Presented here is a photo of a small, colorful gorge on Avalanche Creek, Glacier Nat'l Park. I like going here on the more cloudy days as the shadows are not as harsh. This photo was taken on my Df with the 55mm f2.8 micro-Nikkor.
Presented here are 3 different crops - original 3x2, 7x5 and 5x4. I see strengths and weakness in each. However, I have been unable to decide how to crop this and have looked at it way too long to be objective anymore, so I am asking folks here to vote to help me decide. Thanks in advance - Doug
PS - it may be hard to believe, but I have actually had to turn the vibrance/saturation down. The colors off the Df are so different from those I get from my Sonys
I like the 4X5. It makes the waterfall look a little larger, but still shows enough of the blue water. That said, I don't think you can go wrong with any of them. It's a beautiful photo.
Some rescans from the 2014 protests we had here. Much more hopeful back then and way less violent. Seems like an eternity ago. I think I have around 30-40 rolls to go through from that period. Glad I documented a fair bit of it on film. These were taken with a Nikon FM2n & the 50/1.2 Ai-S. Tri-X 400 self developed
Leighton - the XS 10 is obviously working out well.
Chuong - really like that first one, she's very intent on what she's doing.
Doug - the main difference between the 3 x 2 and 7 x 5 seems to be in the top of the image, the water section is pretty much the same in both. The crop is mostly in the rocky part at the top. I'd normally go for the 3 x 2 but as you don't lose much in this particular composition I'd say the 7 x 5, pretty much for the same reasons as Leighton.
Scott - Wow, that's a perfect pic for the IR treatment.
Doug, I prefer the "5x4" crop. As to the color - check if the camera is set to "vivid". Maybe "standard or neutral" would be more to your liking?
Jim
graytrekker wrote:
Help Please
Presented here is a photo of a small, colorful gorge on Avalanche Creek, Glacier Nat'l Park. I like going here on the more cloudy days as the shadows are not as harsh. This photo was taken on my Df with the 55mm f2.8 micro-Nikkor.
Presented here are 3 different crops - original 3x2, 7x5 and 5x4. I see strengths and weakness in each. However, I have been unable to decide how to crop this and have looked at it way too long to be objective anymore, so I am asking folks here to vote to help me decide. Thanks in advance - Doug
PS - it may be hard to believe, but I have actually had to turn the vibrance/saturation down. The colors off the Df are so different from those I get from my Sonys
deang001 wrote:
Some rescans from the 2014 protests we had here. Much more hopeful back then and way less violent. Seems like an eternity ago. I think I have around 30-40 rolls to go through from that period. Glad I documented a fair bit of it on film. These were taken with a Nikon FM2n & the 50/1.2 Ai-S. Tri-X 400 self developed
Yesterday I tested briefly my AI-S 50/1.8 "long nose" with Z6.
I went to Basilica of Saint Paul. I took pictures of the same scene using f/1.8, f/2.8, f/4 and f/5.6 apertures.
My findings (all NEFs developed with C1):
- w/open the lens is sharp in the frame center but with rather low contrast; corners are softer; the lens suffers from internal flare forming halos around bright areas;
- f/2.8: the halos disappear, sharpness and contrast improve; corners are still softer than the central area of the frame, where the quality is quite good (on 24 Mpix FX sensor);
- f/4: slight increase of sharpness, but corners are not at the same level as the frame's center, where lens quality is high, definitely;
- f/5.6: corners are still not at the same (high) level of the center; the overall IQ is high (at least on Z6).
Chromatic aberrations were surprisingly low.
The lens has some barrel distortion, easily corrected in C1 with the slider at around 11-14.
Then, I decided to convert in B&W (by Silver Efex Pro 2) few pictures taken @ f/1.8.
Well, the quality improves: the halos were still detectable but less evident, and with a wise usage of sharpening the final images can be safely printed (A3+ for sure). I attach a couple of pictures.
This 1981-1985 version of the AI-S 50/1.8 is not as good as the 50/1.8 Z, and can't compete with the fabulous Voigtlander 50/2 Apo-Lanthar; moreover, the bokeh is not fantastic ... but this lens is able to produce quite good images and - last but not least - is inexpensive (in 2007 I paid my Mint- sample £ 127, shipping from UK included ... before Brexit ).
