A7RII is only a body. Is my environment ready for it?

[seb]

I'm shooting now for about two years with my alpha 7. I was happy with it, so much fun, so much information that I can use for the perfect outcome (print or jpg). Gladly I already knowed some things about color management and working with photoshop.

 

Until last week, when my A7RII arrived. In a portrait I can now count the pores on the skin. And it's like with the famous cherie blossoms in japan each spring, every pore looks different because I can see every detail. "GREAT!" was my first thought, but I've found out that I need a perfect situation, a lot of helpers, a great lens to get everything out of my new camera.

 

there is:

situation: light, colors, movement of objects

helpers: flashes, color cards, tripod, ...

lens: If dxomark isn't a marketing gag, all these lenses have a resolution gap. the best atm is the 90/2.8 with 32 mpix sharpness.

camera: 42mpeg, adobe RGB (16bit), (compressed) RAW-files

 

So, happy with my shot, I put the SD Card into my computer and push import in lightroom. wow, what a picture! for testing I do an import in capture one too: again, a great picture! but... are they looking rather different?! Ok, with all the rulers I can make them looking like I want. but, I'm anxious. Is this software really ready for my picture? should I consider other programms?

well, at the end it looks spectacular! and I have to save as a jpg (sRGB, 8bit) to share it with friends. It still looks great when I zoomed out for seeing the whole picture. but if I go pixel peeping, I am "disapointed". is this file format outdated? should I consider others that can hold the higher color range and depth?

 

what is your experience? Do you have other software or file formats you use?

[Singingsnapper]

I'm shooting now for about two years with my alpha 7. I was happy with it, so much fun, so much information that I can use for the perfect outcome (print or jpg). Gladly I already knowed some things about color management and working with photoshop.

 

Until last week, when my A7RII arrived. In a portrait I can now count the pores on the skin. And it's like with the famous cherie blossoms in japan each spring, every pore looks different because I can see every detail. "GREAT!" was my first thought, but I've found out that I need a perfect situation, a lot of helpers, a great lens to get everything out of my new camera.

 

there is:

situation: light, colors, movement of objects

helpers: flashes, color cards, tripod, ...

lens: If dxomark isn't a marketing gag, all these lenses have a resolution gap. the best atm is the 90/2.8 with 32 mpix scharpness.

camera: 42mpeg, adobe RGB (16bit), (compressed) RAW-files

 

So, happy with my shot, I put the SD Card into my computer and push import in lightroom. wow, what a picture! for testing I do an import in capture one too: again, a great picture! but... are they looking rather different?! Ok, with all the rulers I can make them looking like I want. but, I'm anxious. Is this software really ready for my picture? should I consider other programms?

well, at the end it looks spectacular! and I have to save as a jpg (sRGB, 8bit) to share it with friends. It still looks great when I zoomed out for seeing the whole picture. but if I go pixel peeping, I am "disapointed". is this file format outdated? should I consider others that can hold the higher color range and depth?

 

what is your experience? Do you have other software or file formats you use?

jpgs are compressed files.  I generally (and this is considered a no-no) save as highest quality jpg.  In the vast majority of images, the difference (in my experience) between jpg and tiff is so slight as to be unnoticeable.  There are occasions when the tones in an image lead me to save as a tiff as well as a jpg.  If saving as a jpg, always choose the highest quality (which means the lowest amount of compression).

 

Now to pixel peeping.  Speaking for myself, pixel peeping is for gear heads, not for photographers.  When you look at a printed photograph, to look at it (not to examine it, that's totally different) do you put it right to your eyes or get a magnifying glass out? If you took at trip to the national gallery in London and viewed the paint strokes the way some view images, you'd be expelled from the premises and banned from returning.  Pixel peeping is the equivalent of putting your nose to the canvas of Da Vinci's Virgin on the Rocks.  You wouldn't do it to appreciate the artwork, so why do it with photography?

 

I will look at 100% to check for focus, not generally for critical sharpness.  I won't necessarily reject an image because it isn't pin sharp.  Out of focus is a different thing entirely.  When setting up an image for printing, you should sharpen according to viewing distance, which will depend on the size of the print.  If it's large you don't stand close to it or else you have no way of appreciating the whole image as it is...

 

YMMV, but many factors make up an image.  If you want to be a gear head, take out a mortgage and get the Phaseone IQ100 and their sharpest Kreuznach lens.  You will be very poor financially after, but how far will you have advanced artistically?

[seb]

I overdraw it on purpose.

 

I see it the same like you.

I print a lot and I don't care if the paper can get the sharpness of the picture, but the look and feel of the paper is really important.

The same is with jpgs. As you metioned I go to 100% while exporting and as 99% in the world don't have the display for sRGB range, so why bother about?

 

but when I got the new body last week, I was starting pixel peeping a little (just to test out what is possible), tried also a new software (capture one pro), because some wrote about the differences...

and after working on a file for an hour, I exported it to jpg, reopened it and looked on a 100% crop. there I asked me, why are we actually using jpg after working so hard on our files?

I know the answer. It's small and reduced to the max. But still... Isn't it time for next generation jpgs?

 

phaseone with kreuznach? do they have touchscreen?!

no thanks, I stay with my alpha and will enjoy it outdoor not in front of the computer.

[Singingsnapper]

I overdraw it on purpose.

 

I see it the same like you.

I print a lot and I don't care if the paper can get the sharpness of the picture, but the look and feel of the paper is really important.

The same is with jpgs. As you metioned I go to 100% while exporting and as 99% in the world don't have the display for sRGB range, so why bother about?

 

but when I got the new body last week, I was starting pixel peeping a little (just to test out what is possible), tried also a new software (capture one pro), because some wrote about the differences...

and after working on a file for an hour, I exported it to jpg, reopened it and looked on a 100% crop. there I asked me, why are we actually using jpg after working so hard on our files?

I know the answer. It's small and reduced to the max. But still... Isn't it time for next generation jpgs?

 

phaseone with kreuznach? do they have touchscreen?!

no thanks, I stay with my alpha and will enjoy it outdoor not in front of the computer.

It wasn't aimed specifically at you, sorry if it came across that way.  There is a format called jpeg2000 which will accept layers, but this is non standard so finding printing companies and websites to accept this is a challenge.

[seb]

It wasn't aimed specifically at you, sorry if it came across that way.  There is a format called jpeg2000 which will accept layers, but this is non standard so finding printing companies and websites to accept this is a challenge.

 

And I was actually just joking with the last two lines. I found your answer interesting and written nicely.

thanks for your view!