Samuli Vahonen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.63 #7 · ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!) | |
denoir wrote:
Samuli, I'm afraid that your arguments are severely flawed. First of all without a proper definition on '3D' it is meaningless to in absolute terms claim that one lens produces it and another doesn't. I could equally well attach any other undefined word to one or more lenses and it would mean as little. "Only the Makro Planars have mojo".
Now there are two possible approaches to defining 3D. One is through a formal physical description of the phenomenon you wish to call 3D. The other, less proper but practical is by example. You would show people a bunch of images and say "this is 3D" and "this is not 3D" and hope that they see the same pattern as you. This has been done repeatedly. And failed. If you look the 5+ threads here on "Is this 3D?" you will find that apart from that certain types of scene geometry that emphasize perspective there is no consensus on 3D. So it does not hold up as a universal claim.
If we instead take you as a reference and define 3D as "3D is whatever Samuli says is 3D" your theory that the 50 MP doesn't have much of the 3D look still doesn't hold up. You have shown it to be false by agreeing that the Norway photos were not flat.
I think you are going to have to get some better arguments or evidence. ...Show more →
I did thing that we are in discussion forum, not in arguing contest. I could not care less "who will win" this discussion, if I'm wrong, that's fine for me - actually I would be really happy to be wrong since I'm hardcore Zeiss fan. The lack of 50MP sample photos showing the rendering style I and many other people prefer (do not read this wrong - I did not say prefer lens X or prefer rendering style Y instead of wonderful features and measurable goodness of 50MP, just that lack of samples), has caused me and others (there are quite a lot of people feeling this way - due to forum's Holy Cow attitude to MPs most of the people just don't want to participate discussion) feel that 50MP is flatter.
I'm now wondering should we only discuss about sharpness and MTF-charts? Is discussion of any topic even little subjective and not 100% measurable now forbidden in the forum? No wonder Brainiac, Carstens, Guy etc. are no longer here not that often or at all...
denoir wrote:
Am afraid that right now it sounds an awful lot like your opinion is simply that the lenses you own do 3D while the ones you don't do not.
For past 4 years I have been in search of lenses, which produce the most realistic rendering, giving viewer feeling of being there not watching photograph. So of course I have got all lenses possible producing this look. However I have absolute no problem other lenses producing this look as well, sample images are welcome, also for 50MP even I already ordered one. Also I haven't found any lens become better after I purchased it - what has happened is that many of them are much worse than sample photos made them look like. PS. There are numerous lenses, which I don't own or even plan to buy producing look what I prefer: 50/60 jahre 1.2 planars, 2/100 planar, Leica 90APO, distagon 1.4/35 etc. etc.
denoir wrote:
The argument of them being postprocessed doesn't hold up as almost every photo here has been significantly PP:d.
Interesting - One of the reasons from moving from Canon lenses to Zeiss lenses was to minimize the time spend doing PP. Many people have said the same. Are people really doing this? Typically Zeiss images require very little PP. HDR is of course different, that requires work, but the "non-HDR" and "non-pano" photos I post need nothing else than the "preset" setting what I apply to all images. On old Canon times every photo needed 10-15 minutes tweaking in Photoshop, or heavy adjustments in Aperture - now it's just import to aperture, metadata & rating, export, resizing script, remove thumbnail script, upload. For set of 5 images (after I have selected, which photos I use) it takes about 2 minutes and files are ready to be uploaded to website.
denoir wrote:
For instance your method of sharpening images for web use is what I would consider heavy postprocessing.
I develop my resizing and sharpening method in order to maintain the original look of the image in small size. I'm not sure how this can be considered heavy postprocessing, based on number of steps in the process? based on time it takes to do it, if somebody does it manually? What is the criteria for heavy post processing? My methods of sharpening doesn't change / changes less:
- local contrast (e.g. "Definition"-slider does or doing USM with large radius and small %)
- brightness (almost all techniques in which the sharpening happens in end make image significantly sharper, specially if color space with gamma is used)
- perceived ratio between blurriness of bokeh and DOF (methods in which sharpening happens last tend all to sharpen bokeh as well, which added to downsizing of image makes the apparent DOF much higher)
denoir wrote:
I'm interested in this because I'm about to buy a Zeiss 50 today. I considered both the Planar and the MP but after reading reviews like Lloyd Chamber's and wading through tons of images I've decided to go with the MP. The reason is very simple - apart from your and philber's statements the universal consensus seems to be that apart from the larger aperture of the Planar, the MP is superior in every measurable way.
If it's not this far clear to you yet:
- I have been trying to get clarification about ONE rendering feature of 50MP - everybody else in discussion has discussed various of other topics about Z* 50mm lenses, and I have participated that discussion as well
- I have no problem that 50MP is much better lens in every measurable way, sure it is
- I have NEVER recommended 1.4 planar, however I have recommended (even without having one) the 50MP for many people based on LLoyd and other sources
I'm sure you will be happy with 50MP!
adamdewilde wrote:
Ok, so I reread what you wrote to wayne, and I'm now really very curious what you mean... As the 85ZE doesn't seem to deliver on anything but creamy bokeh (though only at the lower fstops and again at the expensive of sharpness).
