One Poison Apple
Over the summer, Douglas Little hired me to shoot a campaign to launch one of his new extravagant products. If you can remember Mr. Little from this previous post, he creates curious but gorgeous goods. He’s mainly famous for his decadent candles, and this new product was surely going to top the list of all things sinful and delightful. Douglas’s new candle was a Swarovski crystal layered candle that retails for a cool $420 bucks! Since the name of the candle is Poison Apple, he wanted to play with the Snow White theme. He sent me one comp, that’s it. He wanted one single image to promote the product with, but the image was well thought out and planned. He wanted to use his girlfriend, the illustrious burlesque dream girl Leila as our model since she naturally has a Snow White essence to her. With her jet black hair and snow white skin, she really was the perfect choice for our model.
The interesting thing about this shoot is that I was able to test out the PhaseOne P40+ camera. While I was picking up some gear at Samy’s for the shoot, Jim up in the pro department offered to let me take the PhaseOne P40+ out and give it a whirl. Normally I won’t “test” equipment out on a job, but my plan was to use my Nikon for most of the shoot and test out the PhaseOne once I knew I had the shot in the can with the Nikon. I am in the market for a medium format camera but I’m really leaning towards going back to film cameras and using digital backs with them. If you recall, I used a Hasselblad on the beach shoot and was fairly impressed with it but not impressed enough to shell out the kind of money it costs to buy one. I’ve always veered towards Mamiyas for fashion any way and my inclination is to go back to them. At any rate, I happily took the PhaseOne home and did my research on it the night before the shoot!
Taken with a Phase One P40+
(Click here to Enlarge)
I did use both cameras on the shoot and ended up shooting about the same amount of images on both cameras. To be totally honest, I have to say I didn’t see much difference in image quality. And in fact, the client chose the shot that was taken with my Nikon. Second place was a shot taken with the PhaseOne. There was definitely more detail on the PhaseOne shots, with 28 more pixels there should be! Perhaps it’s hard to tell a huge difference because of the retouching, but honestly, the raw files on the PhaseOne didn’t blow my mind. And I have to also say that I preferred the way the Hasselblad felt in my hands while shooting with it over the PhaseOne. To each their own, I always say.
Taken with a Nikon D2x
(Click here to Enlarge)
We created a snowy bank on the floor of the studio, piling blankets on top of one another to add a plush soft ground and then poured fake snow on top of the pile. We had our model lying on top of our “snow” and I used one light with a medium chimera soft box as my key light. I then had my assistant hold a light parallel to the models head. Since she was lying on the floor, the light was low. I used a 20 degree grid with his fingers spread over the grid to create a pattern of light to hit areas of her face and the apple. I needed to pick up the highlights on the Swarovski crystals since the apple was really the “Star” of the shoot! I decided that the light my assistant held needed to be undiffused so it could pick up the dazzling little sparkles that the crystals on the apple create when light hits them.
I’m not going to break off any mind bending tech information here on the camera that you can’t easily find on the internet, but I’ll point you in the right direction. The PhaseOne site has all the info you need to understand the camera a little better. Their site is pretty cool because it has plenty of pdf’s you can download and get all the tech information you could ever need! I can say that it was pretty easy to figure out, I mean, I’ve worked with all types of cameras in the past and the PhaseOne was fairly simple to work with. It was fast on the capture rate: 1.8 fps, which was nice. Although I didn’t take full advantage of that because the model was lying on the floor, so there wasn’t much movement to capture. But I do appreciate a fast camera! You can choose between 10 and 40 megapixels depending on your needs. I chose 40 megapixels because I wanted the detail and image quality.
On the PhaseOne P40+ image:
- Lens: 80mm
- F14 at 1/80 of a second
- ISO: 100
On the Nikon D2x image:
- Lens: 24mm (shot close to the model.)
- F14 at 1/80 of a second
- ISO: 100
Overall, the PhaseOne P40+ is a decent camera and the day was a success because Douglas Little loved the images I produced. That to me is a successful shoot, when the client is happy. What are your thoughts on the difference between the image taken with the Nikon and the image taken with the PhaseOne P40+? I’d love to hear your input.
