MJWong: Wow! Amazing amount of details you've been able to pull out of the flies.
prosep: Nice composition with the river disappering into the image.
dj dunzie: The first one is my favourite. Very fine details in that flower.
Makten: Great that you are back posting in this thread again. Like that you usually have very strong composition and often based on colour or material structure.
Stiched with 100MP. Is the sky a bit uneven due to vinjetting? I used photomerge in PS and selected option reposition and had to try and remove vinjetting myself. Improvements?
Actually, the Fomadon developer is really unsuitable for Tmax 100. It seems to give at least ISO 200, which makes the midtones a bit washed out.
I'd say the grain is way worse than it should be! Mostly because I've had to pull down the midtones in PP and give the scanned files a huge contrast boost. I'll try Tmax developer next time.
rji2goleez wrote:
A few more from Dachau. I was 'fortunate' to have a dreary day when I visited.
BTW - I just noticed that the exif data shows the lens used as the Canon EF 16-35/2.8 II. I own this lens but it was not on the camera. Any suggestions for what's going on here? These were definitely taken with the 21/2.8.
Yes, Bob. Your camera has a micro-contrast detection device. If it detects high micro-contrast, it looks for Zeiss lenses. If it detects lower micro-contrast, it looks for a reference of the right focal length in the Canon stable. The only f:2.8 Canon lens that can have a focal length of 21mm is the 16-35 IIL.
Now the question is: why do your shots exhibit less micro-contrast than the typical Zeiss shots? The answer to that is that, for those Dachau shots, you used even more vignetting than you usually do, and that is "seen" by your camera as reduced micro-contrast.
try a few shots without vignetting, and you will get the right EXIF IMHO
