awesome again Nate
Luminosity thats nice
shame you dont have much latitude left to push blacks a little to get rid of all that greyness, her face would probably disappear. Lovely photo nonetheless.
Lovely look to it! The first and third shots in particular. I suppose you are aware of what Nick Brandt uses this lens/camera combination for? One sample (although he uses 55/105/200 I believe, but he doesn't list per-shot stats):
carstenw wrote:
Lovely look to it! The first and third shots in particular. I suppose you are aware of what Nick Brandt uses this lens/camera combination for? One sample (although he uses 55/105/200 I believe, but he doesn't list per-shot stats):
I think the background blur in his shots is due to PP as much as due to the large format. A bit "too much" for me, even if some of the images are lovely.
Here's one more from the same roll, with the 90/2.8:
You have more experience with the setup than I do, so I will take your word on this. I know that he does use Photoshop (i.e. he scans) so it seems likely. Still, his images are IMO some of the most beautiful of all animal photos I have seen, so when all is said and done, I still have a huge respect for his work.
carstenw wrote:
You have more experience with the setup than I do, so I will take your word on this. I know that he does use Photoshop (i.e. he scans) so it seems likely. Still, his images are IMO some of the most beautiful of all animal photos I have seen, so when all is said and done, I still have a huge respect for his work.
I really respect and admire his work. But I think it would have been even better if he didn't "over do" it, as I think he does. Just a matter of opinion of course.
The DOF in many of his images is so short that it couldn't be done with such a "small" format as 6x7 and the existing lenses for the system. For example, the 105/2.4 corresponds to ~50/1.2 on FF. The main difference is that the lens is soooo much better corrected for aberrations than a 50/1.2 of any existing kind.
