p.5 #1 · Patagonia's carretera austral: two photographers and three systems
Bobu wrote:
Regarding your suggestion going further north: I have also a strong interest in (temperate) rainforests, which can't be found in the northern parts of Chile. But the landscapes and colors are probably very interesting there. What I would really like to do is travel through Chile and (southern) Argentina for about 12 month and visit most of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego with enough time to spend some days at every beautiful place. Maybe sometimes in the future when my daughter has finished her school.
12 months sounds fine for Chile and Argentina from north to south, but might be a tad long for Patagonia alone. The Argentinian side is completely different from the Chilean side and even the most devoted landscape photographer gets bored while driving another 500 km to the next village over the barren pampas. Highlights in Argentina are wonderful but sparse.
p.5 #2 · Patagonia's carretera austral: two photographers and three systems
philber wrote:
As to the place with the many dead trees you are alluding to, toothwalker, there are quite a few. This one is called the Bosque de los Muertos, and I shot this not totally satisfying picture on the way down on day 1. I thought I would do better that this handheld snapshot on the way back up, but you know how those things go, and it didn't happen.
Yes Philippus, this is it! No reportage of Patagonia is complete without dead trees. Thank you.
I notice the river is almost dry, compared to the situation I met there.
Boris, I think your footage of Parque Nacional Queulat is the best so far.
p.5 #4 · Patagonia's carretera austral: two photographers and three systems
I've been following this thread since it started. I'm intrigued. Fanboism run rampant maybe? With Safari on iMac most of Bobu's images seem unnatural, over saturated and overworked.Some images are even hard to look at. Philber you know your fellow FMer's way more than you know me (so their opinion etc) but your more realistic images give me more idea of the actual landscape. In p.4#4 the last photo (almost black and white bay with mountains )is easily the most emotive.That is a hanger,a lot of the rest (Bobu)are verging on kitch or like eating too much chocolate.
p.5 #9 · Patagonia's carretera austral: two photographers and three systems
Philippe, the shot with the dead trees is nice! Great atmosphere.
I somewhat agree with David on the previous page though.
Boris, in some shots you hurt my eyes by saturating the colors way too much (like the orange trees). They almost looks radioactive to me
In the past you didn't do this.
I don't want to sound offensive in any way, just saying.
p.5 #10 · Patagonia's carretera austral: two photographers and three systems
Jochenb wrote:
Philippe, the shot with the dead trees is nice! Great atmosphere.
I somewhat agree with David on the previous page though.
Boris, in some shots you hurt my eyes by saturating the colors way too much (like the orange trees). They almost looks radioactive to me
In the past you didn't do this.
p.5 #11 · Patagonia's carretera austral: two photographers and three systems
Thanks David and Jochen for your feedback. I think there are different aspects of this:
1. If you don't use a calibrated screen, images can look completely different.
2. My images look on a non colormanagement browser like IE very different compared to LR. On browsers with color management like Firefox the difference is much smaller. In LR (and Firefox) my images look much less contrasty and saturated compared to IE. After my first download to flickr I deleted all images images, adjusted contrast, blackpoint and exposure again on every image and downloaded them again for the use with IE. Still they look on LR much better, but I find them now at least acceptable on IE.
3. Everybody has of course a different taste regarding contrast and saturation of images. I don't want to be as realistic as possible with my images, but instead want to express the feelings I had when I was in this situation shooting this image. For example when I was looking at the red and orange trees in reality my strong feeling was, that I had never ever seen such intense colors in nature before. And this impression I wanted to transmit through my images.
But again thanks for the feedback, it is good to know, that not everybody likes this approach.
p.5 #12 · Patagonia's carretera austral: two photographers and three systems
I have to agree that the processing is a little over the top for my taste. I liked the balance better in Boris' images from Uganda (which still had amazing intense colors). Maybe the colors in the Carretera Austral are just that much more intense, or the Leica gear plays a role and/or Boris' pp has become a bit more heavy handed. I'm viewing with FF with color management enabled.
p.5 #13 · Patagonia's carretera austral: two photographers and three systems
I also like saturated images. I think the feeling comes not from
the saturation, but from some colors being a bit shifted from what
people usualy consider pleasing...