  (4.67 stars, 12 ratings)  Loading ... |
I really can’t tell a much of a difference between the two. I bet it might make a difference if they were printed huge and compared, but at the size you gave us they are basically the same.
Colors and details are so much great in the hair with the P40+
I keep going back and forth and I can’t see any difference myself. But maybe my eye isn’t nearly as good. I haven’t been shooting that long.
With that said, I just love these shots!! Fabulous!!
Thank you for always sharing all of this very helpful information…..Love the Mr-Little shots…..and Douglas’s candles smells are out of this world….. M~
I do prefer the nikon’s one because of the pose and framing itselfs. I don”t really notice a difference between the two of them at this size. Not to pay extra thousand dollars for a phase one.
I can’t tell the difference either as far as megapixels and image quality goes although i see a little more magenta in the Nikon shot. Which is kinda typical with most Nikon cameras.
Is it just me or does anyone else see it too?
I am not an expert but what I have learned is that for web and most of the print media, more pixels is not always a good thing. Where it is necessary is how large it needs to be. Billboards, the back of buses and humongous banners would need those pixels from the medium format otherwise, 12mp is plenty. How many double trucks have been done with 12, 10 or even 8 mega pixel’s? Even at that size it would be hard to discern between the two but from my experience, it’s noticeable at 16×20.
I can definitely see the additional detail in the PhaseOne shot when I click to enlarge. But the fact that the client chose the NIkon frame suggests that the bigger image won out. I suppose if the use of the image was something huge like a billboard, the PhaseOne shot would hold up better.
Are you also looking at the D3x as you are considering medium format? I’d love to rent one someday and see what kind of image it produces.
I definitely see more detail on the PhaseOne shot but I like the one your client chose. Curious to know if you’ve considered the D3x as well?
Hard to tell the difference after all that pp. Beautiful work though. Love the skin retouching!
I agree there’s more detail in the p40
without seeing a raw file, no idea if one really is better than the other. far too much post work to even compare.
rocksteady,
danno~
OMG! Seriously AM in “LOVE” with these shots.
This should be the boxcover for Tim Burton’s next recreation of “Snow White” seriously, hit the nail on the head
Eve
I didn’t see “enough difference” between the two images to justify the P40′s 22K+ cost. I saw better texture in the Phase One image, but better color fidelity in the Nikon image. I do wonder now how that would compare to say a D700 image or a D3/D3X/D3S image.
Some top commercial photographers like Markus Klinko are still using RB67′s and scanning the negatives or using digital backs. Recently I pulled out some old RB67 negs and was amazed how much better it looked over my current D700 images.
Keep in mind this picture was taken 22 years ago: http://modelmayhm-3.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/090829/17/4a99cd7324a8f.jpg
It’s horses for courses isn’t it? I don’t think any DSLR will ever match medium format for outright quality but if I were considering an upgrade of this magnitude then a D3x would be my choice. Ease of handling and the familiarity of the Nikon system would sway me there, also cost. If you already have FX lenses then you’re halfway there and to be honest 24 megapixels is fine for most applications other than billboard.
Beautiful images incidentally and I love the effective harsh directional light.
The light and settings are the same, and after post production, isn’t it true that the image will look similar regardless? I think it would be a much fairer comparison if the detail of the photographs produced between the two was shown and compared at 100%.
Perhaps the client chose the shot from the Nikon because they liked how the model looked, rather than ‘oh i’ll pick that one because it looks like it has better image detail’
The phase one can shoot at a super high sync speed of 1/1600, so you can bring in a flash and shoot a model in bright daylight and manage to balance the ambi. Compare that to a Nikon that only has a sync speed of 1/250 the daylight will overkill the flash.
The phase one also has an option of shooting at a higher resolution than the nikon, compare 60+ mp to 12.4 mp. This is especially important for large format prints, which is majority of the case for billboard advertisement.
Overall, I think this is an unfair comparison between the two.
I remember you used Pentax medium format in film days…watch out for their new digital 645 coming out next year!
