AlexDROP wrote:
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.
A friend directed me to this thread. Nice to meet you Alex. Sorry to say that you are wrong and I dont appreciate being called a liar. Feel free to ask me any questions you'd like.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
He is lying, the kid has too big DOF. Dodging and burning explains why kid's shoes don't have vignetting as much as background. The amount of background blur doesn't look weird to me (before moving to Zeiss I shot a lot with 85/1.2mkII), but it won't make the image great - typical 85/1.2L image; cardboard people on blurry background - people don't have clear shape and volume, just damn flat cardboard figures - definitely not even slightest hint of 3D in these.
Samuli
Pleasure to meet you, Samuli. I'm sorry to tell you that you are wrong and that I am not lying. Feel free to ask me any questions you'd like.
carstenw wrote:
If you read the thread to the end, he added that he had forgotten that he extended the foreground via cloning. This is why the ground looks so weird. There was originally too little foreground under the kid's feet.
I am not sure that it is fake beyond that. The depth of field is a bit odd, but so is the dof of the 50MP, and I don't know this lens. I don't like the look particularly though. As Samuli says, it looks like a cardboard person in front of a blurry backdrop, nothing inspiring there, and the colours look fake or wrong. I have never been that impressed with the photos I have seen from the 85L, but I am careful about saying that, since it has so many fans....Show more →
Thank you Carstenw. You got it exactly right. I am not concerned about people liking the image or not (that's the fun part about photography), but I do not appreciate being called a liar as others have done.
It's a weird thing. I'm a long standing member here with a long history of posting, helping, and sharing. Why wouldnt someone just hit the PM button before calling me a liar?
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
Sorry Sam, wrong again. Ask any questions you'd like. I'm here to answer them.
canerino wrote:
I'm a long standing member here with a long history of posting, helping, and sharing. Why wouldnt someone just hit the PM button before calling me a liar?
Well, people hiding behind nicknames... How in earth anybody could have known that you are same nickname xyz here and same xyz in some other forum? And why to bother even check since the nickname doesn't sound unique? Sorry, don't trust even a drop to people with just nicknames unless they have been posting long time to threads I have been following up. I don't recall ever seen your posts of Fred Miranda, so you must be posting to other forums/threads what I'm following.
canerino wrote:
Sorry Sam, wrong again. Ask any questions you'd like. I'm here to answer them.
Considering that we don't really know how image is processed could you please provide dropbox (or similar) link to the RAW via PM or to temporary email address I created for this case: [email protected]
Originally it was claimed to be non processed. Then it came out that the foreground was photoshopped to the photo (photo was artificially extended by cloning) and dodging and burning, and then also "sponging" whatever that is. So there really is no way of knowing what has been done to the photo - also I don't expect you or anybody to remember how they processed some photo ages ago. Now I'm reading dpreview thread for first time and you had posted real image there, but it's no longer available, just a question mark icon indicating URL not available, so there is also no reference to non-photoshopped image.
I have shoot thousands of frames with 85/1.2LmkII, thou mostly nature, not so much people. And with web resizing processes I'm familiar * it would never be possible to have both arms in focus @ f/1.2 at that size web presentation with processing claimed to be done to photo (extending foreground, dodging burning, sponge to shoe of which none affects apparent DOF). As the photo is presented it looks result of focus stacking since the subject has long DOF but background is blurred - in small websize image this can be done without focus stacking via sharpening (either purposely in PS or using weird resizing method).
* from standard bicubic in PS to all kind of advanced step sharpenings and processes based to advanced resizing algorithm like Lanczos - but outside few tests I have never outputted webresized output from Adobe Lightroom or Apple Aperture since both produce results I can't personally accept, so I'm not familiar if their resizing algorithm affects to apparent DOF in the websized output.
Apologies about off-topic...
Ronny, have been enjoying your makro images in last pages. I can't get that close to animals without scaring them away - or then I just don't have the patience.
Manu, liked your ZF21 beach landscape few pages ago.
Grenache, your "Whisk" (personally I would have preferred straightened horizon and non tilting trees) and "Two is a crowd" IR images were very nice. Nice to see that 15mm works so well in IR.
JaKo, 50MP rendering is very flat - the woman in 2nd photo looks like cardboard and very flat and 2D
Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/21 @ f/11, 3.2s, 5DmkII@ISO100, Polarizer
@JaKo: great serie! Lot of depth in the shots.
@hijazist: nice colours in the first shot. I like the composition of the foreground and background in the 2nd shot.
