alba63 wrote:
I would - with all due respect to the talented photographers in this thread - consider it an "experimental photo". I personally find the sharpening way overdone in this (Makten) shot beause my eye is somehow disturbed by the overload of small details, and looses the overall composition and image content.
Yes, I agree it's a bit too much. But then the scene is quite boring, so I don't think there anything to be distracted from, really.
I use the same script for nine out of ten images, and this time I should have done it manually. A little problem is that my new computer is a 13" laptop, with no good image viewing program. So I'm sort of guessing that it'll look alright when I upload the photos.
Sometimes the 35/2 is so bloody sharp that it's almost ridiculous. This was shot at f/5.6, which probably is the peak of "3D-ness" too. I'm getting an external monitor for the computer soon, so then I'll adjust my scripts and make a few new ones.
Bernie said, "There are how many ZF/ZE lenses? 18, 21, 25, 28, 35, 50/1,4, 50/2,0, 85, 100 + the ZM versions that are different like the 25 Biogon" I have read others mention the difference between the ZF, ZF and the ZM. What are the differences? thank you joanlvh
joanlvh wrote:
I have read others mention the difference between the ZF, ZF and the ZM. What are the differences? thank you joanlvh
Hi Joan, ZE and ZF are optically the same but for Canon mount (ZE) and Nikon mount (ZF). ZE lenses are also all with electronic aperture, ZF and ZF.2 have an aperture ring. ZM are for Leica M mount, some of them only exist in that mount like that 25mm ZM which is not the same as the ZF 25mm.
I use the ZF(.2) lenses on my Canon 5dII because I also use F mount cameras and ZE lenses can not be adapted to the Nikon mount.
Does anyone have advise on resizing and sharpening Zeiss images for printing?
I have never made proper prints and would love to know how to do it correctly.
Regarding splitting the thread: Not a good idea IMO. It may make sense from a technical standpoint but definitely not from an artistic one. Related images that belong to a series would be distributed across multiple threads and the coherency we have here would be lost.
Partial X-post from the Leica thread but I thought it might be interesting to have some more ZM images here. These were taken with a 25/2.8 Biogon - a very nice lens. It shares some of the characteristics of the 21 Distagon but it lacks the massive DOF of the latter. So for landscape work it's best stopped down (f/5.6-f/8).
Don't pay any attention to the aperture in the EXIF - the M9 guesstimate of the aperture (as there is no connection between camera and lens) is usually correct within one stop with reasonable levels of light but completely wrong when doing long exposures. The actual aperture in these shots where f/5.6 - f/8:
Wow, rji2goleez, killer shot! Great light, colour and detail - one thing I like about this thead is also that it is often not about spectacular objects, but simple things, often old, dirty, worn- out, and yet by the way the light is hitting the scenery it becomes beautiful.
This is also my approach to photography: To discover beauty in ordinary everyday objects. Your pic number II does exactly that :-)
alba63 wrote:
Wow, rji2goleez, killer shot! Great light, colour and detail - one thing I like about this thead is also that it is often not about spectacular objects, but simple things, often old, dirty, worn- out, and yet by the way the light is hitting the scenery it becomes beautiful.
This is also my approach to photography: To discover beauty in ordinary everyday objects. Your pic number II does exactly that :-)
Bernie
Thanks much Bernie. Clearly it's the light that made that image. As much as I like urban and natural landscapes I love making old abandoned buildings look like a thing of beauty. I'm glad that in your eyes, I succeeded!
thanks for the info, Bernie, it sounds like there is more than just a mount difference in the ZM and the other "Z's", there is an optical difference as well ? thanks again joanlvh
joanlvh wrote:
thanks for the info, Bernie, it sounds like there is more than just a mount difference in the ZM and the other "Z's", there is an optical difference as well ? thanks again joanlvh
ZM are rangefinder lenses while ZE/ZF/ZK are SLR lenses. They have very little in common.
Left, 35/2 ZE, right 35/2 ZM
The ZM:s are for M-mount rangefinder cameras such as the Leica M or Zeiss Ikon. 35/2 on M9:
dimitris77 wrote:
Rodluvan: I love your street shots. I am curious as to what people say to you when they see you up that close taking their photo. Keep it coming.
Thanks!!
Funny thing is I've been doing candids and streets snapshots for a while now, but I haven't really gotten my heart into it. I've been too far away too afraid, but gradually working myself downwards in lens length, from 180mm (!) to, 100, 85, 50 and now 35. To really connect and make that special shot I feel that I need to be close, but that's where the fear sets in.
Having the words and approach of Bruce Gilden in my head I braced myself one day and just started walking up to people with a fast pace, shoving the camera up their face and snapped a photo. Like he says (paraphrased) 'when you're that close people mostly don't understand that you're taking a photo of them'. And even if they do, they're often stunned and don't know what to do or say and once they've figured it out, you're 10 paces away, hidden in the crowd.
It has a lot in common with rhetoric; dress, act and carry yourself for the occasion and mostly people don't reach to you in a negative manner.
This guy ducked and covered 0,5s after I took the photo
Now I need a 21mm to capture more or get even closer.
Rod, I understand what you say, but I just wouldn't like to be one of those people whose face you sitck your camera so close to, and then leave before they can object. As the British would say, not fair play!
philber wrote:
Rod, I understand what you say, but I just wouldn't like to be one of those people whose face you sitck your camera so close to, and then leave before they can object. As the British would say, not fair play!
Each to his own (I don't do landscape photography much). I may have exaggerated the "hide in the crowd part". I don't run and I don't hide. What I meant is, I walk away rapidly, not as to escape, but as to perplex the subject. This for several reasons, the first and by far the most important being I don't have the time to discuss/explain (however friendly) to each and everyone what it is I'm doing.
So I don't have much hesitation about talking photos of the general public, in fact I encourage it, but I have some hesitations about taking photos of the derelict and the homeless. I do do that, but I try to do it in a more inclusive manner (I often exchange eye-contact or asks them if it's ok).
This one I could not help but photograph, but afterwards I shook him awake asking if he was ok (he was ok-ish, very drunk, but coherent).
As you say, Rod, to each his own. You will notice that I didn't criticize what you did, but expressed my feelings if I were "on the other end". That said, interestingly, I do take pictures of the poor and homeless, if they agree with it. I give first, in line with my religious commitments, and then ask "if it is OK". And they almost always say "yes", showing me that generosity doesn't necessarily take money... But I don't post these shots, as I feel that they don't "belong" to me.
Philber, Rodluvan
This is an interesting discussion. It reminded me also of recent episode from Makten when he was threatened to take photos of some nasty looking fellows. I myself am not comfortable to ask or not brave enough to just be confident to shoot people on the street, so I don't have much of a collection of street portraits. In my case, people sometimes get in the shot while I am taking time framing my shots, if the composition makes sense, I may include them in the shot, but for majority of the case, I usually wait until they clear my shot, as subject tends not be the people.
What's interesting in this discussion is how some push the rights of the photographer without consideration of the people on the other end and their desire for privacy and/or anonymity. I've read much on photographer rights where in the U.S., there is little real legal restriction from photographing anything or anybody so long as you're on public grounds. When it comes to shooting buildings or other inanimate objects from public grounds, I'll voice my rights to photography but when it comes to photographing people, I would prefer to ask. Sometimes, it's not possible. When it is, and you have a willing subject, the images tend to be that much more powerful. You course, you can tell by the number of street shots and portraits that I have posted how comfortable I am with this type of photography . . . NOT!