To me both images look a little over processed to get a real feel for the in camera difference, and the image from the phase one has a very distracting shadow under the nose that touches the upper lip, I would like to see the raw images to make a real comparison, but wouldn’t expect much difference anyway as I don’t think the camera has as much influence on the quality of a shot as the experience of the photographer, and Melissa is an awesome photographer!!…
Mostly I see a lot of post processing. I love your blog but I don’t think these photos support your discussion on detail available from these cameras – they would better support a discussion on retouching. As a discussion of a commercial shoot they are interesting as always.
@Amanda, I don’t want to be a besserwisser but my Nikon D700 has a High Speed Synch at 1/8000. It is a little bit higher than the Phase One, I think (but having never used the Phase One I am not sure).
The Phase One has minimal additional detail, mostly it holds the highlight detail in the fake snow a little better then the D2x. The biggest difference is in the color. Look at the jeweled apple the red color is different in both shots; the phase one is a deeper red, where the D2x is more pinkish. the gold in the apple stem also looks more like gold in the Phase One image compared to the D2x.
It’s a bit hard to really make comparisons by looking at retouched files as it’s hard to tell what is a result of the retouching and what is due to the differences in the cameras.
Hi agree with Walt on this. But this first thing I noticed which stuck out like a sore thumb, is the hair line in the Nikon image. If I had never seen the PhaseOne image I still would have noticed the fake hairline in the Nikon image but would have felt it looked fine due to the make-believe concept. But after seeing the PhaseOne, with the detail in her hair, and the color in her cheeks, not to mention the gradation of tone, and of course the much improved detail and voluminous quality of the apple, I would have to choose the PhaseOne Image overall.
Of course I understand that you have to use the equipment that will give you the look you want for the final output and use of the image. I believe the Nikon works suitabley. But, who am i kinding? I still use a Canon 5D! I’m jealous!
Way too much post processing to make a fair comparison.
They also seem very heavily retouched compared to your other work, which is usually much more subtle. Did David retouch these as well?
Hi Melissa,
nice to see that you think about changing to the “bigger” cameras
I did test the Mamiya and Hasselblad last summer and did get a very close result to yours.
… and of course, if you need to crop or blow up the prints, it is allways good to have a few extra pixels.
and i found out, that it can be a strategic point for the client to know they are using the camera with the highest resolution. just a good argument to sell the production ( best cameras, so they must be really good..;-P.) and just to not get into any trouble if their might be someone who thinks their should be more detail/resolution in … but that is just a strategic point … only interesting for advertising agency and their clients …
But what i found out is more interesting than all of this:
( and at the end these are some imortant point for me …)
the “big” cameras are slowing it all down !
if you like to shoot without a tripod, if you runaround with your models and shoot with 5 or 8fps you can forget to do that with the mamiya or the hasselblad.
If want to shoot available light at 1600 ISO the Nikon D3/D700 is great at that. ( not only sports, fashion too.) So, with the “big” one you’d need to set up extra lights, … again. that’s slowing it down again.
You should try the D3x :
FullFrame Sensor with colors just th way i like them …
Great ( more than enough ) resolution with 25MP there is enough pixels to crop or for big prints
… and still you have all the good things you love about your Nikon.
And at the end: more pixels don’t make a better picture ;-p
… this is my personal opinion, not more.
all the best from Berlin
Frank
http://www.frankjohannes.com
you’re obviously not going to see any major differences on these web images which were probably reduced to 72ppi, and even less when you render the models nearly poreless. You can really see the difference in the hair. The Nikon image really begins to break apart and has blue tint in the highlights. The phaseone has much more clarity hair and no color tint. Although tinting could be from post.
But, it all depends on the final output. If these we’re to be printed on fiber based photo paper then I would easily choose the phaseone image – the lesser quaulity of printing paper the less of a difference b/w the two.
@Jason S: Client gets what client wants. And yes David did the retouching.
Price doesn’t justify the PhaseOne. Good call and THANK YOU for sharing a very honest review.
I don’t know what planet Mark O. is on but Nikon only has a magenta problem if you shoot in Auto White Balance. Otherwise Nikon color is majestic.
