M8 vs LF

[downstairs]

This is not the sort of photography which cuts any ice here. But for anybody tempted to swap thier Leica for a field camera, here are some good reasons not to:
http://picasaweb.google.com/cjbroadbent/Formats?feat=directlink

 

[adietrich]

This is not the sort of photography which cuts any ice here. But for anybody tempted to swap thier Leica for a field camera, here are some good reasons not to:
http://picasaweb.google.com/cjbroadbent/Formats?feat=directlink

Hi downstairs,

That was an interesting exercise. For me the main result is that you don't need a field camera if your intended final picture size is only 650x430. ;-)

One question: Was the tone mapping / HDR stuff really necessary or could you achieve the same effect with different exposure / development?

Regards,
Arne

 

[downstairs]

You would be surprised by the A3 prints. The multiple-shot M8 is as good as the Hasselblad single-shot. The straight LF's are boring and, though scanned to 250mb, do not offer better resolution on A3 prints.
This was an exercise in multi-shot HDR so mid-tone contrast is bumped up somewhat. A single-shot M8 b&w jpeg is as dull as LF's and ther is not much that can be done with it.

 

[POINT OF VIEW]

This is a very cool way to compare the results of a M8 with a LF. For me though it’s more of a testament to the use of HDR than the ability of the M8. It is very likely the results would be the same with a DSLR, using HRD. I believe we will be seeing more cameras being manufactured with HDR software built in. Some P&S have already started. My question is, which HDR processing did you use. Thanks, Bill

 

[downstairs]

Photomatix except for one Photoshop.
The exercise was about multiple images and pushing mid-tones. HDR for highlights and shadows shouldn't be neccessary with studio lighting.