Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Beautiful work, Marc. That .095 certainly sings. I gotta say, however, that there are no flies on that 28 Cron shot!!
My bad. Good catch. I did a dupe layer and tried to do some noise work because the f/2 lens just wasn't enough ... and somehow screwed it up, didn't feather it and skewed the layer ... couldn't see it as much on the tiff, but you sure can see it here when compressed. Oh well.
Beautiful images!!! For my own edification, what exactly were you doing in post and what was the dupe layer for?
I use 72 dpi, and set the largest side of the image at around 875 pixels max. The max the forum allows is 900 pixels per the longest side, and will resize larger images, which sometimes results in a loss of quality. I do some sharpening for web view, but the forum applies some, so don't overdo. I also always set the color space to sRGB.
It does look better, but there is still something there:
Thanks.
). All the Nocti series lenses seem better optimized for higher contrast lighting like experienced when shooting at night. I had less problems exposing a bit more for the shadow areas without blowing the subject's white dress highlights using the 50/0.95 (see attached). Being even a bit lower contrast than the f/0.95, I'd bet the f/1.0 version may have done even better in this specific lighting ... but I'm not sure the level of texture and detail would have been the same.It does look better, but there is still something there:
View attachment 23906
Yes, it is deeper Mr. Eagle eye.
I actually had to merge two shots as layers along with using a dupe shadow layer because 28 @ f/2 was to contrasy ... and I simply botched it. Oddly, it looks fine in the print.
I'll just reprocess this shot, and see if there is another way. Wedding work isn't pure journalism, it's part magic for the clients, but it's tough to put one over on another magician
Look before you leap, or someone will look for you :ROTFL:
Your are dead on the money concerning the magenta cast. I am still screwing around with fixing that. We do need profiles for this camera that do a better job. When I get a minute, I'm going to try processing a few in C1-Pro to see if it's any better.
Hi Marc - and Carsten WRT the Magenta Cast
May the lord preserve us from bubble-less bridesThe bride just wasn't the "bubbly" sort. And the drama behind the scenes was that just prior to cutting out a few minutes to go upstairs for these shots, they did a tribute dance to her brother who wasn't at her wedding because he shipped out that very day for deployment to Iraq.
Very sensitive eye there my friend.
Yeah, I figured that out in LR already ... but even after doing a manual WB, some shots in certain lighting are a bear to correct. However, in the case of shots done this weekend, I had images done with a Sony A900 in the same reception room lighting ... and they were also too red ... weird light temps I guess ... sunlight/shade, tungsten and florescent all in one shot.Hi Marc - and Carsten WRT the Magenta Cast
It is better in C1, in Aperture it's about the same.
I've found that increasing the Red Hue by about 10% usually fixes it - and if it doesn't ,then reducing the red luminance slightly will help.
It was also a problem with the M8 - except that there I found it a great deal more difficult to deal with.
May the lord preserve us from bubble-less brides
HI Carsten
