Oooooh, Luna! Yes, please, which lens, how far away, f/#? Smooth blurring of subject texture from focal plane. Low contrast lens? Reminds me of Pentacon Auto MC 2.8/135.
RustyBug wrote:
Luna ... Just a little bit (sarcasm)
Nicely done, what lens?
siriusdogstar wrote:
Oooooh, Luna! Yes, please, which lens, how far away, f/#? Smooth blurring of subject texture from focal plane. Low contrast lens? Reminds me of Pentacon Auto MC 2.8/135.
Pentax LX + Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2/28 + Kodak Ektachrome E100 VS + Iwo Jima, Japan
I was probably near MFD. Perhaps f/4. The lens has great contrast & the film helped as well.
Definitely an awesome photograph, Luna! I had actually seen it on Flickr a few days ago (going through ZF/ZK/ZE 2/28 samples) and just marveled at it. It also seems to exhibit that very subtle drop off into blurriness that was talked about in one of the other threads.
1DsII and 50mm ZE 2 Makro Planar
Pic by zincozinco on POTN but to me it has that classic Zeiss 3d so I figured I'd post it here to see if anyone agrees.
The golf shot has a kind of 'cut & paste' look to me ... maybe it's the fill flash ??
I'm no expert of anything, but it looks more like anything BUT Zeiss-look, although I do see some 3D-ish in the left arm area. I'm just confused by the DOF/focus/blur of the instructor as compared with the background. Maybe there was softening applied to the people areas and not the background ... or something, but it just looks neither Zeiss nor natural to me.
I agree. A 50mm would not render distant objects that clearly if the near subject is about 1 metre from the camera. Sharp near details too - hairy arm, studs on jeans, not much evidence of the focal plane being more distant. Yet you see poles way off near the houses and on the hill. Also note the defocus of the pebbles, so near and yet so far!
And the direction of light looks strange - for the left side of the woman's face and inside her sleeve it is too strong for the shadow side.
StevenPA wrote:
I was surprised at the difference between how awesome the forest looked (that's the look I love!) and how smeared the rocks looked, comparatively. I've experienced the same thing many times and have always considered it focus error or DOF issues, or a combination therein, but your explanation makes sense.
Another amazing image, Samuli. What happened to the bark on that tree?
Somewhat late to the party, but so was Samuli too. These are marks of foraging woodpeckers hunting bug larvae. The usual suspects are the Black Woodpecker (Dryocopus martius), Great Spotted Woodpecker (Dendrocopus major) or the Three-toed Woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus). Without a closer look, I would bet on the first one. The beak of the peckers leave spiecies specific marks that can be seen here and there on the processed area. The marks of the Black are 5-6mm wide, while the marks of the Great Spotted are about 2.5mm and the Three-toed closer to 2mm. Sorry for this OT info. But rather often marvelous images are presented of thing that the photographer do not have a clue about. OTOH I am much too often distracted by knowing what I am looking at (biota, NOT man made), making my images more documentary than artistic. Ok, now I have to try to get some 3D shots of those marks. IŽll be back!
philip_pj wrote:
I agree. A 50mm would not render distant objects that clearly if the near subject is about 1 metre from the camera. Sharp near details too - hairy arm, studs on jeans, not much evidence of the focal plane being more distant. Yet you see poles way off near the houses and on the hill. Also note the defocus of the pebbles, so near and yet so far!
And the direction of light looks strange - for the left side of the woman's face and inside her sleeve it is too strong for the shadow side.
My guess is that the background is a picture, not a landscape. I mean, look at the ground just behind the man and woman. It's alot unsharper than the landscape behind it. It doesn't make sense at all.
A street candid and in this image I wanted him to appear as if on stage. I love illusion and although he is genuine I never watched him leave as I was sure he was headed to the nearest Starbucks for a tall black and a piece of baked french cheesecake, "but could I have a metal not plastic cake fork", he says.
Thanks Rusty, my 1st b&w conversion too.
His badges, yes they are given to him as gifts. He (Leslie) is just the most gentle creature. I wanted to keep him. "Lyn, look what I brought home"
I help fill his hat everytime I see him, cannot help myself.
The illusion I referred to, its because I am sure he is loved by someone.
(sarcasm)
These are marks of foraging woodpeckers hunting bug larvae. The usual suspects are the Black Woodpecker (Dryocopus martius), Great Spotted Woodpecker (Dendrocopus major) or the Three-toed Woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus). Without a closer look, I would bet on the first one. The beak of the peckers leave spiecies specific marks that can be seen here and there on the processed area. The marks of the Black are 5-6mm wide, while the marks of the Great Spotted are about 2.5mm and the Three-toed closer to 2mm. Sorry for this OT info. But rather often marvelous images are presented of thing that the photographer do not have a clue about. OTOH I am much too often distracted by knowing what I am looking at (biota, NOT man made), making my images more documentary than artistic. Ok, now I have to try to get some 3D shots of those marks. IŽll be back!
?