Samuli, is this hdr PS cs5? the clarity and contrast is astounding although is a hdr, i heard the hdr engine in cs5 is much powerful with no halos and so.
To me this image retains as much of the zeiss look as no other hdr i have seen
Luka these are some zeiss images for sure, but the clarity and 3dness of Makten's and his 35 is even more striking if possible, maybe the lens, maybe my poor samsung laptop, or maybe those fat pixels....
It seems that a majority of the images here are shot with the 5d (which I wish I had). I am toying with the idea (once the funds have been saved up) of getting the 35/2.0 ZE and was wondering if anyone here has any experience with this lens on a 50d?
And a hat tip to everyone here for providing fantastic images. They are amazing.
desinteresadam wrote:
Samuli, is this hdr PS cs5? the clarity and contrast is astounding although is a hdr, i heard the hdr engine in cs5 is much powerful with no halos and so.
To me this image retains as much of the zeiss look as no other hdr i have seen
regards
Thanks. I have tried CS5 HDR and I cannot get it work as well as PhotoMatix. Of course I have years experience of PhotoMatix and I'm 100% happy to it so I may not have given best effort I can but I tried to process about 50 images with CS5 and I could not get any of them to work as well as I did with PhotoMatix.
My HDR process typically may also differ from other people process (process may favor PhotoMatix):
1. adjust RAW images to very low contrast (black point 0.2, adjust recovery and highlights sliders to about 5% and 12.5% of the slider width - these are Aperture settings can't comment how they are on some other programs)
2. create HDR, don't adjust black point and white point to "max" in PhotoMatix
3. import HDR to Aperture, stack with the RAW images, adjust black point and exposure (and recovery if whites clip)
Sami, first one looks great, but I guess at bigger size it's more effective since the wall texture can be "felt" better.
Boris, quite brave lens selection for people...nice set thou and excellent avoidance of super ugly bokeh 100Z* is able to produce.
------
Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 @ f/2, HDR, ISO 100 - PS. this photo shows 3 bad mistakes often done with HDR, can you find them all however dynamic range was way too big to handle and any single exposure sucks even more
PS. this photo shows 3 bad mistakes often done with HDR, can you find them all however dynamic range was way too big to handle and any single exposure sucks even more
Okay, I know I will not get it right, but will try anyway..
1 Moving foreground - grass in foreground may be in motion ?
2 Rain drops leaving constant ripples on water ?
Hmm
3 Image looks just too good to be true !!
Okay, I know I will not get it right, but will try anyway..
1 Moving foreground - grass in foreground may be in motion ?
2 Rain drops leaving constant ripples on water ?
Hmm
3 Image looks just too good to be true !!
Ha ha. Seriously, you are a master of HDR.
Hmm. How about an apparent dark halo around the branch in the upper right-hand corner...
desinteresadam wrote:
Luka these are some zeiss images for sure, but the clarity and 3dness of Makten's and his 35 is even more striking if possible, maybe the lens, maybe my poor samsung laptop, or maybe those fat pixels....
It's the lens. The 85/1.4 has a much less contrasty rendering and a bit more nuanced colors. It would have been much more in line with his rendering style had I for instance used the 100 MP.
):
