Bob: I really like those urban decay shots - especially #2 & #3 from the first series.
Akul: I agree with Samuli - good HDR so far that it isn't obvious that it's HDR. Unfortunately you seem to have lost quite a bit of contrast in the process though.
Samuli: That's a really amazing landscape shot. Excellent choice of light and composition.
That's rather interesting - I've found the bokeh at f/2 to be very good and typically free of LoCA. This especially at MFD.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
f/2.8 is still f/2.8 - On similar situation I also want to close down the makro-planar 50 to f/2.8 to smoothen the bokeh (the focal plane stuff is OK already at f/2, if not counting corners and vignetting).
Same here for 85, also I don't recommend 50 planar - it's kind of wrong that this is the most affordable Zeiss lens and it's easy to misunderstand since it's so difficult to use. Similar techniques needed to shoot with 50 & 85 planar successfully (e.g. understanding the aperture/focus distance relation to image quality and bokeh, compensating for focus shift) would also benefit when shooting with Canon/Nikon lenses.
Akul, the CS5 HDR seems to be quite decent (no halos, not screaming "I'm HDR"), however seems to kill micro contrast or something just feels "wrong", like 21 Distagon would have been downgraded to Canon 20/2.8. This is quite common also with Photomatix and many photos need a long time to find combination of settings which work - and some photos are almost impossible to get looking as sharp as they are without HDR.
--
Really hate posting without picture, have to find some picture to post... Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 @ f/2, 30s, ISO 100, crop to 16:9, "Kangasala glow": http://www.vahonen.com/1/jpg.php4?id=537&file=537.jpg
Bob akul - I have not found a need for HDR software and make great use of the gradient filter in Lightroom. I'm sure that those who really know the ins and outs of HDR software might be able to deal with higher contrast images than I, but I am certainly satisfied in most situations what I can achieve to balance high contrast images. Most of mine of sunrise/sunset landscape images.
I agree. However, I am a bit curious. There are times I wish I knew how to use HDR. I need to dig further on each parameters available. Do you use any filters for your sunrise/sunset shots ?
The door shot is my favorite from the new set.
Charles.K akul, as Samuli has suggested, it can difficult to find the right combination, but there are excellent examples that have not been overcooked. I do prefer Photomatix, as you can tone it down substantially, but still maintaining the micro contrast.
I think I still have demo version of Photmatix somewhere. I should check. Photoshop seems very capable, it is just that I need to know what I am doing a bit more. QUickly, image got 'sleepy' when I tried to avoid the annoying HDR look. I like both of your shots, the big white V shape white texts on the shirt makes an unusual composition. I may like the color just a bit more as I feel some detail is lost in the B&W.
Charles: I like both versions of the portraits - perhaps the b&w a bit more.
Akul, that non-HDR version is great. I love the composition!
Regarding HDR - Samuli has made a number of great composites so he is really the expert. I've tried it once, more or less by necessity as I really needed to increase the dynamic range. It sort of worked in that case, but overall I always prefer natural colors to tone mapping. HDR to me is an emergency measure that I'll only use when I really want extreme latitude and live with crappy mid range tones.
I've posted these before, but I'm too lazy to find them in the thread to give you a link:
The first one was actually shot handheld at fairly high ISO.
philber wrote:
The defining moment, when the fog emigrated to Sweden, to cheer up Luka....
3 shots within a minute.
And for those who wonder, this a manga-inspired piece of "art" by Murakami exhibited in Versailles
Fantastic!Your 35/2 loaner is not as bad as you said!
Makten wrote:
Thanks all for the comments on my previous post, and here are some with the 100/2 from today.
.....
This must be the best lens in the history of the world. At least for 24x36.
Maybe, but personally I prefer your shooting style combined with Distagon (and Biogon) 35 and Planars 50 & 85.
Philippe, liked your foggy Versailles shots.
denoir wrote:
That's rather interesting - I've found the bokeh at f/2 to be very good and typically free of LoCA. This especially at MFD.
LoCA is just one of the defects you can have in bokeh. On your shots the background is very very far compared to the target. In those conditions the roughness of 50MP won't show up. Almost any lens gives "good bokeh" when the bokeh highlights are 2-5mm like in those photos. 50 planar and 50 makro-planar give their optimal bokeh on different situations. It's just picking correct tools for each job (and there is no "the correct tool" since preferences for rendering style are quite subjectional).
--------
Trying to follow my own policy "no post without photo", at least as long as I have non-published photos on hard drive... Typically I very rarely use other than planar projection while shooting panoramas, but using spherical projection draw nice curves to this image (Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2/35 @ f/2, 0.3s, 25 images, 11912px x 12364px, 115.68deg x 120.09deg - green glow comes from surrounding forest):
