3D.Doug wrote:
1 and 3 seem to have a bluish cast. white balance issue?
I think it's called "art". I've never bothered with "correct" white balance, because it often ruins the mood in images taken at low light. So, it's definitely not an issue to me.
Thank you Luka and Phil Excellent abstract compositions! #1 is my pick
Martin, very nice set! I do like your PP'ing, as it looks like Fujichrome.
Phil, I am really enjoying photography again, with the M9's It is ergonomic, amazing lenses, FF and easy on the back! It suits me, although I do baulk at the pricing. I have accepted it, and really having fun. If I need fast AF, with long lenses for sport's photography, I will just hire a Nikon and fast zoom lens for the occasion. The Nikon D3s is a brilliant camera too
Also just an add on note to PP'ing where I had been advocating strongly for C1 Pro 6.3.2. C1 Pro is still amazing as a RAW engine, but there are times where CS5 RAW is better, in getting the right balance for lighting particularly with portraits. The stock CS5 RAW profile, does not work well for me, but adapting the hues and saturations in ACR work great. I find also the fill in light, is better in ACR, than the shadow function in C1 Pro 6.3.2.
Martin, I agree with you, in part, that I usually expose for the highlights, and pull the details out of the shadows. This is where CS5 ACR RAW excels, in both detail and noise you have so much control!
Luka, very impressive shots. I am also in the construction site most of the time but i seldom see simple things in the site that will bring out an interesting image ...you have the eye on these things. I will try to be aware of these the next time i'm on the construction site ...all three shots are impressive!
Edwin, I construction sites are my favorite places to shoot as they are a really great source of unintentional simple abstract patterns. Unfortunately the only one near me is becoming less and less interesting as they're completing the buildings so soon I'll have to go looking for another one.
Edwin, I construction sites are my favorite places to shoot as they are a really great source of unintentional simple abstract patterns. Unfortunately the only one near me is becoming less and less interesting as they're completing the buildings so soon I'll have to go looking for another one.
Over here it's prohibited to visit (most) construction sites. How's that in Sweden? Are you just being sneaky or does nobody mind?
Jochenb wrote:
Over here it's prohibited to visit (most) construction sites. How's that in Sweden? Are you just being sneaky or does nobody mind?
It's a long story, but here's the short version: Stockholm is situated on a bunch of islands. On the one that I live they started turning a couple of commercial blocks into a new residential area. In the process they blocked off beach access on a part of the island. This was very unpopular among the hordes of joggers who like to jog by the beach. Subsequently they found a bunch of ways of penetrating the construction site, be it by circumvention or by blatant breaking and entering. Last year there was an escalating conflict between the joggers and the construction company with the latter putting up more and more obstacles at the perimeter. The joggers always seem to find some way through. Finally when the lake froze last winter and you could simply do a sea side attack on the site the construction company gave up in resignation. They only have token obstacles in place now, mostly for preventing small children of accidentally venturing into the area. They've accepted that people walk freely through it.
I've taken advantage of the situation and first used the various entrances the joggers used, usually in the evening or over the weekend. Now I can go any time and the construction guys don't mind - I've had quite a few chats with them. Several of them them have expressed interest and amazement that their semi-random placement of building material could be turned into art. I've actually given away a few prints
denoir wrote:
It's a long story, but here's the short version: Stockholm is situated on a bunch of islands. On the one that I live they started turning a couple of commercial blocks into a new residential area. In the process they blocked off beach access on a part of the island. This was very unpopular among the hordes of joggers who like to jog by the beach. Subsequently they found a bunch of ways of penetrating the construction site, be it by circumvention or by blatant breaking and entering. Last year there was an escalating conflict between the joggers and the construction company with the latter putting up more and more obstacles at the perimeter. The joggers always seem to find some way through. Finally when the lake froze last winter and you could simply do a sea side attack on the site the construction company gave up in resignation. They only have token obstacles in place now, mostly for preventing small children of accidentally venturing into the area. They've accepted that people walk freely through it.
I've taken advantage of the situation and first used the various entrances the joggers used, usually in the evening or over the weekend. Now I can go any time and the construction guys don't mind - I've had quite a few chats with them. Several of them them have expressed interest and amazement that their semi-random placement of building material could be turned into art. I've actually given away a few prints ...Show more →
That explains it all. Nice to give them some prints.
Jochenb wrote:
That's a lot of money for the 35 lux ASPH v1 (and the auction isn't even over yet)
That's because it's not the ASPH, but the "Aspherical" which is the version before and very rare. They had a short run as it was exceedingly expensive to produce - partly because the two hand-ground aspherical elements (made before the machine technique was developed).
So it's a collector's item and the price is about what you'd expect.
denoir wrote:
That's because it's not the ASPH, but the "Aspherical" which is the version before and very rare. They had a short run as it was exceedingly expensive to produce - partly because the two hand-ground aspherical elements (made before the machine technique was developed).
So it's a collector's item and the price is about what you'd expect.
Denoir is of course correct, but I simply couldn't resist. The guy choose the name himself.
denoir wrote:
That's because it's not the ASPH, but the "Aspherical" which is the version before and very rare. They had a short run as it was exceedingly expensive to produce - partly because the two hand-ground aspherical elements (made before the machine technique was developed).
So it's a collector's item and the price is about what you'd expect.
My 21/3.4 ASPH should arrive next week. I will try and go nuts taking some shots with it. All I have to compare it with currently is the 18/4 Distagon.
Jonas. of course, you won't get the Leica IQ of an ASPH newer lens. But that does not mean you will not get the Leica look of old anyway. But I'd want to see some images from it ont he M8 to see exactly what you get. I have a 35 cron, but mine is ASPH, I do like it a lot, I did find it used.
JonasY wrote:
I have found a M8 and the same seller has a Summicron-M 35, type II (from 1969). I really like the size of the lens, but can I expect true Leica IQ?
The older 35/2 Summicrons are said to be very similar to the 40/2 Summicron-C, and it has issues on the M8. While perfectly sharp from corner to corner at close distance and f/2.8, it gives really smeared and ugly corners and borders at ~5 meters and beyond, even stopped down to f/11. I think this has something with the offset microlenses to do, since it also happened with my old M8. The Voigltänder 35/1.4 behaves the same and they both have the exit pupil quite far away from the sensor, which might explain it, because they're (at least the C) very sharp on film at all distances.
Followed by a shot with the Summicron-C at MFD. Though, this was at f/16 to soften it up a bit and get rid of moiré. Cropped ~1.2x on the M8 too, which makes ~1.6x crop from FF.
Sorry if this is a stupid question but one of the things that has kept me away from RF's is that I love close focus detail shots. Is this a tight crop or can RF's focus closer than I think they can?
I've never bothered with "correct" white balance, because it often ruins the mood in images taken at low light. So, it's definitely not an issue to me. 
, but love my new Nikon D3s 
