alphanumeric wrote: Holger wrote:
Decreasing contrast and texture+sharpness in LR to similar levels, the difference isn't huge anymore in my opinion.
.
That's exactly what I was thinking as well. If you think a lens has too much contrast, it can be easily fixed with a couple sliders and saved as a preset.
And, more of the time we want images to have more "natural" contrast and to be sharper rather than not. I've used pro mist filters with good effect with sharp lenses to reduce contrast slightly and give more of a "filmic" effect (they're used a lot by videographers who use digital video cameras but want filmic looks).
Better to have a more contrasty, sharper lens that you can tweak in post rather than the opposite, imho.
Sharper is better but more contrast is not.
Better to build contrast in post than try to reduce it.
In order to reduce contrast you need to brighten shadows - more noise.
To increase contrast you darken shadows - less noise.
This is why the 85GM is a low(er) contrast lens. It's going to be used by pros that want a relatively flat base file.
The Black Mist Pro filter is a good idea.
I'll have to consider one when the lens comes in.
Yeah the red flag for me in the samples is the contrast and structure in the OOF areas and overall rendering. It is not easy to correct distracting bokeh, and it's easier to add contrast than to remove it. The less skin retouching that is neededz the better.
When the bokeh and rendering is good without over emphasizing flaws, you never think twice about it...this is true of the 85GM. When the rendering is harsh, the wrong details will dominate the frame and better to understand that a lens behaves this way before you take it out to the field and shoot for real.
alphanumeric wrote: Holger wrote:
Decreasing contrast and texture+sharpness in LR to similar levels, the difference isn't huge anymore in my opinion.
.
That's exactly what I was thinking as well. If you think a lens has too much contrast, it can be easily fixed with a couple sliders and saved as a preset.
And, more of the time we want images to have more "natural" contrast and to be sharper rather than not. I've used pro mist filters with good effect with sharp lenses to reduce contrast slightly and give more of a "filmic" effect (they're used a lot by videographers who use digital video cameras but want filmic looks).
Better to have a more contrasty, sharper lens that you can tweak in post rather than the opposite, imho.
Sharper is better but more contrast is not.
Better to build contrast in post than try to reduce it.
In order to reduce contrast you need to brighten shadows - more noise.
To increase contrast you darken shadows - less noise.
This is why the 85GM is a low(er) contrast lens. It's going to be used by pros that want a relatively flat base file.
The Black Mist Pro filter is a good idea.
I'll have to consider one when the lens comes in.
Yeah the red flag for me in the samples is the contrast and structure in the OOF areas. It is not easy to correct in post. When the OOF rendering is good, you never think twice about it...this is true of the 85GM. When OOF rendering is harsh, it can dominate the frame and better to understand that a lens behaves this way before you take it out to the field and shoot for real.
Apr 06, 2021 at 08:53 AM
Previous versions of Mystik's message #15556459 « Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399) »
