DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Contax ND

Roger, you will see much more faithful color reprodiction if you develop files with 16 bit per channel color depth. Also, considering that Contax N Digitalbehaves more like slide film, some 1/3 stop underxposure will not hurt.
 
> 1/3rd stop underexposere is contrary to what several people have recommended. Those folks recommend 1/3rd over exposure. Personally, I have been trying 1/3rd overexposure, unless I am shooting with a flash, then I go the opposite direction to 1/3rd underexposure.

michael.
 
Test up-date:

I have discovered that the Adobe Raw Developer we used produces noise specifically in the 1Ds RAW conversions. After shooting more extensively with the camera and processing through Adobe, I inquired about the noise to other 1Ds owners. They confirmed my findings. I then loaded the Canon RAW converter and produced much smoother tonal gradations and far less noise.

Got to be upfront and fair.
 
Marc, I was just about to write that I discovered the same thing with Canon G2 files comparing results from Adobe RAW plugin and Canon RAW Converter. The difference, however, cannot be seen on letter size prints.
I have to admit, however, that Adobe RAW plugin produces much better quality files than Contax RAW Developer.
 
Hello, Mark,

I would like to correct you a bit. Adobe Raw Developer does not produce noise. It is the noise produced by the matrix. The software developing the raw data tries to eliminate this noise. So, what you have observed is that Canon's software leaves less noise in the image than the Adobe's, and the Contax's software leaves more noise than the Adobe's.

I wonder if Canon's algorithm is really more efficient than the Adobe's. You see, the people making such kind of software meet a problem: What is more important, to keep all fine details (and to have some noise left) or to make the image look noiseless (and to cut off some fine details).

You might want to try to use noise reduction programs (GEM by ASF or NeatImage) to improve your TIFF files from Adobe and Contax. These programs allow the user controling the degree of noise reduction.
 
Sergiy, good catch. Yes, the camera creates the noise, Adobe RAW developer allows it through.

Interestingly, I tried to recreate the noise in Adobe RAW development from the Canon 1Ds for a friend, and couldn't do it. I had changed only two things: I did not sharpen at all; and I selected the "embedded profile" instead of the "working space" profile when the dialog box came up. Absolutely no noise in any color or black areas, even under huge magnification.
Here is the kicker, the working space profile is the same as the selected embedded profile...Adobe RGB 1998 !

Frankly, I don't get it, but I'm not complaining. I'll go with the "no noise" option.
 
> I would like to correct you a bit. Adobe Raw Developer does not > produce noise.

I disagree. Any algorithm that manipulates data can very well induce noise into the data. And, knowing Bayer processing algorithms as I do, there IS noise induced by them, it's part and parcel of the nature of processing Bayer pattern data. Now, whether the noise it produces is significant or not, is another story.

This is an entirely different issue than sensor noise, BTW.

Regards,

Austin
 
Hi everybody,

I installed a new photo gallery especially for test images i.e. the comparison between the Contax ND, Canon 1Ds and the Kodak Digital Back.

The address is:

http://www.contaxinfo.com/test_images/

There are some differences to the normal gallery

1. Everybody can upload images, but it needs admin approval before it will be displayed.

I will give Mark and Irakly later on a direct upload possibility without my permission, so that they can upload some of their images already.

2. Maximum upload file size is 8MB !

3. Tif-files are possible to upload, but remember, you can not see the picture or thumbnail of a tif-file in your browser.

4. RAW files I do not know, since I have no possibility to try that out

5. All Images/files can be downloaded directly without opening them first in your browser.

6. You can also download a zip version, but I think that will make quality worse.

So you can look at all test-images yourself at home and print them out or work on them with your favorite software to get a better impression about the different results.

There is currently only 1 category for the Contax/Canon/Kodak comparison. If there is demand (I hope so), I can add more categories for other comparisons within seconds.

Dirk
 
Dirk,

Zip compression should be loss-less. That's how they're able to use it for software distribution.

DJ
 
Back
Top