Check out your skies - they are a bit on the pink/red side,
also your greens are a bit off as well.
I noticed that when I played with an image taken by Philippe and tried
to match it to yours. Check out my greens in this image, they are
saturated, but look more natural, IMO of course
p.5 #14 · Patagonia's carretera austral: two photographers and three systems
Since I've finished the PP of my images but want to give Philippe the chance to add his images of day 6, I will use the time to give you some information about my experience with the Leica equipment.
First as a background information, I used two Canon 5D II bodies with Zeiss lenses (21, 35, 50, 100) in the last 2-3 years for my landscape photography. I shoot about 90% from tripod and often use GND and ND filters and sometimes polfilters.
A few month ago I sold all my Canon equipment and changed completely to Leica M. I bought two bodies and the following lenses: 18, 21, 24, 28, 35, 50, 90. My main reason for the switch was the size and weight of the system, not the IQ. Since I nearly only shoot when I travel and often like to go on hikes, size and weight really matters to me.
Regarding weight reduction the Leica system has really fulfilled my expectations. Even longer hikes in Patagonia were so easy, I often forgot that I had a photo-bagpack on my back. And I have the option to leave some lenses at home on my next trip to further reduce the weight.
IQ with the Leica is about the same as with the Canon 5DII, which is what I had expected. The colors are slightly different and the DR is also slightly different (less headroom in the highlights. but more potential to lighten the darker parts, as Luka found out before).
The shooting experience/handling is quite different and I really miss lifeview, especially when using GND or polfilters. Focusing with wideangle lenses with the rangefinder is very easy and precise but with lenses longer than 35mm it can get difficult. With the 28mm and 35mm lenes I had about 90% perfect focus, with the 50mm and 90mm lenses I had about 30-50% perfect focus (wide open).
Altogether I like the system, especially the Leica lenses with their small size and high IQ. But I really wish, that the next generation of the M body will get lifeview and a better display.
p.5 #15 · Patagonia's carretera austral: two photographers and three systems
Bobu wrote:
Thanks David and Jochen for your feedback. I think there are aspects of this:
1. If you don't use a calibrated screen, images can look completely different.
2. My images look on a non colormanagement browser like IE very different compared to LR. And browsers with color management like Firefox the difference is much smaller. In LR (and Firefox) my images look much less contrasty and saturated compared to IE. After my first download to flickr I deleted all images images, adjusted contrast, blackpoint and exposure again on every image and downloaded them again for the use with IE. Still they look on LR much better, but I find them now at least acceptable on IE.
3. Everybody has of course a different taste regarding contrast and saturation of images. I don't want to be as realistic as possible with my images, but instead want to express the feelings I had when I was in this situation shooting this image. For example when I was looking at the red and orange trees in reality my strong feeling was, that I had never ever seen such intense colors in nature before. And this impression I wanted to transmit through my images.
But again thanks for the feedback, it is good to know, that not everybody likes this approach.
Boris, thanks for the reply.
I'm looking on a calibrated monitor, on firefox.
I wasn't sure if you were aware of the saturation, but now I know it was your choice. So it comes down to a matter of taste, which I always respect.
p.5 #16 · Patagonia's carretera austral: two photographers and three systems
Andrew, I think you are right. In my opinion in some images the colors/WB are not perfect. In some cases I really tried hard to adjust them without finding a good solution. Maybe this has something to do with my lack of experience with Leica colors (or adjustment of Leica colors in LR), maybe in some situations the colors of the Leica system are not as good as the colors of the Canon system. I'm not sure yet.