I believe it is most likely overkill to spend the money, the newest hi-end digital slr’s (canon and Nikon) are producing extraordinary quality, with resizing and retouching features in photoshop I believe pretty much anything can be achieved with these. The hi end sensors sometimes give too much detail. I remember the first time I used 25 ASA film for a portrait, I decided never again, every blood vessel and blemish screamed out for attention. The higher the resolution scanner also needs more retouching.
Lovely shot. I like the colors better with the phase one. I can really see it in the apple. I think I see more skin texture in the midtones as well.
I have a nikon too and I have been using a mamiya 645 pro lately with film and have been enjoying the results. It is nice to see the large transparencies and how close it is to what I want. I have been thinking about buying a mamiya digital as well. I noticed on B&H that the mamiya zd22 just dropped to 3,500 from about 8,000.
I Cant see a difference, The composition is better in the phase one picture. Maybe its that. The phase one makes you take better compositions.
Difficult to compare two “retouched” files at this size.. But the PhaseOne picts has got much more details, especially in hairs and her cheeks. Look alos at the colors, they are deeper in the PhaseOne.
Working with both system, I still notice a big difference of image quality between PhaseOne and Nikon. That’s all about colors and details.
I’m guessing it’s probably not possible to see an unretouched file with a watermark on it?
Strangely, billboards don’t actually need resolution that great (I think it’s like an inch at 300ppi to a foot of billboard space?) I’ve pulled RED stills at 4K that were used for billboards just fine, and personally I think even a D300 would beat that in clarity and resolution, so a 40 megapixel back wouldn’t even be needed for billboards.
One of the best parts of the medium format backs is the size of the sensor (the chip itself, not the megapixels), which reduces noise, etc.
I’d love to see a raw file from the Phase One though.
I agree with the comments regarding the detail of the Phase One. The apple definitely has a deeper and richer color and more sparkle, which is the main subject.
Guys,
I always notice this white out powered skin.
Can one please tell if this is this some Photoshop technique, heavy powder or both.
I see this style is used for many similar shots and even for more natural looks with the same type of powered looking whiteout skin.
Thank you sooo much, Stassi.
You might want to think about dynamic range too. According to dpreview.com the dynamic range. The D2x only has 7 1/2 stops and the D3x only has 8 1/2. Compare that to the 12 1/2 stops the P40+ has.
I think the point of medium format is options. Your going to be doing the post processing anyway why wouldn’t you want to provide the most possible choices after the shutter clicks. You can always make an image less detailed it can always be darkened but if it is blown all the way out or it is totally black you can’t fix it. The image might not need to be printed on a billboard at 1000 ppi but the point is you can do it if you have to. Creatively I don’t think you can go wrong with more options.
Now I have no idea if it is economical for you to buy such a camera. Thats a decision that only you can make because only you know what is right for you and your business.
Brilliant Blog, great info and great eye.
@ Robert
The sync speed for a D700 is 1/250, not 1/8000.
Great,
thanks for your replies guys.
i see we have lot’s of professionals here.
The colors do look better on the P40. Look how much better the apple looks on the P40.
However I have a couple of questions. As a Pro, At what point is it that you feel you need a medium format camera? You obviously have a lot of success with a D2x and in “technology time” it is a Dinosaur. Look how beautiful all your pictures are. Why do you want to upgrade? Do you get demands from clients to use a medium format? Can you loose jobs because of your gear? I am really curious about this aspect of the business. Thanks.
Higher dynamic range, better tonal gradations and the overall IQ of the medium format is obvious. The price difference is huge too. Nice image!
I prefer Hasselblad because of a leaf shutter and 1/800 synch speed, though. But Phase One is a very decent DB too.
Ya can’t beat the PhaseOne!
When you are working on a composition for a movie poster or something like this guys work (http://www.thinkalter.com/) sometimes you have to mask or retouch a subject that is just a tiny part of the image, and this is when you really would love the 40MP and the lack of anti-alias filter! This is a huge + for the phase one in my opinion.
The PhaseOne looks a bit better. It has this better contrast and depth. The shadows look a bit sharper,deeper but smoother too it seems to me.
Anyways. Absolutly stunning shot Melissa.
