leighton w wrote:
Ben you know I like you, but where's the Colosseum?
Just as well you prefaced this with how you like me Leighton, or else I might have given a curt response about how you need your eyes checked. But I like you too, so I'll say nothing.
Ben
leighton w wrote:
I like it as well. Have you tried cropping to a 16:9 aspect ratio?
Thanks, Leighton. I will give it a try tonight. I believe, though, that you are right. That thought hadn't even crossed my mind. Thanks to you and George for suggesting that.
bruni wrote:
Although, they're both such strong images that they work very well as they are and would work well cropped. That's a testimony to how good they are. What a great dilemma to be in!
Ben
Thanks, Ben. What an incredibly nice thing to say!
Scott, wonderful IR work. Interesting how different parts of the scene show up in that part of the spectrum.
spoupard wrote:
I'm undecided whether or not I like this photo. I think I would like it more as a large print than as a small photo viewed on a small screen. You may have to follow the link and look at the full size version to see it, but this is the South end of St. Simon's Island, GA. If you look closely, you can see the lighthouse on the far right of the island.
A part of me likes the negative space, but then I also feel like there might be too much negative space. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Jim, cat hair or not, that's some nice gear to show off. I am partial to the D800+28PC combo. I don't have that camera now, but when I did, the 28PC spent a lot of time on it.
James Markus wrote:
I don't normally do gear shots, or at least not very often. I'm seeing lots of dust and cat hairs, and it makes it look like my lenses are dirty. Well, they are dirty. Here are the three 55m's I own side by side. I shot these with the beautiful and rarely used PC Shift Nikkor 28mm f3.5 AIS on the D800 and then the Nikkor P.C. AI 55mm f3.5 Micro was used on the - hasn't seen the light of day in quite awhile - D300 (a great crop sensor camera)
Rafael, lovely 200 in that line up!! rafaelcasd wrote:
In the subject of hardware.
My recently acquired K, non-ai, now factory ai'd to use Jim's correct terminology, 300mm 4.5 ED is the 75th lens produced!!!!!!!
Serial 173186 with first being 173111, 176186-176111=75! out of the 800 or so made. It is a lens with perfect glass and function, a few paint blemishes and box with serialized warranty card.
Just saying, actually the 200mm 2.0 I own is one of the last 25 or so out of 1800 or so. It was one time listed as the last SN in photosynthesis NZ. but later lenses surfaced.
OK, so now I hate testing lenses. I love checking my lenses to make sure they are good or bad - but comparing lenses is a whole different storry.
Decided to compare only the 300mm 4.5 EDIF to the 300mm 4.5 ED K.
No point comparing to the 300mm H, it is a decent lens but not a competitor.
No point testing agaisnt the 50-300mm 4.5 ED, it is an excellent lens, but big and heavy, if you need a zoom use it, if you only need 300mm use the others.
When testing I decided to mount the EDIF on the D800 and the ED K on the D810. I was disappointed that the K was a little less contrasty and a little less sharp than the ais. Then I switched cameras and the contrast and sharpness stayed with the camera, not the lens. I thought processing raw files made camera settings null, but something is making my D810 not as good as the D800, will check their settings, guessing it is extended dynamic range.
These two lenses are very close to each other, really hard to differentiate, except for one thing, which I will show.
Processing copy paste, no aberration corrections.
First the K on D800, all photos at 100% res on flickr
Finally, and I mean finally, there are the two lenses on the sharper camera, the D800.
This is a good comparison, the focal planes still a little different.
Lenses perform nearly identical for color, sharpness, contrast. Real difference is the EDIF color aberration around highlights, which the ED K has none.
Marnie, my tiny ginger cat, was watching a squirrel at the cat's big scream TV (the patio slider). When she saw me grab a camera I got that "don't screw this up - I'm watching this channel" look. So, I mounted an AF lens and shot a couple bursts through the glass - squirrel none the wiser. Then I mounted the 200mm f2.0 + the TC-200 and stepped outside. Squirrel chattered his disapproval, and ran up a tree complaining the whole way. I squeezed off two frames and he ran through the tree canopy like I had aimed a bazooka at him. So I shot a neighbor's tree top that in years past has been brilliant yellow, red, orange. This year it hasn't reached peak yet. Then found a lone discarded tomato that was lying in the garden - rejected on our green tomato bushel harvest, and the great chutney production campaign. Had blue skies but no clouds for IR drama. I feel lucky to have a back yard to putter in.
rafaelcasd wrote:
OK, so now I hate testing lenses. I love checking my lenses to make sure they are good or bad - but comparing lenses is a whole different storry.
