Jonas B wrote:
As we don't have a lot of images taken with the venerable Canon 50/1.4 I throw in this one, taken at a shopping mall, 5D2, EF50/1.4 at f/2:
Incredibly smooth bokeh there! Very Sigma-like.
------------------------------
Some from today with the Nikkor 50/1.2 AI (7 aperture blades) at f/2 on D700:
Makten wrote:
Incredibly smooth bokeh there! Very Sigma-like.
Some lucky combination of light sources and distances I guess. It just shows the EF50/1.4 can work fine sometimes. I usually use the Sigma as I like the soft rendering it makes.
Your images... when I scrolled down the side I immediately thought "Makten". How do you get those colors? Do you just increase saturation or is there some selective work involved?
Jonas B wrote:
Some lucky combination of light sources and distances I guess. It just shows the EF50/1.4 can work fine sometimes. I usually use the Sigma as I like the soft rendering it makes.
Probably not just a "lucky combination", but rather the EF 50/1.4 being very good bokeh-wise at f/2. I've never seen any other lens than the Sigma being so smooth stopped down one stop, at any distance!
Your images... when I scrolled down the side I immediately thought "Makten". How do you get those colors? Do you just increase saturation or is there some selective work involved?
Thanks, that's a great compliment! The first two are JPG:s out of the camera, only sharpened (locally) and resized. The third has gone through ACR, but the only vast change from the JPG is getting rid of some red fringing in the mans face.
Edit: The camera settings I use are quite rude. I've maxed out the saturation in the "vivid" mode, set contrast and sharpening to the next highest level. It's great for websize when you downsample, but probably not too good for prints.
The EF50/1.4 isn't very good at f/2, it is just better than it is at f/1.4. But sometimes with the right relative distances between the subject and the background it works fine. The "best" bokeh I have seen at f/2 is from the Sigma btw - which I think I know you don't like. Then otoh I think you like the Samyang so I probably got something wrong there.
You shoot in-camera JPG?! Our workflows are the opposites then. I shoot raw only and like to treat my images individual. I like B&W and in-camera JPGs aren't the best starting point for those.
Recognizing someone's work is a sort of praise, yes, you're welcome.
Here is a B&W somebody commented as a typical Jonas image, but I'm not sure that means anything... I'm probably just the only one printing in B&W the guy knows about:
OK, not much blur in that one but better an image in the post than ten in the drawer, no? (BTW; anyone with an opinion on the image can compare it to the opinions given here.
Jonas B wrote:
The EF50/1.4 isn't very good at f/2, it is just better than it is at f/1.4. But sometimes with the right relative distances between the subject and the background it works fine. The "best" bokeh I have seen at f/2 is from the Sigma btw - which I think I know you don't like. Then otoh I think you like the Samyang so I probably got something wrong there.
I do like the Sigma, but i found it to be a bit too smooth sometimes. That plus the weight and size made me sell it. The Samyang fits an other purpose, were I use it for shallow DOF at large distances, and then the smoothness is very welcome. Close up, it's also too smooth for my liking.
You shoot in-camera JPG?! Our workflows are the opposites then. I shoot raw only and like to treat my images individual. I like B&W and in-camera JPGs aren't the best starting point for those.
I don't have the patience for RAW workflow, but I shoot in RAW + JPG so that I can use the RAW if it's needed (which was the case with the last shot). The JPG:s are so much nicer than what I can get out of ACR. Using NX is out of the question because of the (lack of) user interface. Totally worthless in my opinion.
I couldn't manage to get the reds right. They were blown out, so either I'd have them oversaturated or washed out.
I've been struggling with similar "problem images" (usually bright colored flowers) as well.
Today I found an approach that seems to work well in Lightroom: decrease exposure and increase brightness (by a lot), and if necessary decrease blacks to zero.
This way I got the saturation of an initially extremely red-pinkish poppy under control while keeping a proper exposure and contrast (in the background also).
I think the explanation is that you decrease exposure so that your highlights are no longer blown out/oversaturated, and when you increase brightness, you move the mid-point of the contrast (gamma?) curve to the right, so that the highlights get less contrasty (on a more straight part of the curve).
Maybe someone has a better explanation; this is still rather abstract to me.
At least I know how to use it to my advantage.
This thread has been a joy for the most part of it. Now it can either be forgotten and dropped - or improved?!
May I kindly ask you all to hold back on your macros and extreme close-ups? Background blurred to beyond recognition isn't really a problem for any lens capable of close enough focusing, and a task for any P&S as well as for an SLR camera.
Instead, now let us focus on quality rather than quantity, OK?
Background OOF highlights or strong contrast are of interest
Subject isolation and background rendering is of interest (subject somewhat bigger than a bird at least then)
Rendring of areas going from the focal plane and out from it is of interest
...and some more I have forgotten.
I hope you macro guys don't take any offence.
Please also remember to tell us what lens and camera (sensor size) you used when taking your admirable image. And remember, an admirable image here is not necessarily a piece fo art - but an image giving us an idea about hoe the lens handles OOF areas.
The first two are JPG:s out of the camera, only sharpened (locally) and resized. The third has gone through ACR, but the only vast change from the JPG is getting rid of some red fringing in the mans face.
It's great for websize when you downsample, but probably not too good for prints.
