for the confusion.

Now, after your so kindly made request, and because I don't want you to feel too much frustrated :







__________________
WEBSITE - FACEBOOK - INSTAGRAM
Please do no repost my images elsewhere than OPF without my permission.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old August 28th, 2012, 12:49 PM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bordeaux
Posts: 5,772
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart_van_der_Wolf View Post
Continued, with some more details (pun intended).

I've just done a quick test and have come to the following conclusion, and recipe:
………

It's too bad we can't do it properly in one application, but such is today's reality.

Cheers,
Bart
Thank you Bart, a very "positive" and instructive post. As usual ; )
__________________
WEBSITE - FACEBOOK - INSTAGRAM
Please do no repost my images elsewhere than OPF without my permission.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old August 28th, 2012, 01:52 PM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas Claris View Post
Now, after your so kindly made request, and because I don't want you to feel too much frustrated :
[...]
Hi Nicolas,

Thanks for posting those, that helps for the analysis. Based on that, it looks like your Capture sharpening radius setting in Lightroom should be something close to 0.7 for these apertures . A more exact judgement, and/or tweaking of the amount and detail controls (and for different apertures) takes a bit more testing and is best based on a slanted edge test chart.

Cheers,
Bart
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old August 28th, 2012, 03:58 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,790
Default A clear Demonstration of the Value of Bart-Nicolas Processing of Pentax 645D Files.








The beauty of the processing speaks for itself. It's just like switching on a light and getting new spectacles, LOL!

Asher :)
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old August 28th, 2012, 04:57 PM
Ivan Garcia Ivan Garcia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Elstree, England
Posts: 453
Default

This is an interesting change for you Nicolas.
What made you sway in Pentax direction as opposed to the obvious 1Dx upgrade path?
__________________
Kind regards
Ivan
Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old August 29th, 2012, 03:33 AM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bordeaux
Posts: 5,772
Default

Hi Ivan
Glad to hear from you!
When I made my decision to switch in December2011, no one could even know if and when the 1Dx will be available… plus 18.1 Megapixel is not enough for my huge prints.
Also, I have been somewhat knocked down by the MF quality when I had the HY6 from Sinar.
Smooth gradient etc… The Pentax 645D is far more easy to handle than the Hy6 (which anyway I cannot afford) and the files are supported by LR4 (not by C1, except their DNG version but many subtle settings in C1 aren't usable for thoses DNGs…)
__________________
WEBSITE - FACEBOOK - INSTAGRAM
Please do no repost my images elsewhere than OPF without my permission.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old August 29th, 2012, 03:43 AM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bordeaux
Posts: 5,772
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
[CENTER]

The beauty of the processing speaks for itself. It's just like switching on a light and getting new spectacles, LOL!

Asher :)
Asher
let's be honest with Bart!
The processed version here uses some action I made (with some pretty good help from Bart) about 2 years ago for the 1Ds3 files.
I do recognize that I am still too much "impregnated" by the habits for sharpening Canon files.
Her we can see some artifacts and they come from that habit, plus the fact that I'm a new comer to Lightroom.

As soon as I'll have some more time free, I'll dig seriously with Bart hints and help to get even better results, and I have no doubt that we can... and will let OPF know : )
__________________
WEBSITE - FACEBOOK - INSTAGRAM
Please do no repost my images elsewhere than OPF without my permission.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old August 29th, 2012, 09:12 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas Claris View Post
Asher
let's be honest with Bart!
The processed version here uses some action I made (with some pretty good help from Bart) about 2 years ago for the 1Ds3 files.
I do recognize that I am still too much "impregnated" by the habits for sharpening Canon files.
Her we can see some artifacts and they come from that habit, plus the fact that I'm a new comer to Lightroom.

As soon as I'll have some more time free, I'll dig seriously with Bart hints and help to get even better results, and I have no doubt that we can... and will let OPF know : )
Hmmm, Nicolas!

What does Pentax recommend? They should have worked this out already! Is it silkypix?

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old August 29th, 2012, 10:15 AM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bordeaux
Posts: 5,772
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Hmmm, Nicolas!

What does Pentax recommend? They should have worked this out already! Is it silkypix?

Asher
They give a special copy of Silkypix but it is really too slow.
LR4 will do the job (BTW a new CR release 4.2 is downloadable there). It is just a question of mastering:
a - the software
b - the huge PEF file

: )
__________________
WEBSITE - FACEBOOK - INSTAGRAM
Please do no repost my images elsewhere than OPF without my permission.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old August 29th, 2012, 10:19 AM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bordeaux
Posts: 5,772
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart_van_der_Wolf View Post

Bart, how do you have access to this setting tab? (yes I still can be a dummy ; )
__________________
WEBSITE - FACEBOOK - INSTAGRAM
Please do no repost my images elsewhere than OPF without my permission.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old August 29th, 2012, 11:08 AM
Maggie Terlecki Maggie Terlecki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Province of Quebec, Canada
Posts: 1,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas Claris View Post
Bart, how do you have access to this setting tab? (yes I still can be a dummy ; )
Nicolas,

In case Bart doesn't come on line soon, this is a Photoshop setting and it is found in FILTERS>OTHER>CUSTOM, just one above where you find the High-Pass filter.
__________________
there's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in ~Leonard Cohen
my personal website
my website with articles,interviews etc.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old August 29th, 2012, 11:19 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas Claris View Post
Asher
let's be honest with Bart!
Yes, please. ;) Although part of Asher's reaction was based on only that one parameter (Radius 0.7 for f/8) in the sharpening workflow that I approximated from your unsharpened sample, and it was already much closer to where we will ultimately get.

Quote:
The processed version here uses some action I made (with some pretty good help from Bart) about 2 years ago for the 1Ds3 files.
I do recognize that I am still too much "impregnated" by the habits for sharpening Canon files.
Her we can see some artifacts and they come from that habit, plus the fact that I'm a new comer to Lightroom.
We shouldn't underestimate that, and I don't. Nicolas comes from a camera system designed for action, with a sensor that uses AA-filters and Microlenses, to a camera system without AA-lenses wich behaves a bit differently. On top of that, he is forced by the lack of 645D support in his favorite C1 Pro Raw converter to start using Lightroom/ACR as Raw converter, and that Raw converter just switched to a whole new Process version that requires unlearning old habits and learning new ones for everybody.

On top of that, I designed a method to improve the Capture sharpening quality, that even Adobe doesn't seem to intuitively understand (judging from the user interface design).

Let's call it a challenge.

Quote:
As soon as I'll have some more time free, I'll dig seriously with Bart hints and help to get even better results, and I have no doubt that we can... and will let OPF know : )
Yes, we can and we will (even if I have to do some of the analysis steps myself). Take your time, take a shot of my resolution target at f/8, and send me the file. Ideally, shots at all apertures that can be used should be taken and analysed but that would take me some time. However, we can start with one (a target shot at f/8, ISO 100 or 200), and see how well people like its Capture sharpening. More importantly, how well Nicolas likes it, because the file should be a perfect foundation for artifact free enlargement to wall sized proportions.

Cheers,
Bart
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old August 29th, 2012, 11:24 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggie Terlecki View Post
Nicolas,

In case Bart doesn't come on line soon, this is a Photoshop setting and it is found in FILTERS>OTHER>CUSTOM, just one above where you find the High-Pass filter.
Hi Maggie, you just beat me to it.

Indeed, it's hidden in Photoshop's Filter menu under Other|Custom. It's one off those filters that normal people never need to use, but then I never said that I'm normal ;)

Cheers,
Bart
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:18 PM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet © of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion © 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!