Decided to compare only the 300mm 4.5 EDIF to the 300mm 4.5 ED K.
No point comparing to the 300mm H, it is a decent lens but not a competitor.
No point testing agaisnt the 50-300mm 4.5 ED, it is an excellent lens, but big and heavy, if you need a zoom use it, if you only need 300mm use the others.
When testing I decided to mount the EDIF on the D800 and the ED K on the D810. I was disappointed that the K was a little less contrasty and a little less sharp than the ais. Then I switched cameras and the contrast and sharpness stayed with the camera, not the lens. I thought processing raw files made camera settings null, but something is making my D810 not as good as the D800, will check their settings, guessing it is extended dynamic range.
These two lenses are very close to each other, really hard to differentiate, except for one thing, which I will show.
Processing copy paste, no aberration corrections.
First the K on D800, all photos at 100% res on flickr
James Markus wrote:
Marnie, my tiny ginger cat, was watching a squirrel at the cat's big scream TV (the patio slider). When she saw me grab a camera I got that "don't screw this up - I'm watching this channel" look. So, I mounted an AF lens and shot a couple bursts through the glass - squirrel none the wiser. Then I mounted the 200mm f2.0 + the TC-200 and stepped outside. Squirrel chattered his disapproval, and ran up a tree complaining the whole way. I squeezed off two frames and he ran through the tree canopy like I had aimed a bazooka at him. So I shot a neighbor's tree top that in years past has been brilliant yellow, red, orange. This year it hasn't reached peak yet. Then found a lone discarded tomato that was lying in the garden - rejected on our green tomato bushel harvest, and the great chutney production campaign. Had blue skies but no clouds for IR drama. I feel lucky to have a back yard to putter in.
anitrone wrote:
It's been raining for days now but the pups and I still head out for walks daily...on this day I brought out the D200 with the 50mm F/1.2 ais
A slightly different processing on these because Im trying out a look for a deep matte on luster when printing...
Ani, I think you have your deep matte look down. What are you doing the post work in and are you saving your formula in a preset? Beautiful patina on the saddle.
leighton w wrote:
Ani, I think you have your deep matte look down. What are you doing the post work in and are you saving your formula in a preset? Beautiful patina on the saddle.
Hi Leighton, thank you! I'm using DXO film pack through photoshop. I've always liked the Agfa Precisa film look so for awhile now I've been building on it to create my own presets. I have three slightly different formulas so far that I use depending on how the light is in the photographs.
Ani,
Using paper finish terminology in describing photo imaging is a bit confusing for me. The paper finish surface between matte and luster is satin. It is finer grained, and less shiny than luster, but has more pop than matte. Some satin finishes are almost matte like, and others lean the to the luster side. I use Epson Exhibition Canvas Satin for clients that want that look. 95% of my clients over the years choose Epson's #260 Luster finish.
Jim
anitrone wrote:
It's been raining for days now but the pups and I still head out for walks daily...on this day I brought out the D200 with the 50mm F/1.2 ais
A slightly different processing on these because Im trying out a look for a deep matte on luster when printing...
anitrone wrote:
Hi Leighton, thank you! I'm using DXO film pack through photoshop. I've always liked the Agfa Precisa film look so for awhile now I've been building on it to create my own presets. I have three slightly different formulas so far that I use depending on how the light is in the photographs.
If and when you make some prints, take a pic of them and share with us. I'd like to see how it turned out.
leighton w wrote:
Thanks for doing this. Looks like any difference in image quality could be fixed in LR. I do think something is wrong with your D810 though.
With our current sensors and processing there is little, if any, practical difference between the 300mm 45 ED K and the EDIF. I can see how in the film days the K developed a reputation for being better, it is better. Looking for the ED K and paying more is a collector desire more than a practical decision.
With respect to the D810, inspected the sensor for Haze and there was none.
Changed the following D810 settings:
>RAW file from compression to no compression.
>Electronic front curtain shutter to OFF from ON.
>Dynamic lighting to normal from extra high 2.
Now the images look great!!, do not know what made them a bit soft and less contrasty but it is now fixed. A lesson to remember.
