In my previous post, I tried to reach the conclusion from as digital back was better for my necessities, but although your aid is excellent, I was not able to arrive al bottom from the question.

So to begin, which I did was to buy a reasonable equipment, of canon 5D + 3 optical, and I would like to comment the results, to know if I even can improve them or, I have arrived at the limit with this equipment. For soon, arrived the moment for buying one of medium format to be able to compare them.

Thursday arrived to me the equipment, and I put it in production yestarday, in a landscape job for a client, of who I show some imagenes to you.


Original image: Click to enlarge...


100% corp


200% corp


400% corp



Only some chromatic aberrations, to certain F stop and cradling the contrast is very high, single fact in certain lack definition in the details, compared with images made in film, to 400%. I suppose that that is normal, and is habitual in all the digital systems.


I send some images under these lines to comment, on the other hand the sensitometric tests, that they are excellent, the curve is very exact in its route giving a rank of + - 2,8 stops between the white and the black, that either if it is possible to modify and to extend it?

Click to enlarge...

Any digital camera you will have to learn to see as your equipment will see the shot. That is step number one. You have presented some unique image, but for me they lack punch to draw the eye and then the mind gets wrapped up trying to get emotional contact to the image.

So I have to ask, How were these images post-processed? I mean what was your RAW convertor, and were they color matched for web display? The processing system, I believe IS, the 2nd and most important step

The best equipment today is only the start of a great image. I wish and I hope that thought was given to the "processes" involved with regard to your system that processes these images. I have delivered shots that I would rate as average and that clients have accepted with my realization , on some level they were drawn to that/those images because of the emotional stir they created.

I would like to know more and thanks for sharing these :-)

__

James

Thanks for your observations:)

I have been especialist in wine photography for 20 years, make photos in Europe, America and Australia, and this work in particular is first that I make in digital, costs to me, to take off my mechanical cameras (I become old and I become preservative jajajjaja.)

Not if you have seen the 5 previous images that they are at the end of my first post, one is a work where a warm atmosphere must reign, simultaneously clear and of great space, with own very clean details of a small ccellar that takes its production with care, this is the idea that must reflect the photos. On the other hand, the system of process RAW is the one of canon, raw task of digital photo professional 2,0, processed like tif of 16 bits, adding the readings temperature of color in each image at the moment of the shot, to assure the Maxima fidelity with which it saw then. Soon processed in photoshop, to obtain a faithful conversion to 8 bits, and a slight adjustment of levels due to the differences between the 1-2% of the capture, with preliminary the chromatic and sensitométrica deviation of tests.

This work will last two weeks, if you want I am putting some images of each step to see the evolution, and to be able to appreciate then that emotion that approaches you the final image.

So no unsharp mask or similar acutance/sharpening techniques applied?

That certainly explains why you think your images look soft, and why they are a bit soft, too.

If you have Photoshop CS2, try using "smart sharpen" with a radius of 0.2 or 0.3 pixels on the small (1500x1000) image, somewhere between 25% and 40%, to get an idea about what you can gain there.

For the 100% crop, try with a bigger radius.

But mind you; this is only for viewing on your monitor, you'll have to work a bit differently when sharpening for print.