•  Previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3(current)
  • 4
  • 5
  • ...
  • 7
  • Next 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Close-ups with wide angle lenses
#21
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1313840560' post='10859']

Late yesterday evening (finally a few days of summer-like weather ahead):

[snip]

EX 20/1.8 on D3x. Horizon distortion coming from the landscape, not the lens <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />



-- Markus

[/quote]



Gosh, the corners are terrible soft. Just kidding. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Tongue' /> The photo looks good.
#22
In the Sigma spirit, here are a couple from the Sigma 28mm 1:1.8 II on 135 film.



(Film was ISO400(Fuji Superia) exposed at ISO800 settings which was supposed to be push-processed one stop but the shop forogot to do it, so I tried to recover it digitally but it looks a but grainy...)



[Image: p297013655-5.jpg]



[Image: p273896432-5.jpg]
#23
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1313013566' post='10600']

By the way, bokeh is used to describe or express the quality of the blurred parts, the "rendering". Not the amount of blur.

[/quote]



Almost agree with you, except



(1) You imply that the "quantity" of a lens's blur is utterly separate from the "quality" of that blur. But in a given photo, surely an aspect of that photo's blur's "quality", is its "quantity". We can note that the original Japanese word just meant "the blur" of a photo, it didn't specifically mean "the qualities of the blur of a photo apart from the quantity of blur".



For example, the wild, swirling bokeh of an F1.2 or whatever Petzval lens certainly has, as a component of its impact, the quantity of blurring due to its countless field curvature problems. The overall bokeh can't be deduced simply by toting up all the point spread functions, at various perfect focusing planes throughout the image.



So you are not picking the most perfectly strong point to quibble over. By the way, wouldn't think of quibbling with you over such a small point had you not invited this sort of point-shaving. To argue with this point, you would have to say that the "quantity" of blur a given super blurry lens (such as the aforementioned super-curved-field Petzval) produces has nothing to do with the viewer's impression of the "quality" of the len's blur in a given image.



(2) it never seems logical to "correct" someone's use of language in a pleasant public forum, unless they have asked you for such editing help. Firstly, it's not fun to receive such unrequested corrections, calling into question the ultimate good to the forum of making them. As an immediate example, you probably take no great joy from my attempt at this moment to quibble with you. Once again this post is part of the slightly special case where you've invited quibbling.



Finally, there are only two possible impressions you can have as a reader, of someone's statements. Either you truly don't understand what the person is trying to talk about, in which case, you can't possibly "correct" them, since you have no idea of what they mean. Or, you do know what they were "trying to talk about", in which case, assuming as we all should that we're all roughly equally intelligent, everyone else "gets the idea", too. In which case there is nothing truly important to be accomplished by "correcting" someone, to balance against the unpleasantness.



To argue with this second point, you would have to either say that it's your guess that people do enjoy being corrected, or that it's logical to correct people without knowing what they meant to say, or that you figure most other folks can't figure out what someone means to say as well as you can.



Here's a link to an largely irrelevant photo,

[url="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15387676/lensTestIndustar100u/DSC07084.jpg"]simply establishing having some acquaintance with demanding photography[/url].
#24
[quote name='RussellB' timestamp='1313865661' post='10866']

Almost agree with you, except



(1) You imply that the "quantity" of a lens's blur is utterly separate from the "quality" of that blur. But in a given photo, surely an aspect of that photo's blur's "quality", is its "quantity". We can note that the original Japanese word just meant "the blur" of a photo, it didn't specifically mean "the qualities of the blur of a photo apart from the quantity of blur".



For example, the wild, swirling bokeh of an F1.2 or whatever Petzval lens certainly has, as a component of its impact, the quantity of blurring due to its countless field curvature problems. The overall bokeh can't be deduced simply by toting up all the point spread functions, at various perfect focusing planes throughout the image.



So you are not picking the most perfectly strong point to quibble over. By the way, wouldn't think of quibbling with you over such a small point had you not invited this sort of point-shaving. To argue with this point, you would have to say that the "quantity" of blur a given super blurry lens (such as the aforementioned super-curved-field Petzval) produces has nothing to do with the viewer's impression of the "quality" of the len's blur in a given image.



(2) it never seems logical to "correct" someone's use of language in a pleasant public forum, unless they have asked you for such editing help. Firstly, it's not fun to receive such unrequested corrections, calling into question the ultimate good to the forum of making them. As an immediate example, you probably take no great joy from my attempt at this moment to quibble with you. Once again this post is part of the slightly special case where you've invited quibbling.



Finally, there are only two possible impressions you can have as a reader, of someone's statements. Either you truly don't understand what the person is trying to talk about, in which case, you can't possibly "correct" them, since you have no idea of what they mean. Or, you do know what they were "trying to talk about", in which case, assuming as we all should that we're all roughly equally intelligent, everyone else "gets the idea", too. In which case there is nothing truly important to be accomplished by "correcting" someone, to balance against the unpleasantness.



To argue with this second point, you would have to either say that it's your guess that people do enjoy being corrected, or that it's logical to correct people without knowing what they meant to say, or that you figure most other folks can't figure out what someone means to say as well as you can.



Here's a link to an largely irrelevant photo,

[url="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15387676/lensTestIndustar100u/DSC07084.jpg"]simply establishing having some acquaintance with demanding photography[/url].

[/quote]



Nicely put... Especially the "quantity" part...



Serkan
#25
[quote name='dave9t5' timestamp='1313860190' post='10861']

In the Sigma spirit, here are a couple from the Sigma 28mm 1:1.8 II on 135 film.



(Film was ISO400(Fuji Superia) exposed at ISO800 settings which was supposed to be push-processed one stop but the shop forogot to do it, so I tried to recover it digitally but it looks a but grainy...)



[Image: p297013655-5.jpg]



[/quote]



Gosh, there's a load of bookay on that - I guess it was shot at a pretty big aperture.



Nice to see someone using film on here too, I recently used some Superia again and was really happy with the pop in the colours.
#26
[quote name='Pinhole' timestamp='1314022323' post='10871']

Gosh, there's a load of bookay on that - I guess it was shot at a pretty big aperture.



Nice to see someone using film on here too, I recently used some Superia again and was really happy with the pop in the colours.

[/quote]



That's the boogie man in the background. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' /> It was near dark in that bar except for the narrow but bright spotlights, tricky to use a camera with only centre-weighted metering. That was for sure wide-open at f/1.8.
#27
I was impressed with the WA close-up capabilities of 24-85mm f/2.8-4D and I'd like to share with you also... This was taken @35mm (ok not quite a WA, but within the limit I guess <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' />...) and almost 10 cms away from the flower...





Serkan
#28
Another one to get the thread back onto the first page <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />



PC-E 24 on FX, but cropped to roughly DX format:



[Image: MST_4052.jpg]



-- Markus
Editor
photozone.de

#29
1D Mk II + Sigma 28mm f/1.8 wide open - not very close so I hope this is ok...



[Image: 3274085094_23ef2928ea_b.jpg]





Canon 30D + Sigma 28mm f/1.8 wide open - this is a miniature bottle of JD, not full sized!



[Image: 3615128756_079ebca67b_b.jpg]
#30
Here's another, this time with Canon 7D and Sigma 28mm f/1.8 @ f/2 (front focussed unfortunately but I still like the image)



[Image: 6022719605_a64ccf2292_b.jpg]
  
  •  Previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3(current)
  • 4
  • 5
  • ...
  • 7
  • Next 


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)