Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/07/07

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Medium Format Digital
From: mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 22:19:50 -0400

You didn't do any sharpening after hand?
How about during hand? Check all your prefs? Menus in your menus?
Its got a very hard look to me. Really verging on too hard.


Mark William Rabiner




> From: Bob Adler <rgacpa at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 18:25:12 -0700
> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Medium Format Digital
> 
> Hi Mark,
> The pixels in this image have not been sharpened to protect the innocent
> (unless of course LR applied some sharpening when it output to the web...).
> 
> Bob Adler
> http://www.rgaphoto.com
> 
> On Jul 7, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote:
> 
>> I think an advantage to medium format digital is it can take a lot of
>> sharpening and not get all funny.
>> This to me is also an advantage to using lower ISO's...
>> than maybe you'd think you'd even need.
>> 
>> A high iso small format capture makes of an image which needs to be
>> sharpened very very carefully; as you can go to far and the next day you
>> look at it and you realized you have to redo it. Unless there is a  layer 
>> in
>> Photoshop for sharpening. Which I'd think there easily could be.
>> 
>> 
>> Mark William Rabiner
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> From: Tina Manley <images at comporium.net>
>>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
>>> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 12:52:26 -0400
>>> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Medium Format Digital
>>> 
>>> Now that is one sharp photo!!  You had a clear view of Owens Valley.  
>>> When
>>> we went up two days later there was a lot of haze.  Here is my panorama 
>>> from
>>> the same spot:
>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/136216932
>>> 
>>> I have a problem smoothing out skies in panoramas.  Are you using 
>>> Photoshop
>>> to stitch your's?
>>> 
>>> Tina
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Bob Adler <rgacpa at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> My P45+ stitched in portrait orientation (18mm shift on each side) with 
>>>> the
>>>> 35mm lens gives a rough equivalent of a medium format 17.5mm lens. That
>>>> translates into what, about a 12mm rectilinear 35mm equivalent?
>>>> 
>>>> And you want what?
>>>> See:
>>>> http://www.rgaphoto.com/GT/content/Valley_View_Pano_W_large.html
>>>> 
>>>> This image is from 3 main segments produced by using 3 back shifts with 
>>>> a
>>>> portrait oriented P45+ and 35mm lens, for each segment. The 3 back 
>>>> shifts
>>>> of
>>>> each segment were stitched together from the images of the 35mm lens
>>>> shifted
>>>> in portrait orientation. This roughly equates to the view of each of 
>>>> the 3
>>>> segments equaling the field of view of a 17.5mm medium format lens/ 12mm
>>>> lens on a 35mm format system.  3of these were stitched(swinging the 
>>>> camera
>>>> on a panoramic head) to give the image. It was then cropped. The file is
>>>> over 2.2GB.
>>>> 
>>>> Give me a place to stand and I will hang this image!
>>>> 
>>>> In all seriousness there are some correctly stated and some overstated
>>>> items in this expose. But all in all, medium format for landscapes is 
>>>> at a
>>>> really nice place right now...
>>>> 
>>>> Anyone want to buy some Hassy V and Canon equip? :-)
>>>> Bob
>>>> 
>>>> Bob Adler
>>>> http://www.rgaphoto.com
>>>> 
>>>> On Jul 6, 2011, at 9:25 PM, Richard Man <richard at imagecraft.com> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> My pipe dream is that someone, well, Fuji specifically :-) would make a
>>>>> 
>>>>> 18x49mm sensor, and build a digital RF system for it. The sensor size 
>>>>> is
>>>>> just about the same size as the "full frame" 35mm, so the technology 
>>>>> and
>>>>> cost is known (remember that full frame Canon and Sony are as "low" as
>>>>> $2500).
>>>>> 
>>>>> The result would of course be a cropped digital XPan. The lens should 
>>>>> be
>>>>> much easier to design - heck, lets make them all F2.8 while we are at 
>>>>> it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sell the whole system with 3 lens (30, 45 and 90 equivalent) for 
>>>>> $10,000
>>>> to
>>>>> $12,000, and I bet they will sell at least as many of that as Pentax
>>>> 645D.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> // richard <http://www.imagecraft.com/>
>>>>> // icc blog: <http://imagecraft.com/blog/>
>>>>> // richard's personal photo blog: <http://www.5pmlight.com>
>>>>> [ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all
>>>> previous
>>>>> replies in your msgs. ]
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Tina Manley, ASMP
>>> www.tinamanley.com
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information




Replies: Reply from rgacpa at yahoo.com (Bob Adler) ([Leica] Medium Format Digital)
In reply to: Message from rgacpa at yahoo.com (Bob Adler) ([Leica] Medium Format Digital)