Mitch, I would choose #1 because it will be easier to print without the color noise on the edges and choose #2 for composition and story telling on #2
This is all subjective right?
I like #1 because it has four interesting subjects to me, man left seated, man in foreground in 1/3 left frame anchoring composition and spiting into 3rds. Woman and child main subject and interesting expressions on both. Finally fan and infant behind it creates a question mark and can be subject to open interpretation.
I like #2 because the colors and exposure in the middle seems spot on, sharp and clean. Also the composition is revolving, circulating between woman on right looking at the others and there is a flow from mother to 1st child to 2nd child back to woman on right foreground - perfect to keep me engaged together with the other secondary subjects- food on chair, fire extinguisher, etc that are surrounding the subjects.. Man lurking behind and top left background, can't really tell much based on this web size. Finally, there is a nice diagonal anchoring the subjects from lady in right foreground all the way back to the top left of the composition. I know its a sin to crop, but I might just crop a tiny bit of the top left and see if it strengthens the composition, probably not. You just need to try and get rid of the color noise on the edges. LR or other noise reduction software will be easy enough.
AshNZ, very nice picture I really like it a lot! If you are asking for nitpicking, maybe the left palm tree, which get's cut twice disturbs me a tiny little bit.
Mitch, I like the second one more, there is so much to discover. Is this a fish on the plate? But to be honest, the red color noise disturbs me a lot.
joe88/muc_marlin/edward, thanks. Yes, I agree that the composition and the light on the people is better in the second picture. The reason I had originally picked the first one is that I wanted some "psychological tension", but I must admit that the second man's shoulder just behind the first man compromises that somewhat. So, I'm still thinking about this and hope that I'll get some more comments
On the red color noise in the second picture: I haven't paid much attention to this because, as I mentioned in an earlier posting, I noticed that the JPGs exported from Lightroom 5 that I had "pushed" the most, and that had the highest effective ISO and the most noise, looked much noisier than the image in LR5. Doing a google search, I found the following recent statement from Adobe:
As mentioned here, a bug was introduced in Lightroom 5.0 where files exported at less than 1/3 of their original size may not retain Output Sharpening and Noise Reduction settings. We are working on a solution and will include it in our next update.
So this is merely an lR5 bug. Therefore, please don't pay attention to the red color noise in the second picture, although it's hard to ignore. I ignored it because my mind was only connecting with the image within LR5, which didin't have this annoying noise. It's amazing though that the Adobe beta testing process wasn't able to identify this JPG export problem before the final release.
Ron, great eye catching the angles. I really wish I was able to see things that way. I know there are so many opportunities I walk by every day.....I guess that is why photo walks with a bunch of people would be so beneficial, learning how everyone sees things so differently
Ash, great colors....very nice shot. The tower there seems a little out of place
Mitch, I think #2 may tell a better story...but that noise just kills it for me. #1 is also very good....the baby crying makes it if you ask me
Also, you guys will have to try to keep me straight on the glass. ok, screw mount Canon, the Nikon was what? I really don't keep up with really old glass much, true enough. I do enjoy seeing results others get with classic glass.
Ash, great shot. The palm bothered me a little, I might have like to have seeen the frame shifted left some, depending what was there, but you can't recreate it with that bird there. Shot has a lot of detail, is nice.
rsolti13 wrote:
...Mitch, I think #2 may tell a better story...but that noise just kills it for me. #1 is also very good....the baby crying makes it if you ask me...
rsolti1, thanks. See my post p.740 #20: the noise comes from an LR5 bug that does not include noise reduction settings in some exported JPGs. That means the image viewed in LR5, that is, the image to be printed does not have this color noise. Adobe is working on a fix for this.
I am a very seldom and somewhat lazy poster on here and I freely admit that I am generally daunted by the standard of images on this thread, so I don't post images much.
I have greatly enjoyed shooting with an M8 since Dec last year and now I have an M9 winging its way to me from the US. I need to sort a firmware issue.
Keeping the M8 in addition to the M9 is not an option ( I have other cams too), so I am simply asking for a consensus view that the move to a 9 is worthwhile, as I currently believe it to be
3D.Doug wrote:
Also, you guys will have to try to keep me straight on the glass. ok, screw mount Canon, the Nikon was what? Doug
Hey Doug. "Mostly" all of the vintage lenses people are using on M's are "screw mount", "M39", LTM (Leica Thread Mount) which are all one in the same. The Canon and Nikkor lenses used in recent posts are LTM (or M39, or screw) mount. The general consencus seems to be to just refer to them as LTM mount. You just screw on an LTM-M adapter on the lens and you are good to go.
lenticular11 wrote:
I am a very seldom and somewhat lazy poster on here and I freely admit that I am generally daunted by the standard of images on this thread, so I don't post images much.
I have greatly enjoyed shooting with an M8 since Dec last year and now I have an M9 winging its way to me from the US. I need to sort a firmware issue.
Keeping the M8 in addition to the M9 is not an option ( I have other cams too), so I am simply asking for a consensus view that the move to a 9 is worthwhile, as I currently believe it to be
Mitch Alland wrote: joe88/muc_marlin/edward, thanks. Yes, I agree that the composition and the light on the people is better in the second picture. The reason I had originally picked the first one is that I wanted some "psychological tension", but I must admit that the second man's shoulder just behind the first man compromises that somewhat. So, I'm still thinking about this and hope that I'll get some more comments.
Interesting that you wrote this, because before reading your comment, that is what drew me to #1 over #2 - the tension. Despite the hidden man's visible shoulder, I still prefer #1. While there is not an obvious activity, if any at all, happening in the image, there are several subjects each looking at different things, implying there is something happening, somewhere. And I like that the man second from left is looking at the camera, connecting the viewer to the scene.
Ryan, those look good from the 135, but it's also a lens that didn't really grow on my when it was generously loaned to me for a trial. Like the first one.
Edward, beautiful shot. Love the rendering of that lens. My first thought was if you also shot that with an MM. Did they fix the focus? Sure looks so based on that shot
The first thing I noticed is that they replaced the bayonet mount with a slightly thicker one, which is not a Zeiss one. Not sure if it's a Voigtlander or just a generic one. The close range focus is now absolutely perfect, but the RF patch is showing infinity focus a few mm before the infinity hard stop, my tests showed this is clearly incorrect as the lens is sharpest at the hard stop. Very curiously though, several hours later, the RF suddenly is working correctly both at infinity and close range, so it might have been a tiny piece of dirt causing this. I am quite happy with this lens now. More shots to come tomorrow
. The shadows in the first shot are perfect