What I've experienced is, that the colors are way off with the M9, when you use a dark ND filter in strong sunlight. This is for sure due to the high IR sensitivity of the M9. With cloudy skies or in the shadow this problem is significantly reduced.
My most used lens was the 21 Super-Elmar. This is probably my favorite lens in the Leica M system at the moment. A nearly flawless lens, similar to the Zeiss 21ZE.
The 35 Summilux and the 90 Macro-Elmar are also nearly perfect lenses. Slightly stopped down the 90 has great sharpness and contrast. And also smooth bokeh at all apertures. The Summilux has a fantastic sharpness wide open at f/1.4 and is still quite easy to focus wide open. Just the bokeh of the Summilux 35 can sometimes be a bit harsh, similar to the Zeiss 2.0/35ZE and definately not as smooth as the bokeh of the Zeiss 1.4/35mm. Stopped down this lens is at least as good as the Zeiss 2.0/35ZE.
The Summicron 28 was the biggest surprise for me on this trip. On some brickwall test-shots I did before the trip it was not that great (compared to the 21SE and 24 EL). And I was even thinking whether it was a good idea to buy this lens. But after this trip I really love this lens and it is one of my favorite lenses now. The rendering is great, both stopped down and wide open. And the colors are great. Maybe not the sharpest lens, but sharp enough.
The Summilux 50 was a bit of a disappointment. Wide open the sharpness was often not there, very likely due to a wrong focus point. I had both M9s and this lens more than three times in Solms to adjust the focus. At certain distances it works now perfect, but not at all distances. This is very frustrating and another reason for lifeview on the M10. Stopped down the sharpness is very good, but not great, similar to the Summilux 35 or the Zeiss 2.0/35ZE.
The 18mm Super-Elmar is also a very good lens but wide open the corners are soft. Stopped down the sharpness is very good, although not on the same level as the 21mm Super-Elmar or the 24 Elmar, but similar to the other Leica lenses. The biggest disadvantage of the 18 SE is the use of filters. Either you have to handhold the GND in front of the lens without a holder or you have to use the 77mm adapter and huge (for a Leica system) 77mm filters. Therefore I often prefered the ease of use of the 21SE. Still in some situations I was really happy to have this wider angle of view compared to 21mm. But if I want to further reduce my weight in the future, this is probably one of the lenses that will stay at home.
I have very very seldom used the 24 Elmar. The focal length is just to close to 21mm and I often prefered the slightly wider angle of view of the 21. The 24 Elmar is slightly stopped down probably the best lens of all Leica lenses with fantastic rendering, microcontrast, sharpness and colors. But the difference to the 21SE is very small and taking 21, 24 and 28 on the same trip makes no sense. On future trips this lens will therefore very likely stay at home.
p.5 #18 · Patagonia's carretera austral: two photographers and three systems
I don't know how I have manage to miss this thread until now but I have now looked at all the images posted so far and I'm truly impressed with them and the trip itself, great work Boris and Philippe!
p.5 #19 · Patagonia's carretera austral: two photographers and three systems
Thank you Boris for your notes. I find the 28 rendering great and love this lens.
From my brief tests with the SE21, I agree too. One note - how do you remove the hood
from this lens, I'm somehow scared to do it
As far as 50 Lux, I'm very surprised.
p.5 #20 · Patagonia's carretera austral: two photographers and three systems
snowboarder wrote:
Thank you Boris for your notes. I find the 28 rendering great and love this lens.
From my brief tests with the SE21, I agree too. One note - how do you remove the hood
from this lens, I'm somehow scared to do it
As far as 50 Lux, I'm very surprised.
Hm, what's the problem with the hood? Just turn it counterclockwise. On my Summilux 35 the hood was a bit loose, but Leica adjusted it.
I think the 50 Lux is a great lens, just the combination of the small DOF, relatively long focal length and the limeted precision of the rangefinder mechanism doesn't work that great together.
