twoeye; great composition and simplicity. You rarely post here, but when you do, you DO!
Oh BTW, kudos for 'dragging' your DSLR and Zeiss glass up to the mountain to capture and share such an image.
Thank you Jochenb and JaKo!
For these kind of treks I am always torn between bringing my 24-105L or two or three primes. Coming home, I am always happy for having taken on the slight hassle of the primes. Even if this was more or less the only good image captured for three days due to changing weather and white-out conditions most of the time.
Twoeye - great snowscape! Very impressive! Thorsten - wonderful series! Very cute! Superb output from that lens!
Helena was very kind to share with me the coordinates of this desolate concrete ship near by Trondheim. So I had a trip to Fosen Peninsula yesterday. All I could find out about it that is called Crete Joist - the concrete ship ran ashore in 1942 and has survived several attempts to sink it. The weather was not cooperating with me, but still here is what I came up with:
Diploneis wrote:
Twoeye - great snowscape! Very impressive! Thorsten - wonderful series! Very cute! Superb output from that lens!
Helena was very kind to share with me the coordinates of this desolate concrete ship near by Trondheim. So I had a trip to Fosen Peninsula yesterday. All I could find out about it that is called Crete Joist - the concrete ship ran ashore in 1942 and has survived several attempts to sink it. The weather was not cooperating with me, but still here is what I came up with:
Thank you! Love the 2nd one! Was that how it looked, or is it a tinted B+W conversion?
It seems image applied a strong/weird vignette to it, otherwise, I don't feel it is unreal. This is match what I see from Flickr 85L group and this is exact reason I want avoid this lens now, (though I have to try it someday) I personally don't like this kind of 'POP'. It is not the way I see things
I was on iphone, now look it again from my computer, I agree this is super weird look, especially edge of in focus zone. Though at this distance(3-4M, judged from kid size) for 85mm, the kid could have gotten similar DOF if 85mm is as sharp as legend suggested. Especially, at this web size, you can't judge DOF clearly with some PP and resize.
So, I guess it is just heavy PPed with mask/brush in lightroom or PS. the image could have been took at f1.2.
I never be a fan for this rendering anyway. (the similar apply with 200f1.8/f2 canikon)
I do see similar POP image often from 85mm 1.2 group in Flickr, though, they are just not fake as this one (bad PP taste IMO).
Just one question is this the proper way to bokeh? or a 3D? seems like the Kid been copy and pasted. Don't you think? it looks unatural.
here it is:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2035384
Not sure are you seriously asking... Quite obvious that it's PhotoShop result not real photo, would require lobotomy to believe this is real image;
1) kid has DOF worth of f/2.8-3.5 (the left arm in focus, which is 20-30cm further away compared to right side of face) while background has ultra shallow DOF
2) vignetting only occurs in background - real vignetting would also affect to kid's legs
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Not sure are you seriously asking... Quite obvious that it's PhotoShop result not real photo, would require lobotomy to believe this is real image;
1) kid has DOF worth of f/2.8-3.5 (the left arm in focus, which is 20-30cm further away compared to right side of face) while background has ultra shallow DOF
2) vignetting only occurs in background - real vignetting would also affect to kid's legs
Samuli
Unless the guy is lying, its not a PS job... (but I agree, looks too good to be true)
from the link
wow! thanks all. i've posted this on a few forums and in each forum I got the same question about the bokeh being real.
Just to clarify here, I DID NOT touch the background in any way. The only processing I did here was some levels and burned the edges where the street was dark. I did sharpen for web (150, 0.2, 0).
but that is it, honestly. I think this has a surreal feel because of the quality light. It was just after a rainfall and the sun was at my back under cloud cover...that along with shooting at f/1.2.
Quite honestly I don't like that image regardless of whether the guy who posted said it was authentic or not... The blur is coming out of the kids head and the street looks bizarre!
zhangyue wrote:
I was on iphone, now look it again from my computer, I agree this is super weird look, especially edge of in focus zone. Though at this distance(3-4M, judged from kid size) for 85mm, the kid could have gotten similar DOF if 85mm is as sharp as legend suggested. Especially, at this web size, you can't judge DOF clearly with some PP and resize.
So, I guess it is just heavy PPed with mask/brush in lightroom or PS. the image could have been took at f1.2.
I never be a fan for this rendering anyway. (the similar apply with 200f1.8/f2 canikon)
I do see similar POP image often from 85mm 1.2 group in Flickr, though, they are just not fake as this one (bad PP taste IMO).
The plane of focus must be reflected on the ground showing a narrow sharp line that is absent on the shot. Moreover the foreground is heavily patched and has some evident areas of recurring textures/patterns. And it's a little bit more than "blah,blah, blah... just levels honestly". No doubt he is lying. Though I don't have enough facts to state that the background picture and the boy shot were taken separately.
