crazeazn wrote:
bif's photos have a certain signature, his reds are very muted for me.
For me the local contrast is too high in pretty much every single picture of his, making the differences between lenses very difficult to see. Also, the bokeh in many of his pics looks like it has undergone a gaussian blur, i.e. completely without any texture or grain.
Bifurcator wrote:
How about the Sushi? Does that match this "certain distinctive color" ?
Or how about the duck?
I'm not doing anything unusual to them. As Shot White Balance most of the time, sometimes a little fill light, some sharpening, and scaling... that's about it. The two dog shots were taken 7 months ago on a totally different camera: 2011:09:14 16:59:39. The one thing I do do which might affect color is that I bring them in as ProPhoto from ACR and then after scaling, just before saving them I "Convert to" profile sRGB. But that shouldn't be causing any anomalies.
Here's a totally different f/1.2 lens. Same lighting, same sushi bar, same time of night... Do they look the same too?
I think you guys are full of it myself... ...Show more →
for me yes, they are all immediately recognizable as your photos. i may have exaggerated when i said i couldn't see any differences between lenses, i'm sure some may come through, but the oddness of the colors to my eye always dominates. it seems like there are never any blacks in your photos as well and the areas that should be black to my eye always seem too blue. i figured it was all a matter of taste and style so i haven't mentioned it before.
The sushi photos look great - no WB objections with those. Nor with the earlier set. Being a sushi fan, I would have loved to have been there eating your test samples
I should have been more specific. It's your outdoor photos that have a certain WB color quality. Going from memory, many of the latest cherry blossom images, and I see it a bit in the flying duck. I don't think it's a major problem, just a WB consideration. I've seen a similar situation with one of the guys on the Leica digital M thread here, shooting with the M8. I asked to see one of his DNG files, and the issue seemed to be the Lightroom profile. It had the as shot daylight WB polluted with +15 points magenta. The default Adobe Standard camera profile seemed to compound this. Changing the profile to Camera Standard and dialing back the magenta tint made a big improvement, at least for the M8. Personally I don't care for the WB presets, i.e. daylight, cloudy, etc. and will always tweak files for optimum WB in post.
crazeazn wrote:
bif's photos have a certain signature, his reds are very muted for me.
sebboh wrote:
all your shots seem to have the same color
Bifurcator wrote:
I think...
rscheffler wrote:
Haha.... actually, I agree with sebboh...
rscheffler wrote:
The sushi photos look great - no WB objections with those. Nor with the earlier set. Being a sushi fan, I would have loved to have been there eating your test samples
I should have been more specific. It's your outdoor photos that have a certain WB color quality.
I use AWB and then As Shot in ACR mostly. I try the ACR's "Auto" from time to time and also occasionally split the difference between ACR's "As Shot" and it's "Auto".
crazeazn wrote:
bif's photos have a certain signature, his reds are very muted for me.
AhamB wrote:
For me the local contrast is too high in pretty much every single picture of his, making the differences between lenses very difficult to see. Also, the bokeh in many of his pics looks like it has undergone a gaussian blur, i.e. completely without any texture or grain.
Hmmm, yeah, I do use NR... not in drastic amounts tho - and I flip back and forth to see if it's only grain I'm removing etc..
sebboh wrote:
for me yes, they are all immediately recognizable as your photos. i may have exaggerated when i said i couldn't see any differences between lenses, i'm sure some may come through, but the oddness of the colors to my eye always dominates. it seems like there are never any blacks in your photos as well and the areas that should be black to my eye always seem too blue. i figured it was all a matter of taste and style so i haven't mentioned it before.
ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー
But damn... that's like 4 or five of you all saying something kinda similar. Hmm... OK I'm going to try and isolate the problem.