Hey there! I actually have a tangential question about the D2x, and a technical one, so bear with me… That’s a crop frame camera, correct? There’s a lot of debate about crop vs. full-frame image quality, and considering you shoot with this body frequently (at least as far as I can tell looking at some of your posts), in practice, has there ever been a professional situation where having a crop sensor has been a disadvantage? Do clients care at all? Like a lot of things on the internet, there’s a lot of hype surrounding full-frame… From the fact that your client went with the image from the D2x over a medium format capture, I can’t imagine there being much of an important difference between a crop camera and a full-frame-35mm camera of roughly equivalent resolution. Any thoughts? Thanks, as always, for this site and for your time!
Phaseone image is much better in the shadow detail, skin tone, life like feel. Nikon image looks typical digital, artifacts, odd color, almost a magenta hue to it, no detail in hair, etc….but the nikon SHOT is a better shot as far as composure.
Hey Nick!
Yeah, there’s a lot of hype and I was pretty much happy with my little outdated D2x until everyone started telling me that my sensor was small and my pixels were low and I needed to get a more expensive and up to date camera. So far, though, to be perfectly honest, I have never had a client complain about the quality of my images. I have shot with the D3x and yes, having the larger sensor was pretty cool but it didn’t “wow” me to go run out and buy the thing. At the end of the day, the glass you shoot with (the lens) and the lighting you use with the team you came prepared with are going to give you better results than any fancy expensive camera out there.
I Imagine there would be more detail in the P40 shot but the D2x seems to have picked up the colour on the apple better, not sure if the position was changed that much. Only thing I would say is that if you are going to shoot for billboards the P40 would obviously help, and of course if you’ve got the $$$$.
Fantastic shots as always though!
Honestly there is just a tiny difference between the two. I noticed in my experience that Phase One and Hasselblad medium format bodies not only have more resolution (i.e. more detail in the image) but also manage to preserve a much better gradation between highlights and shadows. They also preserve the highlights better than other D-SLRs which may blow out the highlights too quickly.
Other than that, there is very little difference between the two images you presented. Great shot BTW!
Sorry just found this blog posting and although it was back in Oct I figured I’d leave a comment.
Well I think like some have said that the retouching is affecting the detail elements in each shot. Now I come from a position of having owned the D2x / D200 as my main tools to now the Phase 645 / P45+ system. I shot both systems back to back on a trip to Wyoming and right away I noticed the depth and detail clarity difference of the missing AA on the MFDB vs. my Nikon (which is why I sold my 35mm gear). Of course this was on landscape scenes.
Therefore for the remainder of the year I’ve used it for my fashion / environmental portraiture photography and the level of detail, the dimension / depth and color have been outstanding. My ability to push and pull the files in post without having them break apart and size to whatever my output suited is wonderful.
Now don’t get me wrong, I do miss 35mm for its weight advantage, burst speed, HI ISO (although I never go past base ISO) and its variety of lenses – along with Nikon’s speedlight system for gorilla location work. But, I love what MFDB offers me and I felt I made the right choice on my end, although I will be adding at some point 35mm at some point for that versatility on the go.
Thanks for you insights on these 2 systems…. and great photography with both systems.
- Marq
I was a nikon user 2 years ago until I tried and bought an Hasselblad H1 with a Leaf back. Look at the apple color and the sharpness of the hairs, the Phase One is definitely better.
Well the touch-up work definately makes it hard to compare the two cameras, there’s just too many variables that have changed. Both these cameras will shoot substantially sharper than either of these photos. It seems most folks shoot portraits softer than default so it could be either that or post work that causes both to be softer than I would expect.
I like the Nikon photo better, but I don’t believe it has anything to do with the cameras, but more the end result.
I believe the much shallower DOF in the Phase One has caused it to be much softer both front and back (notice the sleeve in the apple hand). The apple is probably much softer than it would be if DOF was the same as the Nikon. The Nikon one appears a bit colder than the Nikon but since the composition isn’t close to the same the lighting changes everything. The post work on her hair line isn’t the same, so I can only assume other stuff differs too. My point is that the final output isn’t a good way to compare the two cameras, let us compare the raw data after assuring the composition and lighting are as close to the same as possible. I have no doubt that the Phase One can outperform the D3x. but most folks would never notice. Certainly for advertising it will never be printed such that anyone would notice.
