On some remote rarely climbed stuff in the Olympic National Park Wilderness.
Still the best alpine lens on the planet. Shroud took a couple hits to the rock, gotta figure out some insurance situation because considering how easily the rocks came down, the A7R4 might also want to take a tumble at some point.
I'm not a pro, and all the insurance stuff seems to be towards that market.
I sold my first copy when I thought I wanted the 16-35/2.8 II, now I’m back with another 16-36 PZ. The image quality is startlingly good, and size/weight make it a delight to carry. This was shot yesterday at a 90-ft seasonal falls in Ohio.
ILCE-7RM5FE PZ 16-35mm F4 G lens21mmf/11.01/3s125 ISO0.0 EV
Another beautiful falls in Ohio from a few days ago, tumbling down a rugged sandstone ledge. The flexibility of the 16-35 range was perfect flor this shoot, and I continue to be extremely pleased with the sharpness.
ILCE-7RM5FE PZ 16-35mm F4 G lens26mmf/11.020s100 ISO0.0 EV
You often find these places and images showing a kind of massive beauty. They are also most often processed to my taste. Hence a question, the third image (white flowers) is too dark to my eyes. What is the thought behind this version?
Jonas B wrote:
You often find these places and images showing a kind of massive beauty. They are also most often processed to my taste. Hence a question, the third image (white flowers) is too dark to my eyes. What is the thought behind this version?
Thank you.Well,I PP'ed it more or less in the same manner than the rest.Maybe white flowers caused slight exposure shift and darker elements of the picture look even darker than they should?
Peire wrote:
Thank you.Well,I PP'ed it more or less in the same manner than the rest.Maybe white flowers caused slight exposure shift and darker elements of the picture look even darker than they should?
Thank you.
OK, then I guess they were processed the same... yes, I think they look better with some positive compensation.
...
