Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Carsten, I'll have to say that your HDR added quite a lot to 35 summilux photo, look rather uninteresting without HDR.
Agreed, although that shot doesn't even have the basic processing I usually do, and it is with Lightroom, which really doesn't give that great colours with Nikons, very flat. But typically Leica, the information is all there, even if you have to push a bit to get it out.
carstenw wrote:
I am not especially an HDR fan, and would likely process these differently for my own purposes, but the technique does come in handy on occasion. Here is the middle shot of the vise, unprocessed, for comparison. Once I have finished processing these shots for the Nikonians thread, I will probably pick out my favorites and re-process them more for my own taste, i.e. more realistic.
it looks like the single frame captures the full dynamic range of the scene, so i would say HDR is unnecessary for this particular shot (but probably is for some of the others you posted). you could achieve the same look by simply playing with the tone curve on the middle shot.
carstenw wrote:
Agreed, although that shot doesn't even have the basic processing I usually do, and it is with Lightroom, which really doesn't give that great colours with Nikons, very flat. But typically Leica, the information is all there, even if you have to push a bit to get it out.
have to disagree here. i like the unedited single frame better and think it would look far superior with just a little curve/black point tweaking.
carstenw wrote:
As a general rule, Zeiss lenses deliver believable rendering, Leica lenses deliver beautiful rendering. These are not mutually exclusive in either direction, but the actual crossover is small in this case.
i think this is a very good way to describe the differences in look. i do often have trouble with zeiss lenses producing too much contrast and colors that are unnaturally intense and require me to pull down saturation and contrast for a realistic look though (leica lenses as well to a lessor extent). i suspect this just due to raw converters compensating for the lower contrast of most oem lenses.
AhamB wrote:
@sebboh: Nice shot of the twitchy little punk
sebboh wrote:
i think this is a very good way to describe the differences in look. i do often have trouble with zeiss lenses producing too much contrast and colors that are unnaturally intense and require me to pull down saturation and contrast for a realistic look though (leica lenses as well to a lessor extent). i suspect this just due to raw converters compensating for the lower contrast of most oem lenses.
Yes, I think it's the standard profiles that are to blame.
I used available light. It was available, I used it
sebboh wrote:
also, do you know if mine are house wrens or some other variety of wren?
I'm not an expert at wren identification but for the San Francisco area the most likely wrens that fit the general description of the bird in your photos are House Wren and Pacific Wren (formerly thought to be conspecific with the eastern Winter Wren). The heavier barring on the belly, more visible stripe above the eye and stubby tail of your bird suggest Pacific Wren but don't take this as the last word on the subject.
sebboh wrote:
it looks like the single frame captures the full dynamic range of the scene, so i would say HDR is unnecessary for this particular shot (but probably is for some of the others you posted). you could achieve the same look by simply playing with the tone curve on the middle shot.
[...]
have to disagree here. i like the unedited single frame better and think it would look far superior with just a little curve/black point tweaking.
Well, there is a difference between capturing the dynamic range of the scene, and doing so with enough bits for editing. Any work on the shadows in that one shot is likely to result in banding.
I agree that the HDR is a little punchy, and will probably redo it at some later point, to my own taste. For now, I am learning HDR and how to achieve various looks, even those which aren't my favorite.
here's a couple more of him:
That last one is beautiful! One day I will have to try my hand at birding. Not today though...
telyt wrote:
I'm not an expert at wren identification but for the San Francisco area the most likely wrens that fit the general description of the bird in your photos are House Wren and Pacific Wren (formerly thought to be conspecific with the eastern Winter Wren). The heavier barring on the belly, more visible stripe above the eye and stubby tail of your bird suggest Pacific Wren but don't take this as the last word on the subject.
thanks! it's been a while since i looked up wren id. i thought it looked like the winter wrens i used to see in chicago, but didn't think those came out here. in general i'm as lazy about bird id as i am about keyboard shortcuts.
I don't use Linux, so it was merely out of curiousity. I am not *that* curious though, so I will leave this little project for a rainy day after Apple mucks up OS X so much that I will have no other choice but to go to Linux.
carstenw wrote:
I don't use Linux, so it was merely out of curiousity. I am not *that* curious though, so I will leave this little project for a rainy day after Apple mucks up OS X so much that I will have no other choice but to go to Linux.
yeah, i use linux all the time for work and i'm still not that curious.
johnahill wrote:
sebboh that first shot is absolutely charming, the second too is great very quirky angle.
Some time last year I sold my 560mm f/6.8 Telyt when groceries seemed more important so a few weeks ago when a Novoflex-mount Leitz 560mm f/6.8 appeared on the big auction website I grabbed it. Very glad I did:
Aside from the Leica 560 optics, I like its balance on the tripod or monopod, the squeeze focus grip, and especially the built-in variable extension tube that enables a MFD of about 12' w/o adding extension tubes.
Nothing major but just showing off the 35 cron... I had this lens awhile back. I sold it once I dropped the lens on accident and could not bring myself to look at it. The lens hood was nearly inoperable.
Ok, now that I have those memories fresh on my mind, how about I get on to sharing a photo...
I really missed this lens. I succumbed to the 35L and 50L after selling the canon and shooting leica M's solely and returning to shooting canon's along side leica. I told myself, if I ever need someone to pick up a camera, how am I going to explain to them a manual lens? Heck, from my experience the manual lenses catch on with people quicker than the AF, so I can scratch that argument.
I have since sold the 35L and the 50L is on the way out. I get so much more satisfaction out of this glass.
