ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
/forum/topic/860134/863

1       2       3              863      
864
       865              998       999       end

user222
Registered: Sep 13, 2007
Total Posts: 794
Country: United States

Nice works David, Rodluvan and Jim.

ZE 100MP


born in the sun by craig_coonrad, on Flickr


poppy hatch by craig_coonrad, on Flickr


foxglove by craig_coonrad, on Flickr


azalea by craig_coonrad, on Flickr



philber
Registered: May 21, 2008
Total Posts: 7651
Country: France

Great stuff, Craig!



Ronny _Olsson
Registered: Jun 24, 2012
Total Posts: 2590
Country: Sweden

philber wrote:
Great stuff, Craig!

+1



canerino
Registered: May 28, 2005
Total Posts: 10797
Country: United States

Lee Saxon wrote:
That's some pretty bad Photoshop :/

Wonder why he lied about it.



A friend of mine directed me to this thread. Here I am...feel free to ask me any questions. No lies ever necessary on my end.



Ronny _Olsson
Registered: Jun 24, 2012
Total Posts: 2590
Country: Sweden


Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 100mm f/2 Vivitar Nikon AT-3/AI Extension Tube by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr

Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 100mm f/2 ZF by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr



canerino
Registered: May 28, 2005
Total Posts: 10797
Country: United States

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.



canerino
Registered: May 28, 2005
Total Posts: 10797
Country: United States

Samuli Vahonen wrote:
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.



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.



canerino
Registered: May 28, 2005
Total Posts: 10797
Country: United States

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.



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?



canerino
Registered: May 28, 2005
Total Posts: 10797
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


Sorry Sam, wrong again. Ask any questions you'd like. I'm here to answer them.



darbo
Registered: Mar 10, 2012
Total Posts: 211
Country: United States

Craig and Ronny,

The flowers and bugs look amazing; great work witht the 100MP!



kwoodard
Registered: Aug 04, 2012
Total Posts: 3135
Country: United States

Ronny _Olsson wrote:

Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 100mm f/2 Vivitar Nikon AT-3/AI Extension Tube by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr

Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 100mm f/2 ZF by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr

Awesome!



Ronny _Olsson
Registered: Jun 24, 2012
Total Posts: 2590
Country: Sweden

Thanks Jim,Darbo and Kevin



user222
Registered: Sep 13, 2007
Total Posts: 794
Country: United States

thanks guys!



JaKo
Registered: Aug 08, 2011
Total Posts: 1095
Country: Canada

Ronny, are you swinging towards 'Naked Lunch' world with your recent shots?























JaKo
Registered: Aug 08, 2011
Total Posts: 1095
Country: Canada

Maktenian take







Samuli Vahonen
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Total Posts: 1596
Country: Finland

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: fredmiranda.canerino85l@vahonen.com

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


Samuli



JaKo
Registered: Aug 08, 2011
Total Posts: 1095
Country: Canada

Samuli Vahonen wrote: JaKo, 50MP rendering is very flat - the woman in 2nd photo looks like cardboard and very flat and 2D

You're right! She must be on some fiber diet or I used Leica instead of Zeiss lens



Ronny _Olsson
Registered: Jun 24, 2012
Total Posts: 2590
Country: Sweden

Thanks

Great set Jako
Samuli: Is a mystery to me how you get out all the details in your tree pictures
And then such pressure in the picture. Great work!



philber
Registered: May 21, 2008
Total Posts: 7651
Country: France

Ronny _Olsson wrote:
Thanks

Great set Jako
Samuli: Is a mystery to me how you get out all the details in your tree pictures
And then such pressure in the picture. Great work!


+1!!!



JaKo
Registered: Aug 08, 2011
Total Posts: 1095
Country: Canada

Thank you Ronny. It's nice to see you go back to your 100MP once i a while

Couple more from 'Power Generators' series:












1       2       3              863      
864
       865              998       999       end