ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
/forum/topic/860134/847

1       2       3              847      
848
       849              1092       1093       end

twoeye
Registered: Jan 14, 2011
Total Posts: 728
Country: Norway

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.



Diploneis
Registered: Jul 08, 2010
Total Posts: 369
Country: Norway

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:







5DMKII, ZE21(with B+W 10x ND) @ F9/512s







F5.6/180s


Diploneis
Registered: Jul 08, 2010
Total Posts: 369
Country: Norway

And here is one with 2/35







Cheers,
Martynas


Thorsten
Registered: Aug 06, 2010
Total Posts: 989
Country: United States

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?



Diploneis
Registered: Jul 08, 2010
Total Posts: 369
Country: Norway

Thank you, Thorsten! It was like that with long exposure. And colors are VSCO Film.



Samuli Vahonen
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Total Posts: 1892
Country: Finland

Twoeye, wonderful capture ("skiing the Lyngen Alps")!

Thorsten, thanks for posting 2/135 images, we haven't seen many here yet, feel free to post more

JaKo, the 8 image panorama looks very good, thou composition could be enhanced, thou this kind of panoramas are really hard to compose.

Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2/28 @ f/10, 1/125s, 5DmkII@ISO100


Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2/28 @ f/5.6, 1/320s, 5DmkII@ISO100


Samuli



Jochenb
Registered: May 25, 2010
Total Posts: 2069
Country: Belgium

Great shots as usual Martynas.

85P:


Emptiness by Jochen-B, on Flickr



dthrog00
Registered: Jan 30, 2012
Total Posts: 476
Country: United States

The 50P isn't known for being great from close up, but I like this one at f/2.


2013_04_21_0363_upd_bw by dthrog00, on Flickr

Thanks for viewing.
Dave



michael49
Registered: Jun 09, 2006
Total Posts: 5746
Country: United States

A few with the ZE 35 f/2 on a 6D.....









































bushwacker
Registered: Jun 12, 2005
Total Posts: 1094
Country: United States


Hello Zeiss people,

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



zhangyue
Registered: Jan 28, 2011
Total Posts: 4098
Country: United States

bushwacker wrote:

Hello Zeiss people,

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


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).



Samuli Vahonen
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Total Posts: 1892
Country: Finland

bushwacker wrote:

Hello Zeiss people,

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



kwoodard
Registered: Aug 04, 2012
Total Posts: 4610
Country: United States

Samuli Vahonen wrote:
bushwacker wrote:

Hello Zeiss people,

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


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.



dthrog00
Registered: Jan 30, 2012
Total Posts: 476
Country: United States

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!

Dave



Lee Saxon
Registered: Jun 07, 2012
Total Posts: 2165
Country: United States

That's some pretty bad Photoshop :/

Wonder why he lied about it.



Picture This!
Registered: Aug 03, 2010
Total Posts: 2163
Country: United States

The plane of focus is totally ape in that shot. Looks fake.



zhangyue
Registered: Jan 28, 2011
Total Posts: 4098
Country: United States

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).



Looks like it was took at f1.2.

see this:
http://www.pbase.com/anerino/image/82095236&exif=Y

I am surprised so many people like this image from DPR? SH!



AlexDROP
Registered: Apr 04, 2011
Total Posts: 219
Country: Russia

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.



bushwacker
Registered: Jun 12, 2005
Total Posts: 1094
Country: United States

zhangyue wrote:

see this:

http://www.pbase.com/anerino/image/82095236&exif=Y

I am surprised so many people like this image from DPR? SH!





people at DPR say WOW at this picture some are skeptical and one guy says it's 3d.

can someone here pls replicate the same with the same size kid with either zeiss 85mm or 100 Makro.

for me it looks really fake.


Here's a sample shot with 85mm L at f1.2 for me this is real. It doesn't look 3d but it is good, I like this better than the Kid pic.


http://www.pbase.com/ericsorensen/image/112387104



Samuli Vahonen
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Total Posts: 1892
Country: Finland

kwoodard wrote:
Unless the guy is lying, its not a PS job... (but I agree, looks too good to be true)

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.




We need more pictures here....


Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2/28 @ f/2, 1/2500s, 5DmkII@ISO100


Samuli



1       2       3              847      
848
       849              1092       1093       end