Though I don't understand what you mean by "since it's missing the lens drawing of depth, shape and volume information" did anyone do this well with a portrait of a person that I could see? Samuli is it possible to direct me to it.. I ask for a portrait, as I have a hard time seeing this in landscapes....Show more →
Adam, I don't do portraits, used to shoot weddings but with Canon and I would never publish client photos in web. In previous page Charles 35ZE image of the old man shows this as well as it can be shown. Also see Brainiac's image in 3D thread: link. Can't remember other portrait samples, also I would have not paid attention (=remember) since I don't do portraits.
Regards 85ZE, take a look at photos Philippe posts, he doesn't use shallow DOF, instead he shoots close to f/5.6. The rendering what I talk about is in the objects which are inside DOF - bokeh just enhances the effect, but doesn't create.
wayne seltzer wrote:
I found the page in the 3-d thread where LotusM50 posted two indoor scene shots with the two lenses as Cableaddict was trying to say that one lens had more plasticity, ie. 3-d then the other. Both Cableaddict and Philippe both were wrong in picking which shot was shot with which lens. These shots have a wide enough DOF that there is not enough bokeh in the shot to tell the difference by bokeh. Does the 50MP shot here look flatter than the 50/1.4 shot. If so then I don't see what extra 3-d you are seeing.
Here is the link: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/829238/30...Show more →
I doubt anybody can see much of 3D in these photos - direction of main light and lack of suitable texture in objects. This is what I referred when I said that doing high quality side-by-side shooting is very difficult. Plasticity of whatever it's called if caused by camera system needs always (DISCLAIMER: I DO KNOW THERE IS NO CONSENSUS WHAT IS 3D ETC. SO STOP READING IF THIS BOTHERS YOU!!!!!) 3 things (best definition by Carstens in here):
carstew wrote:
- The feeling of being able to reach into an image I describe as having depth, and any lens could do that under the right circumstances. In particular, Leica and Zeiss lenses can do that equally well.
- What I describe as 3D is the feeling of being able to reach into a photo and feel the shape of some object in it (a non-flat object, otherwise the two definitions collapse into one). Richard's close-up Contax 35mm f/1.4 portraits give me that feeling of being able to feel the roundness of the subject's cheek, for example.
- A third concept is that of texture. An example would be the feeling of being able to reach into a shot and feel the roughness of a wall, or of stubble.
...Show more →
wayne seltzer wrote:
BTW, you missed the conclusion of an earlier discussion I had with Boris where we were discussing the extreme corner problem of the 50 MP. The 50MP beat the 35-70 handily across the frame except for the extreme corner (last 2 or 3 percent) at apertures less than f5.6. Most people would not be bothered by that except for Boris and he still kept the lens. Most of the time when shooting landscape I am shooting greater than f5.6 and so it is sharp all the way into the corner. I verified all this with my posted lens test between my N 50 and 50 MP....Show more →
Wayne, I'm not bothered by this either. I just like all relevant things taken into account, if this lens is kept Holy Grail of sharpness it should be known that it's not sharp on extreme corners. This is not show stopper for most of shooters. However if you shoot large high quality panoramas it is serious issue, however it also can be mitigated by using TIFF-images by making corners transparent in each TIFF used for panorama, however causing quite a lot of extra work, but most importantly it can be mitigated. I will most probably make Photoshop "open with" (In Windows I think these are called droplets by Adobe) action of this for my panoramas, I already have one and it might be usable with 50MP as well.
(For people who do not create large panoramas: it's extreme important that lens has same sharpness all over the image area, otherwise image can come a little "wavy" since some parts are slightly softer than other - this cannot be corrected, like barrel distortion or even wavy distortion if you use very good panorama software and enough overlap to be able to detect the distortion.)
wayne seltzer wrote:
I know some people are sick of this discussion but I wanted there to be a fair and accurate comparison between the two lenses, one that was not just done on vague subjective reactions to shots but based on a more technical way and with side-by-side comparison shots to prove people's points. I have tried to help people on this forum in their buying decisions between these lenses as I have both. I don't care which one someone prefers, just as long they don't spew untrue differences between the lenses.
How I see it, we can help on buying decisions only very limited way. For photographers who care mostly about "performance" it's easy since it's so easy to demonstrate sharpness etc. easily measured things (for this stuff I thing we have already forum consensus on most of the things). However for photographers who care mostly about "rendering style", I doubt there is no better resource than sample photos on threads like this and sites like Zeissimages.com (assuming people start posting photos there).
wayne seltzer wrote:
I have shot my N 50/1.4, ZF 35/2 and C/Y 100/2, a lens which people here think generates the most 3-d, all shooting the same stream shot at f8 and they all looked very simialar 3-d, object shape and volume wise between all the lenses.