On my way down to pick up a lens I just bought (The Voigtlander APO Lanthar 125/2.5 Macro - in Nikon Mount. ) And basically just shot everything red along the way.
sebboh wrote:
the conversion is the same for both the rubber focus ring and the metal focus ring versions. both of mine were metal focus ring versions, however one was radioactive and the other was not. the radioactive one was lower contrast due to the yellowing that i did not correct. my non-radioactive one seems to have more color pop to it as well. it's very similar to the MC PG 50/1.4, which i believe you've shot with? all my non-radioactive minolta glass seems to have a very similar color palate, but the MD 45 and MD 24/2.8 seem to have more pop and and color separation. maybe it's just because those are my two slow rokkor lenses and they are really the same as the faster ones at matching apertures, maybe it's because they are newer and have better coatings, or maybe it's because they're slower allowing them to be higher contrast. anyway, if you want i can shoot the same basic shot on the 45/2 and 58/1.2 at say f/2 and f/5.6 for a comparison. ...Show more →
Thanks, but don't put yourself out. If it's close to the PG 50, then it's close enough. I was just worried about it being closer to the 58/1.4, which was not good.
AhamB wrote:
I've had to file rear element retaining rings on two lenses and while it's sort of satisfying when you can make something work yourself, when given the option, I'd definitely just buy a mount replacement kit from the Rokkor. I wouldn't want to sand down that aluminium spacer and do a destructive/irreversible conversion.
Excellent point. I'll start checking around more thoroughly after I find a copy of the lens.
Bifurcator wrote: The Low Global Contrast With Black Blacks Ripe Reds And Straight From ACR Post.
all using the fl 58/1.2 at f/1.2
Any better? Or same deal?
definitely looks a little better, some of the reds look way overcooked now though (some look fine). if you really want to flesh it out, probably best to use that new apo lens instead of shooting at f/1.2 (which will obviously not give the best color correction).
Alf Beharie wrote:
The FD 85mm f1.2 L is spectacular wide open.
looks awesome, as did bifs shots with that lens.
freaklikeme wrote:
Thanks, but don't put yourself out. If it's close to the PG 50, then it's close enough. I was just worried about it being closer to the 58/1.4, which was not good.
nah, both the MC 58/1.4 and auto rokkor 58/1.4 i've had were lower contrast and seems to have more pastely colors.
Bifurcator wrote: The Low Global Contrast With Black Blacks Ripe Reds And Straight From ACR Post.
all using the fl 58/1.2 at f/1.2
Any better? Or same deal?
sebboh wrote:
definitely looks a little better, some of the reds look way overcooked now though (some look fine). if you really want to flesh it out, probably best to use that new apo lens instead of shooting at f/1.2 (which will obviously not give the best color correction).
Hey good idea! Glad I thought of it!
On the cooked reds the only one that doesn't look precisely as it does in person is the car one (top). It was over two EVs underexposed and I increased the saturation a bit too much. But that matt, the banner, and the SECOM logo are pretty right on. VERY Red tho I know...
Thanks for the compliment below too!
looks awesome, as did bifs shots with that lens.
nah, both the MC 58/1.4 and auto rokkor 58/1.4 i've had were lower contrast and seems to have more pastely colors.
OK -- as noted before I've never used my f1.2 lenses at f1.2. I've been waiting for the OM-D to arrive to give it a whirl, and here we go.
Deliberately waited until after sunset to go to the local street fair / farmer's market with the OM-D and an FDn 50mm f1.2.
These pics are all taken wide open. I found the post processing very abnormal and challenging with the bizarre white balance & colors of the actual scene, the combination of f1.2 spherical aberrations and high ISO grain and colors.
Nevertheless, I got something and post it here with trepidation.
ebrandon wrote:
OK -- as noted before I've never used my f1.2 lenses at f1.2. I've been waiting for the OM-D to arrive to give it a whirl, and here we go.
Deliberately waited until after sunset to go to the local street fair / farmer's market with the OM-D and an FDn 50mm f1.2.
These pics are all taken wide open. I found the post processing very abnormal and challenging with the bizarre white balance & colors of the actual scene, the combination of f1.2 spherical aberrations and high ISO grain and colors.
Nevertheless, I got something and post it here with trepidation.
cool shots in a very difficult shooting situation. i often find that for the exact same scene i need different white balance values for f/1.2 than for smaller apertures. particularly with my canon lens.