I’m a Nikon shooter, but I’ve seen lots of comparisons over the years and for detail, and assuming all other variables are basically the same, the one with higher MP will generally offer much better detail. However, as we see here, that doesn’t make a final picture. I’d love to shoot medium or large format with digital capture for my landscapes but I can’t justify the cost as a hobby.
First, Great Shots!
I am a Nikon shooter so I am a little partial, that being said. I have dual monitors and I opened them up side by side and went full screen and I can definitely tell the difference in the Phase One. Wow, the details were great.
Don’t take me wrong the D2X shots were great too, just the difference in the medium format was there. It doesn’t scream out “I am better” but if you put them up side by side at full screen and compare the details, they are there.
Great Shots!
Michael
Looking at the photos imbedded in this web page, the difference is not obvious. However, the enlarged jpegs do show differences.
This is a high-key image; the Phase One shot has better highlight detail – look closely at “snow” around the model’s left hand. Also, the shadow detail is better in the Phase One shot – compare the hair in both shots.
(Now whether the images will look substantially different in print is another question. But it might…)
This is what I would expect. Medium format backs have bigger pixels and therefore more dynamic range than you’ll find in a DX (or even FX) camera.
I’m not picking sides – I use both a Nikon FX body and a Mamiya 645 system with a Leaf Aptus back. Each has its strengths and weaknesses.
hey, so I dent the pics up to my retoucher up in seattle at Crystal Images, and he knew them apart with out me telling him the phase one had some Very slight tonal range that the D2x just can put out. But I’d like to of seen the raw images..
I am in the market for a new camera as well.. I still have the d2xs, and a small handful of old glass.. so its a hard one.. but if you look at the Nikon website for the D3x, and see those images.. I am sure you already have, but I am in the studio allot and thats the only camera we rent, unless its a car or a plane and we need the scale and detail.. than its straight to the Hasselblad Hasselblad 501( digi back..) and that bad boy has no competition.. old glass and easy to clean huge sensor..
well good luck on the hunt..
Bigger is better for sure, at least when it comes to detail along the hairline and cheek. However you might not want to show that amount of detail. The Nikon handles the tonal range well and softens the detail areas still giving a perfectly good image. would have been nice to see the phase up against a blad if its really detail and dynamic range your after.
To be honest this comparison is laughable at best.
Too much post work to even judge if it is even a photograph any longer.
p.s.I still think you are amazing!!! I “ove them none the less, as they say, “everyones a critic” hehe
Both are great quality images, but to determine the difference in these two particular shots after photoshopping will be dificult. From what I can see the main difference in these shots are the way the camera handles the highlights. The Nikon shot seems to have more blown out areas where with the Phase One you can still see detail in all the white areas(Her face, snow, blouse) So, I personally prefer the Phase One shot. However, these are basically details that only us as photographers really pay attention to. But as always, great work.
Hi, One point I haven’t seen pointed out is the limitation of lenses on the smaller format size, especially wide angles.
Colour fringing is annoyingly apparent on most DX sized sensors, and esspecially wide angle lenses.
Larger formats using larger lenses, larger pieces of glass have higher definition, and the light doesn’t hit the sensor at such an acute angle – causing colour fringing.
I reckon by the time the market allows D3X technology to become consumer the debate of resolution will be out the window, larger sensors mean less noise and better quality.
In comparison it’s hard to tell unless it’s a 100% section at 72dpi on screen, also retouching the image first doesn’t help, as I think the make up looks amazing which biases my opinion – They both look great!!
Great Blog, great site, loving your work.
Andy Gough
The only reasons to use digital medium format would be either that you:
* need an enlargement over 30″,
* you’re shooting stock that includes a mask (for 3d compositions that need trees in the foreground),
* you want to get a smaller depth of field that medium format allows for beautiful beautiful bokeh.
From reading the specs on the file size it seems like more trouble to edit the large files. I would absolutely love to try one though. I’m sure the view finder is much better than a traditional 35mm, since it’s probably the size of a picture window.
80mm on the phaseone and 24mm on nikon is not fair!!