Briefly because I don't want to derail a thread about Mamiya lenses with talking about stitched images using a canon lens:
These are shot by deciding on a composition, deciding where I want the human element, waiting for that particular frame to happen and then once I've got that shooting the other frames of the stitch. Stitch with these was done with just a regular panning ballhead (I've got the NN5 for indoor work where you can't get away with that) and APP software.
It's not that much the processing but rather the light which makes these pictures. The light there is unique and although often incredibly hard to shoot, if you work out how to make it work for you and not against you then it's georgous. I use the Gradient Map method of B&W conversion in general but sometimes layer that with a B&W filter in PS tuned for taste and just paint in the best of each. The majority though is usually Gradient Map conversion. Then pretty much dodge and burn to taste, a contrast mask and that's it. The trick with a good B&W conversion is to tune the original colour image to pretty much perfect before you convert, especially the DR and the WB (which is essential to the look of a B&W conversion), I stitch using very flat files from RAW then tune the stitched image in ACR/LR to the appropriate 'look' before sending to PS for the B&W treatment.
More of my stuff here: www.timelessjewishart.com if you're interested and thanks!
In Photoshop you can apply a B&W adjustment layer. I then use the layer mask to paint in which bits of it I want. Not really as simple as that as the adjustment layer has to be underneath the Gradient Map layer and you are actually using the layer mask on the top layer but to go into more detail I'd need to spend a long time talking about photoshop stuff which is frankly boring.
I just noticed this thread and now I'm officialy interested in Mamiya lenses.
Just a couple questions...
I had a Canon TS-E 90 that I sold (and regret doing it) and was considering the possibility of buying it again. But, after reading this thread, I may consider a Mirex adapter and a couple Mamiya lenses instead, saving a couple hundred Euros and gaining some flexibility.
My main uses for a 90mm TS-E lenses would be landscape (using tilt or not, also panoramas with shift) and close-up. So, I'd need a short-tele lens that is sharp at or near infinity, but also with a good performance at MFD (even if I need to use tubes to get into 'close-up' zone). The 120/4 Macro looks impressive, but the prices I saw were too high to my possibilities, so I was considering either a 80/1.9 or a 80/2.8 N. Which one is more adequate for my needs? Or is there any other good and affordable alternative? What about the 80/4 Macro C?
I was also considering a wide lens, so I can have a good landscape/architecture lens (tilting and shifting). Maybe the 35/3.5 N is good enough for detailed landscapes? It certainly is very affordable and I don't see any wider lenses.
Caldiar: Great shots. Why don't you just come over?
Pedro: 35/3.5 has really soft corners wide open. In my opinion is not "an amazing" lens. It is nevertheless a good lens. I haven't got 80/2.8 but I really like 80/1.9 - it is amazingly sharp at 5.6 and its detail reproduction is fantastic. The colours are somewhat muted in a Mamiya way, but it really appeals to me personally.
I don't mind soft corners wide open on a landscape lens. If the 35/3.5 delivers stopped down to f/8 or f/11 and still allows some T&S play i'll consider it! Also, I don't see any other options; I haven't found a wider or as wide a lens as the 35/3.5.
My idea was to buy the Mirex adapter (~400€) + a WA lens + a short-tele lens. All three itens could be had for less than the cost of a Canon TS-E 90 and this would be my main motivation. But there are so many good alt lenses to buy and so little money... I need to priorize my needs.
Pedro: In my opinion you can't go wrong with Mirex. You get pretty much a range of 35mm to 150mm to use as opposed to having a single T/S lens.
80/1.9 creates fantastic miniatures.. Sadly, the bokeh on 80/1.9 is not best, but compared to upsides it's a minor gripe...
I'd love to see more. I will be using my 200mm f2.8 on a 22 MP MF back, so seeing examples shot with the 5D are good to gauge the results ... same pixel pitch.
Caldiar: Shot WO? Though fast, 80/1.9 has a bit too busy bokeh for my liking. I like it stopped down to 5.6 for shooting landscape and architecturals.
But you seem to have brought a better side of it forward. Very nice shot!..
Yes, it was at 1,9. The out of focus buildings have that busy bokeh. I wonder if the N version is less prone to flare. You can see a flare from the headlights cut off by the stitching program.
Yours looks quite okay. Here are some backlight shots I took a while ago. I'm not sure about the lens though. It might be from the 45mm 2,8 N. I noticed that the flare becomes visible although the light source is far from being in the frame. I guess it's because of the bigger image circle.
I notice the flair on Mamiyas materialises in form of light streak when you are not quite shooting into the light source. It can be aesthetically pleasing on occasion, I suppose. (Actually, just as sirimiri pointed out - somewhat anamorphic look).
Most disgusting flare up to date I have experienced is EF 16-35/2.8L - Mamiyas are not even close to that.
I work there.. But when you come to Tokyo, there is a number of tall buildings you can enter as a visitor. Let me know when and if you are coming and I can look it up for you.
I need to priorize my needs.