This subject does not offer much change to show 3D. The rocks could have it on different lightning. If this would be shot having emphasis on rocks *) it may have a little, but the light does not seem directional at all so it would be extreme difficult to draw this scene in this light with strong 3D look.
*) larger aperture allowing more light to rocks compared to stream due to stream not getting so white on shorter shutter speed - of course making the stream less beautiful
wayne seltzer wrote:
I am glad you are getting the lens as I have no respect for people who argue so strongly about a lens they never shot with or I think in the case of Philippe shot with for only a day, with people who have both lenses like LotusM50 and I. It is very insulting and frustrating.
I agree partially regarding this - however in this case IF there would have been photos showing great 3D from this lens I would have purchased it on day one when it came available to ZE-mount in my dealer and we would not be having this discussion here... the available side-by-side shoots are useless for me since they are executed to show only attributes, which do not interest me, or executed in a way, which doesn't present any useful information.
wayne seltzer wrote:
I have tried to understand what you thought you were seeing in terms of real things like bokeh differences and transtion differences but that is all wrong by you.
Wayne, thanks for trying to understand and sorry about my slightly rude way of saying it. The bokeh and transition differences are meaningful things, but to me they are just a methods to enhance the 3D - the "mantra" I have repeated; depth, shape and volume - only depth can be done with bokeh, but for shape & volume typical Zeiss rendering style is required (+suitable texture on target etc.). For example Charles "old man portrait" would be just "flat cardboard guy" if shoot with some lens not being able to show shape & volume and still the cardboard guy could have depth separation from background. Now when Charles shoot it with very 3D lens (35ZE) the old man's chest and shorts have very clear shape & volume.
Some 3D can be had even with very flat lenses, but it requires person looking the image to use brains "light coming from that direction and there shadow is formed like this....hmmm...ok the shape of the object must be like this". Like denoir wrote there is no consensus about this - some people claim they don't see this at all (those persons claim that classical example "Cogitech castle" isn't 3D) and some see 3D by just having bokeh separation in the scene even subjects are "cardboard"-versions having absolute zero shape & volume.
wayne seltzer wrote:
I look forward to seeing your side by side comparison shots which show the extra 3-d of the 50/1.4 on a scene at infinity where there is no bokeh present. Hope it has the classic Zeiss look for you.
I don't - doing good side-by-side comparison requires so much work  - Well, I actually hope that I can show the 3D with 50MP since I would hate to carry two 50mm lenses... Damn, just find out that it's not 1000EUR, but 1199EUR - things in Europe are so expensive when one gets used to USA prices.
wayne seltzer wrote:
I did see the weird bokeh in the corner of the Phi Phi island ..... I haven't seen my 35/2 render bokeh like that.
Wayne, unfortunately this is one of the "features" of 35Z*. It goes away at f/2.8-3.5. If you want to see it in your lens here is arrangement how to make it happen; find a subject, which has trees behind it - "optimal" distance to subject is about 2m (6 feet) and the background needs to be 5-20m (15-60 feet) away. Then the light coming between leaves and branches should generate this kind of bokeh. This kind of ugly bokeh is fairly common in Zeiss lenses (I have shoot 20+ different Zeiss lenses over the years).
wayne seltzer wrote:
Here is my previous waterfall shot with the 50MP processed a little brighter and with more sharpening after downsizing. This small web shot doesn't do justice to all the detail in the moss and rocks rendered by the 50MP. I have more shots to post but haven't had time to process them.
Looks sharper now, but the more sharpening caused some detail to go pretty blocky. Like you say this kind of murky light small detail image is not very easy to present in web, specially portrait images are difficult since the size would have to be even smaller than for landscape images due to small screens of laptops - I do sometimes post 900px height portrait images but feel bad doing it every time since it always means that people reading with laptop cannot see whole image at once.
The image itself is beautiful, all the criticism is just because it was supposed to be used for comparing lens flatness.
wayne seltzer wrote:
The lack of respect I get here makes me want to quit this forum. But I am sure some of you want that anyway.
I'll hope you are not gonna going to quit!! I'll suck at giving feedback, I'll try to improve in future, thou in summertime it's so difficult since I want to use all the shooting time possible, when weather is suitable.
Bobu wrote:
I would not call my pictures heavily processed. Just some contrast adjustments (ca. +60) and some sharpening (50/0.7/100) and a slight digital GND. All in LR, no PS. About 5 minutes per picture.
Boris, this doesn't sound much processing, I understood you had used some local contrast adjustment (depending on program the slider may have different names e.g. "Definition"). It was truly joy to watch your Norway images since they we larger than normally images posted here.
Trying to keep this as image thread:
"Redhead lady in Paris" - Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2/28 @ f/8, 1/500s, ISO 100
Samuli
|
