Mike, very dramatic shot. You should post here more often
Zhangyue, thanks for the suggestion. In fact the 2nd shot is with the 50 planar.
Dale, the last shot is fantastic!
Canongolfguy, resistance is futile
now that flickr offers larger sizes for non pro accounts (up to 2048), I hope that you might consider upping your upload sizes; I'd like to look at your pictures in a larger size.
especially your lens tests, lol. sorry, Im just sick like that. fwiw your comments on and images with the biogon 35mm were instrumental in my purchase of that lens.
rscheffler wrote:
Taking in the sunset in Goderich
M9 & 21 SEM:
I particularly love this 2nd one Ron, where the girl's legs mimic the angles of the posts. Favourite of your 2nd set is the first one.
More generally - re the comment on Flickr upload images sizes, I always just edit my posts and upload directly to FM - is there a drawback in doing this?
I also agree with photo comments from Edward's post on the previous page...
1. M8, Summicron 50, 1/45, f8, ISO160
2. M8, CV 35/1.4, 1/90, f5.6, ISO160: Women not really in focus, but I liked the result of this stealth shot in any case
3. The evocative Australian Kookaburra (they don't usually have a pole growing from their head).
Redisburning, I checked flickr and the limit is still 1024 px.
Yea but they started compressing files some time ago. Somewhere around 70-80% at best. I prefer 500px with 900px limit and lvl 11 compression or Tumblr, without any compression.
Those two have a really nice feel, Edward. Again, reminds me of slide film.
rscheffler wrote:
Taking in the sunset in Goderich
M9 & 21 SEM:
lenticular11 wrote:
I particularly love this 2nd one Ron, where the girl's legs mimic the angles of the posts. Favourite of your 2nd set is the first one.
More generally - re the comment on Flickr upload images sizes, I always just edit my posts and upload directly to FM - is there a drawback in doing this?
I also agree with photo comments from Edward's post on the previous page...
Thanks very much!
I don't think there's really a downside to uploading directly, just that you have to pay an annual fee and some don't wish to do so when there are free hosting options available, such as Flickr. And with Flickr you can take advantage of the whole social-web thing if that's your cup of tea, developing connections with other photographers, building up a following, etc. I also post to Flickr, but have been a bit lazy keeping up with it. It sometimes pays off though, in that I've had serious inquiries from publications about using my photography, and who were actually willing to pay for the use. I suppose it also depends on what you want to do. Some use Flickr, etc., as a showcase of their best work. For me, it's more like a scrap album or journal, with relatively loose edits and broad variety for anyone to sift through, if they have time.
Here are some from central Goderich. Just old grungy stuff that caught my eye. This isn't really indicative of the town, just happened to be near where we parked for dinner...
M9 & 2x 28 Cron, 2x 50 Lux ASPH, 2x 21 Lux
B&W in part because of the ugly sodium vapor street lighting. I'll admit I've been happy to see some cities, such as where I live, switch back to the whiter light of mercury vapor style lighting for use in some promenade-type locations. Makes for much nicer nighttime color photography.
when I uploaded a 2048 picture it worked ok for me. now I dont have pro, and I still cant use the drop down share menu to get 2048, but if I go to all sizes it has 2 sizes after 1024 including the largest 2048.
I don't think there's really a downside to uploading directly, just that you have to pay an annual fee and some don't wish to do so when there are free hosting options available, such as Flickr. And with Flickr you can take advantage of the whole social-web thing if that's your cup of tea, developing connections with other photographers, building up a following, etc. I also post to Flickr, but have been a bit lazy keeping up with it. It sometimes pays off though, in that I've had serious inquiries from publications about using my photography, and who were actually willing to pay for the use. I suppose it also depends on what you want to do. Some use Flickr, etc., as a showcase of their best work. For me, it's more like a scrap album or journal, with relatively loose edits and broad variety for anyone to sift through, if they have time. ...Show more →
doesn't the FM uploader have pretty restrictive size limits? maybe things have changed since i last looked. if you're going to pay anyway, i'd just get a flickr pro account where you can upload as many images as you want at any size. i don't think they compress the original size file, just the smaller versions (i wouldn't be terribly surprised to find out there is some compression of the original size too though). i find the interface on flickr nicer than most of the photo sites i've looked at. then of course there's the advantages ron mentions – i don't make any effort to get image views on flickr, but i've still sold the occasional print, licensed photos for publications and a TV show, and then there's getty's stock photo thing flickr that one may or may not want.
I'm at least 8 pages behind on comments, so here's my quick try:
joakim: love the snow abstract great colours and use of DOF
Andrew: love all the car show stuff.
Gary: great ultra close up of the penguin
Ajay C: awesome sun beams in the B&W landscape
airfrogusmc: great candidon the bottom of page 668
Joe: congrats on the purchase and thanks for all the samples! That leaf shot with the 90AA is superb!
Edward: fabulous B&W portrait of the monk on page 668
bruniroquai: both in B&W, but I'm a little biased that way
Ron: blown away by the sunset shots, agree above that the symmetry between the legs and the posts in #2
Sebboh and Ron - thanks for comments re Flickr. I actually have a Flickr Pro account, but generally found it quicker just to upload onto here directly. re FM filesize, I have been limiting 99% to the 900 pixel width limit that generally seems to be the norm on posts.
Ron - great stuff as usual. I liked the grungy side of Goderich
Ryan - how on earth do you capture so many sharp shots of your energetic little boy? Michael's two seem more 'docile'!
Now a question: those lucky people who have bought the M240 - do you see much more from it than you were getting with your M9 / 9-P?
A Steven Huff review was emphatic in extolling the M240 performance gains in colour richness/ balance, dynamic range and of course high ISO. I must say however that in some of his comparison shots I found it very hard to see some of the claims. (was browsing at lunchtime at work, so wasn't able to do a detailed appraisal).
Further to the recent discussion regarding DR and processing of M240 files, user "elmars" on LUF provided the following information directly quoted from Erwin Puts:
"the theoretical dynamic range is, as I remark, grossly overvalue and in fact useless. The useful exposure range is also determined by the software in the camera. The problem is this: the software must determine what the minimum charge is of the voltage of the individual pixel to set a black level and the same goes for the white level. The exiftool analysis shows that the M9(-P) and the M both use a 14 bit depth dynamic range, that theoretically runs from 0 to 16383. The M9-P sets the black point to 44 and the saturation point to 16383. The high black point (or noise-floor) reduces the noise in dark areas, but the saturation point (max white) allows for no over-exposure. The M has values of 0 and 15000. The low black point is possible because the noise is lower and the lower saturation point allows more room for over-exposure.
In other words: with standard exposure the M fares better than the M9 because it has more over exposure latitude. You can get the same result when setting the exposure compensation of the M9 to -2/3.
I am not sure if the M has a larger dynamic range than the M9 (the Monochrom is even better and this one uses the CCD sensor too)."
Gary, That is interesting information about M9 and M240 sensor. I think no matter how many bit ADC used, or how you allocated ADC resolution in this case, the sensor was the bottle neck of the system if not capable to capture the 14 bit Dynamic range.
I feel suspicious about M9’s 44-16383 number as it indicates M9 only has less than 9 bit DR to work with, which sounds very low even it is a dated sensor.
