28 3.5 PC on the Z6, admiring the curious "Hobbit homes" or "Mushroom houses" in Charlesvoix town in northern Michigan. This one was one of the more impressive ones. The guys asked that they not be photoshopped out, I promised them I had no intention of leaving them out
graytrekker wrote:
I love my f2s as well. After commenting on George's waterfalls some days back, someone told me I should go forth and find falling water myself. Here is one from today using my 50 Auto HC.
Of course I am one of those who go totally over the top on pano's ..... I can't believe you said that ....
At least I qualify as being an influencer ..... I think ....
But only, as you well know, if it is Nikon on Nikon ....
Btw ... I used to live near Gatwick on Lulworth Close .... for what its worth ..... always wanted to go to the cove, but never got the time. Now I have time I'm too many miles away, with so many other trips to make !!
To add to the waterfall theme, here are a few shots from the nearby Qualicum River courtesy of (respectively) the 85 f/1.8 HC, 50 f/1.4 SC (x2), and the 2.8cm f/3.5 H.
Question for the tech-oriented folks here. Is there a way to modify the meta-data in the Z6 files (or the jpgs for that matter)? I tried adding in the info about that flower shot (just the FL and the aperture taken at) to the xmp file that photoshop created, and then reimport back into the jpg. The metadata in the jpg didn't budge. I guess if there was a simple way we wouldn't be seeing all the f0.0 annotations on the thread.
Somehow its annoying to me that the Df saves the FL plugged into the non-CPU data and outputs it into the metadata, as well as the aperture. The Zs should be able to do that at least for the F-mount lenses. I understand for the RF lenses there's no way to communicate the aperture back to the camera. Or is there. Maybe Leica digital Ms do that - George would know.
saph wrote:
Question for the tech-oriented folks here. Is there a way to modify the meta-data in the Z6 files (or the jpgs for that matter)? I tried adding in the info about that flower shot (just the FL and the aperture taken at) to the xmp file that photoshop created, and then reimport back into the jpg. The metadata in the jpg didn't budge. I guess if there was a simple way we wouldn't be seeing all the f0.0 annotations on the thread.
Somehow its annoying to me that the Df saves the FL plugged into the non-CPU data and outputs it into the metadata, as well as the aperture. The Zs should be able to do that at least for the F-mount lenses. I understand for the RF lenses there's no way to communicate the aperture back to the camera. Or is there. Maybe Leica digital Ms do that - George would know....Show more →
Samy - I use a plugin to Lightroom called LensTagger. Use it to put in the lens information and correct aperture shot. Also use it to tag scanned film shots for film type, lens info, exposure, etc.
It is not an automated process. You save Metadata to file, open the tool, run the tool, then read the metadata back to the image.
Takes a few steps, but well worth it. We shoot old manual focus stuff, speed is not our top priority
If you are a Lightroom user you should check it out.
Re: Leica EXIF data... The camera (at least the M Typ 262) does an estimate of the aperture shot. It is quite accurate most of the time, but can be off by a stop. It does not impact the actual exposure, just what it records. I have gotten into the habit of making a note in my phone of my exposure recordings.
I don't go in and put that info in all my saved images, but some of the definite "keepers" I do. And the ones I share here.
Picked up a Pre-Ai Nikkor H Auto 300mm f/4.5 and Ai Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4 for around US$ 25
They were in good shape but needed a little cleaning and relube of the mechanics.
The 300mm is a looker, but pretty duff in terms of image quality.
The 105mm f/4 is very nice, especially that it doesn't reduce its focal length at close focus making working distance nice and long. Not quite as impressive as the 55mm f/3.5 micro, but close.
I had a 300mm H some time ago, and got some good shots out of it, but had to NAIL focus which wasn't easy. Just a bit off and it looked like a dog. Dunno. If you tire of it, I've been thinking about grabbing one to add to my NAI collection!
hmzimelka wrote:
Hi all. It's been a long while...
Picked up a Pre-Ai Nikkor H Auto 300mm f/4.5 and Ai Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4 for around US$ 25
They were in good shape but needed a little cleaning and relube of the mechanics.
The 300mm is a looker, but pretty duff in terms of image quality.
The 105mm f/4 is very nice, especially that it doesn't reduce its focal length at close focus making working distance nice and long. Not quite as impressive as the 55mm f/3.5 micro, but close.
Hey all. Any recommendations on where to get a lens reconditioned? I have some great lenses but they are "dry" for lack of a better term. They just need to be gone through and re-lubed.
gbohannon wrote:
Posting one to keep the thread moving.
I almost moved this shot to the trash bin. Poor, poor lighting. The out of the camera file had the entire left half of the image almost completely black in the deep shadows. Working with the Lightroom sliders, I was able to salvage this.
Nikon 24mm/2.8 Ai-S with the 10 stop ND.
George
Love the tones in this. I've been looking for a good ND-filter. I bought one a while ago. But it was for filming...didn't work very well. Which ND-filter are you using?
gbohannon wrote:
. Waterfall shot was a challenge . Harsh midday lighting and struggled with balancing the highlights and deep shadows. Shot with 10 stop B+W ND filter.
Now to figure where we are going tomorrow
George
So, after seeing George's post from July 2 about using an ND10 for midday shots, I thought I would give it a try myself. I don't have an ND10, but I do have an ND8 + polarizer, so maybe that equals an ND9?
On Tuesday (7/9), I headed to a place north of here called Jewel Basin. It's a 15,000 acre protected area east of Kalispell, set aside for hiking and backpacking. It has about 20 or so small lakes within it. Due to its proximity to Kalispell, it is quite popular, but people tend to spread out once they hit the trails.
I didn't come across any real waterfalls per se, but there was snow runoff which I substituted. Unlike yesterday's post which was evening light, these were taken at about 2 pm (high noon being actually 1 pm due to daylight savings time), so lighting was very intense (@ 6800 ft), as evidence from the tree shadows. These were out in the open without the benefit of shady forest. This is a runoff into one of the two "Picnic Lakes". One looking up and one looking down.
I would not normally take these images at that time of day, but it was an experiment, and one which I "boasted" on this forum I would do - so here it is. To my eye, these are pretty harsh, especially the one looking up. I am not a Lightroom expert and maybe these could be processed better, but these are the best I could do.
On the plus side, the yellow glacier lillies and buttercups were peaking and some meadows looked as yellow as a field of blooming rapeseed. I get to those soon.
Here's one:
