Thanks Rafael, this was very helpful. I'm glad you got your D810 figured out.
rafaelcasd wrote:
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.
hanay78 wrote:
looking for this glass. The sunstars are fantastic. Very difficult to find in good state. looking for Af-D 2.8 as an alternative, or the canon 15mm. Got the sigma 15, and i do not know if keeping it or sending it back. Nice shots!
AF-D 16mm Fisheye has slightly better flare/ghosting (very slightly better), but is not nearly as sharp, especially off-center and especially wide open compared to the 16/3.5 AI (and specific versions of the 16/3.5 are better than others).
That's why at one time I had three 16/3.5 AI copies, but now I just have two
James Markus wrote:
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
That makes sense that it would be confusing reading it back. I guess to clarify, if it does, what I'm trying to replicate is that "deep matte" look in photoshop...and printing on Finestra premium luster photo paper.
Ani,
I think I understand what you are looking to achieve in your prints. Finestra premium luster photo paper calls itself "semi-gloss", and "luster" which would make it even more glossy than luster. The gloss gives it depth. If you could knock a bit of shine off the surface would it retain it's depth? Well, it depends. It will lose some depth, but it may retain some depth from saturated blacks and colors that accompany "depth". I recently attempted to do this on three prints I installed during my bathroom remodel. Seeking durability in a wet environment I printed on luster, and spray varnished the prints with non-yellowing water based varnishes. I tried both matte and satin varnishes. Spraying matte varnish over luster prints takes the life right out of the print. They go dull, just like printing on matte paper can look. Satin spray over a luster print seemed to combine the best from each finish. This may be impossible to convey through a photo but here goes...shot with the 55mm f3.5 AI'd
Jim
"Cootie Catcher" (installed near commode)
Luster print with satin varnish - notice light reflecting off upper right of semi gloss painted wall, but not print
Depth detail
Depth detail
anitrone wrote:
That makes sense that it would be confusing reading it back. I guess to clarify, if it does, what I'm trying to replicate is that "deep matte" look in photoshop...and printing on Finestra premium luster photo paper.
jhinkey wrote:
AF-D 16mm Fisheye has slightly better flare/ghosting (very slightly better), but is not nearly as sharp, especially off-center and especially wide open compared to the 16/3.5 AI (and specific versions of the 16/3.5 are better than others).
That's why at one time I had three 16/3.5 AI copies, but now I just have two
James Markus wrote:
Ani,
I think I understand what you are looking to achieve in your prints. Finestra premium luster photo paper calls itself "semi-gloss", and "luster" which would make it even more glossy than luster. The gloss gives it depth. If you could knock a bit of shine off the surface would it retain it's depth? Well, it depends. It will lose some depth, but it may retain some depth from saturated blacks and colors that accompany "depth". I recently attempted to do this on three prints I installed during my bathroom remodel. Seeking durability in a wet environment I printed on luster, and spray varnished the prints with non-yellowing water based varnishes. I tried both matte and satin varnishes. Spraying matte varnish over luster prints takes the life right out of the print. They go dull, just like printing on matte paper can look. Satin spray over a luster print seemed to combine the best from each finish. This may be impossible to convey through a photo but here goes...shot with the 55mm f3.5 AI'd
Jim
"Cootie Catcher" (installed near commode)
Luster print with satin varnish - notice light reflecting off upper right of semi gloss painted wall, but not print http://www.photomatter.com/2021/55mmf3.5ai'd_BathroomArt_DSC7060-crop-n-edit.jpg
Okay I can see what you did and I like it. I'm not a fan of high gloss prints so I am trying to "knock a bit of shine off the surface" or should I say the image in photoshop. I've printed a few photos that I'll share later.
Also, thanks for the input and knowledge...I'm printing off an old Epson to give prints to family and friends. It's much nicer instead of just a share on social media. When I give someone a print, it just seems to mean more to them. Makes you feel good too!
Jay, where can you get an extension so thin the 16mm can still focus? My thinnest 12mm on the 20mm can barely get anything in focus that is not touching the lens if I recall correctly.
Queen Mary falls looks like it would be something else at full flow.
Samy, wonderful tones at the memorial. Somehow I think scanned film grain still beat s out digitally added grain.
Super squirrel capture James.
Ani, what a great leaf and saddle series. Now I need to go find some past fall color leaves and see what I can manage, hope you find an attempt at mimicry flattering. I don't have an f1.2 cream machine, so the vanilla 1.4 will have to do.
Rafael, I know you are a careful and regimented technician, but two of your three adjustments would not make sense to me that it would induce haze (not questioning your eyes, just thinking out loud). As far as compression to no compression, I hope that one is not true as I always use 14-bit compressed raw. Interesting results.
Chiming in with the rest on the beauty of the "Rvier Walk" George.
pbraymond wrote:
Jay, where can you get an extension so thin the 16mm can still focus? My thinnest 12mm on the 20mm can barely get anything in focus that is not touching the lens if I recall correctly.
Ray, look for the Nikon K series extension rings. The K1 is 5.8mm and is great for the 20mm lens. No aperture coupling though.
pbraymond wrote:
Jay, where can you get an extension so thin the 16mm can still focus? My thinnest 12mm on the 20mm can barely get anything in focus that is not touching the lens if I recall correctly.
Queen Mary falls looks like it would be something else at full flow.
Samy, wonderful tones at the memorial. Somehow I think scanned film grain still beat s out digitally added grain.
Super squirrel capture James.
Ani, what a great leaf and saddle series. Now I need to go find some past fall color leaves and see what I can manage, hope you find an attempt at mimicry flattering. I don't have an f1.2 cream machine, so the vanilla 1.4 will have to do.
Rafael, I know you are a careful and regimented technician, but two of your three adjustments would not make sense to me that it would induce haze (not questioning your eyes, just thinking out loud). As far as compression to no compression, I hope that one is not true as I always use 14-bit compressed raw. Interesting results.
Chiming in with the rest on the beauty of the "Rvier Walk" George....Show more →
It was not haze but more of a dull look, I may be careful with my work as I understand what is involved in a communication link working, but I do not know what the camera is doing, just changed a few random settings of which the electronic shutter is most suspect on this camera, I have seen it go nuts with artificial light.
