JadedWriter wrote:
You can probably just lower the clarity and I'm pretty sure you can do this in Photoshop with some type of mask. Whatever you do it's a lot easier to to do that than it is to make something soft realistically sharp. Some people are too obsessed with green fringing character lenses, I on the other hand am not.
I share your distaste for green fringing lenses.
Soft lenses often show uneven softness, so the same mask or filter across the frame may not always give you the same effect.
I can sharpen up and increase contrast on an old extensible 50mm f/2.8 Leica lens quite a bit, because the softness and somewhat lower acuity of the lens is quite even and smooth. Thus, sharpening induces few artefacts.
In general, I would agree though that sharpening is more difficult and more prone to bad side effects than softening.
You can never digitally reproduce what has been scientifically designed to produce a result. This is why I hate trying to reproduce film in post processing because it's basically impossible. Some of those chemicals in those film solutions were environmentally damaging. You can't reproduce that with a slider lol, the same is almost the same with lenses. I just pick whatever makes my job easier at this point. AcuteShadows wrote:
I share your distaste for green fringing lenses.
Soft lenses often show uneven softness, so the same mask or filter across the frame may not always give you the same effect.
I can sharpen up and increase contrast on an old extensible 50mm f/2.8 Leica lens quite a bit, because the softness and somewhat lower acuity of the lens is quite even and smooth. Thus, sharpening induces few artefacts.
In general, I would agree though that sharpening is more difficult and more prone to bad side effects than softening.
Ricky_K wrote:
No it doesn't make use of 45 megapixels. The other four Nikon lenses I shoot with do. Even at f/1.4, the 50mm 1.2 S is far behind those other lenses.
The bokeh on the 50mm 1.2 is average.
I posted the curve between the Sony and the Nikon only to demonstrate the difference between the construction, and optical design. The Sony is quality at f/1.2, and the Nikon is not.
I sold my Z9/50mm 1.2 S because I wasn't impressed with either one. It's not a bad lens by any means, but it isn't worth $2,000.
If you think the 50mm 1.2S is sharp at f/1.2, or even f/1.4 then I suggest you use something like the 28mm 1.4E, Sigma 105mm 1.4, 200mm f/2, 300mm f/2.8 ... because you don't know what full resolution looks like at 1:1....Show more →
saaketham wrote:
Some folks love sharpness, some love "character", some don't care as long as it takes good images, some are in between.
There's room for all of us in the world of photography.
Taking our kitten out to the Missouri River to let her explore the world outside.
Love #2. It's exquisite. Is that character or clinical?
NissanPatrol wrote:
What makes this photo look like 3d?
Mostly it is from the lens. 50/1.2S when given a right distance, definitely can have a very nice 3D pop.
I did use masking in ACR to brighten up the dog a bit as the background light is quite strong
and I use Pro Contrast in Nik Collection's Color Efex Pro as it does give a nice pop under the right circumstance.
I don’t know about ‘3D’ as that became a bit loaded term, but….
Here is what I see.
Composition- One point perspectival setup with the pavement strongly enhances the sense of depth
Focal point - Placement of subject in relation to the pavement enhances the sense of depth.
Lighting - Back lit subject provide the profile to be distinct from the background
Texture- In this shot, the back lit also helps bring the texture of pavement surface at in focus area.
Rendering- 50/1.2’s rendering of crisp in-focus area to smoothly transitioning to bokeh enhances the natural sense of depth. It does not get in the way.
