I like the picture / window analogy. There just seems to be more energy in a Zeiss image. Sort of like the difference between viewing a romantic embrace and actually participating in one. I prefer the more active role myself.
DocsPics wrote:
I like the picture / window analogy. There just seems to be more energy in a Zeiss image. Sort of like the difference between viewing a romantic embrace and actually participating in one. I prefer the more active role myself.
That's how I feel. "More energy" is a very good way of describing it.
v_kids wrote:
Hi Jim, No I sold it... now I only have Nikon gears with me.
However, the new A850 is very nice
I'm thinking to get it
i remember you asking on dyxum about the a900 lcd screen being too saturated. i recently learnt that the ldc is displaying the jpeg image in which it's contrast & saturation is definable in the camera settings. after you lower each setting down a notch, it becomes pretty accurate.
i love your 200/2.0 VR shots. it's something that the sony system doesn't have.
The photographer states that the above image used 16 images with a 85mm f/1.4.
Of course these aren't traits of the lenses themselves but a product of the technique used. I thought that the results were interesting and would be good as food for thought.
"3D" or "very flat" or "Small DOF" images are usually very easy to do in software. If I wanted a look like bluetsunami's bottom image I would shoot it deep and use software. Shooting that flat is rather error prone. Doing it in software allows you to put the DOF blur in any area you like thus accentuating any area you want. Like so:
Bifurcator wrote:
"3D" or "very flat" or "Small DOF" images are usually very easy to do in software. If I wanted a look like bluetsunami's bottom image I would shoot it deep and use software. Shooting that flat is rather error prone. Doing it in software allows you to put the DOF blur in any area you like thus accentuating any area you want. Like so:
Yes, you can try, but it usually is not very effective. The example image you posted looks fake to me, and the part of the image you keep in focus (the person and car front) still looks flat. This image looks as if it has 2 dimensions -- one on focus placed in front of one out of focus. While there is an artificial illusion of space between the 2 planes, there is very little here that evokes the dimensionality of reality. IMHO, of course.
All the "3D" images posted in this thread look "fake" to me. That's part of the allure IMO. BTW, there is an infinite number of levels of lens blur in that image between the in-focus and out-of-focus areas. Well not infinite as it's limited by the number of pixels in any one direction but you get the idea.
I like the way most of the pictures look in this thread. I think your software workaround looks more like it was taken with a tilt/shift lens than anything else. Not to say that it's bad, because it isn't. It's just that I don't think you demonstrated your point as well as you had hoped.
