I like D3 better than D9 too. But I dunno why. D3 seems to tell me something about the culture while D9 only tells me that there were a hell of a lot of red roof tiles sold in them-thar parts.
Anyway, Now I know where Denoir's been hiding out for the past week or two... Looks like a heck of a lot of fun you had there too! And brought back some awesome images while you were at it! Nice!
Thanks for the explanation Luka. The framing compromises rarely bother as thats one of the compromises I've learned to live with the small form factor of a rangefinder. The noise reduction is certainly annoying but again a worthwhile compromise for the beautiful leica files.
brian
snowboarder wrote:
Boris, do you mind explaining why?
I think the two main reasons why I prefer D3 are:
- the light is much more interesting in D3 (combination of twilight, last sunlight and artificial light)
- the framing/composition is better (the lower framing is nearly perfect with the lit window in the lower right corner giving a nice balance, while the composition of D9 is a bit unbalanced in my opinion)
But of course you are right that D3 would be even better with a more interesting sky. I would probably crop the top 5-10% of the sky. The only other thing that slightly disturbs me is that the ship is not completely in the frame (but I know that this is very difficult to get with the inaccurate framing of the M9).
plasticmotif wrote:
Luka, I hate you.
I've been wanting to go to Plitvice for some time...
If I hadn't started buying another house, we were planning Matterhorn and possibly Plitvice in April.
The Plitvice lakes are nice indeed. I was however unfortunate to come directly after a long drought so the waterfalls weren't as impressive as they usually are. Plus there was really an insane amount of tourists. It looked like half of Japan had descended on the national park. Incidentally, this was the first time I saw NEX & m4/3 cameras being used to a large extent.
It was rather interesting as the the tourists visiting Dubrovnik had completely different photo gear. It was also insanely crowded during the day and especially the weekends when several big cruise ships arrived. The Plitvice visitors had smaller cameras - mostly P&S , but also some of the newer NEX & m4/3. Bridge cameras were also common while the DSLRs were limited to older Canon Rebels. In Dubrovnik the crowd had quite often large DSLRs - 5DII's, 1DsIII's, D3Xs and so on. I even saw a Zeiss ZE lens or two (although Canon L zoom lenses were predominant).
Nice shots Luka! Thanks for sharing, must have been a great trip.
My favorites are D2 and D6 and P4. Curious why you didn't stop down more for P4, only f4?
I agree with Boris, I like D3 better than D9 because of the better light and I like the comp better too.
I agree with trimming some of the sky of D3.
P5 is nice comp and interesting water falls, but I wish the lighting was better on the background falls.
Keep them coming!
Gorgeous photos! My favorites are D2, D16, P5 and P10. Man, I could really use some vacation soon. Perhaps I should try to convince my significant other to go to Dubrovnik...
Great photos, perfect colors, clean look, balanced contrast and composition is "maxed up". Seriously I dont think I saw anyone else being so good with composition of photo.
Not sure if Im allowed to nitpick, but I see some dustspots (D1 in sea, notch under horizont, left-ish side of photo and some others mainly photos with sky). Tiny bit distracting. Its just me seeing them?
wayne seltzer wrote:
Curious why you didn't stop down more for P4, only f4?
Maybe it was shot at f/4, as Luka tends to work at middle apertures a lot to avoid diffraction degradation issues but it's also probable that it's an M9 quirk as I believe for long exposures it always registers f/4 as the shooting aperture as some sort of default.
denoir wrote:
Thank you Ariel, Bifurcator, Mac & nsarcastic
The Plitvice lakes are nice indeed. I was however unfortunate to come directly after a long drought so the waterfalls weren't as impressive as they usually are. Plus there was really an insane amount of tourists. It looked like half of Japan had descended on the national park. Incidentally, this was the first time I saw NEX & m4/3 cameras being used to a large extent.
It was rather interesting as the the tourists visiting Dubrovnik had completely different photo gear. It was also insanely crowded during the day and especially the weekends when several big cruise ships arrived. The Plitvice visitors had smaller cameras - mostly P&S , but also some of the newer NEX & m4/3. Bridge cameras were also common while the DSLRs were limited to older Canon Rebels. In Dubrovnik the crowd had quite often large DSLRs - 5DII's, 1DsIII's, D3Xs and so on. I even saw a Zeiss ZE lens or two (although Canon L zoom lenses were predominant).
Great set, Luka! D1 is a favorite of mine, it is such an invitation to revisit one of Europe's magical cities! And, until Croatia achieve membership of the Eurozone (are they crazy?), an affordable one, too...
Bobu wrote:
I think the two main reasons why I prefer D3 are:
- the light is much more interesting in D3 (combination of twilight, last sunlight and artificial light)
- the framing/composition is better (the lower framing is nearly perfect with the lit window in the lower right corner giving a nice balance, while the composition of D9 is a bit unbalanced in my opinion)
But of course you are right that D3 would be even better with a more interesting sky. I would probably crop the top 5-10% of the sky. The only other thing that slightly disturbs me is that the ship is not completely in the frame (but I know that this is very difficult to get with the inaccurate framing of the M9).
philber wrote:
Great set, Luka! D1 is a favorite of mine, it is such an invitation to revisit one of Europe's magical cities! And, until Croatia achieve membership of the Eurozone (are they crazy?), an affordable one, too...
Dubrovnik is really something special and I highly recommend a visit, but I'm afraid that you are woefully wrong about it being affordable. The only more expensive place I've ever visited is the historical center of Florence. Dubrovnik has always been expensive but they've reached new heights these days. Expect to pay as much as €6 for an espresso in a café and the hotels that are in or near the old town range from €300-€700 / night. So you can expect to pay 4-5 times the price that you would pay in Zagreb for just about anything.
One of the reasons to the absurd price levels is the advent of the big cruise ship tourism and the demise of classical tourism with people staying in town for a while. These big cruise ships come to Dubrovnik, dump 6-7,000 people each into the old town for a couple of hours and move on. So all the cafés and restaurants try to earn as much as possible in as a brief time period as possible. This of course in turn makes Dubrovnik less appealing for traditional types of visitors that stay at least a few days..
Mescalamba wrote:
Not sure if Im allowed to nitpick, but I see some dustspots (D1 in sea, notch under horizont, left-ish side of photo and some others mainly photos with sky). Tiny bit distracting. Its just me seeing them?
Thanks - fixed now
snowboarder wrote:
To me it's an interesting subject as I always
struggle with this kind of typical "red roofs" shots. I think just roofs are not enough
to make it interesting. I only shoot it if I have a great sky or if there is a great
landscape behind, like Tuscany for example, or if I'm lucky - both.
But even then, I have found if I shoot too wide, it's still confusing a bit.
Of course, a compromise with a smaller bit of sky is always possible:
wayne seltzer wrote:
Curious why you didn't stop down more for P4, only f4?
Ron's answer is on the mark. The shot was taken probably around f/5.6-f/8. The M9 has no electronic coupling to the lens so it tries to guess the aperture based on the light coming in through the lens. At long exposures it can't do that and just writes f/4 in the exif.
However, also as Ron pointed out, I usually shoot at middle apertures - rarely above f/8 - to avoid diffraction. Usually my choice is depends on the lens and the idea is to use the aperture that is optimal from an image quality point of view.
There are many favourites here, excellent stuff!!