the secret of sharpness...

[kevinparis]

... a good lens, some light and a tripod... and an Oly 510

Nikkor 105/2.5 and OM 100/2.8


self #15 by kevinparis, on Flickr



self #9 by kevinparis, on Flickr



self #14 by kevinparis, on Flickr

 

[kds315]

Smoking DOES have negative impacts

 

[retnull]

Ssssssharp !
Very nice++

 

[kevinparis]

I was somewhat surprised by these shot - didn't think the camera had that quality in it

K

 

[Jonas]

I guess I have to be the one with another opinion then...
First, smoking adds to life. It may have some negative impact on something but nothing really serious...
Secondly, I don't think anything from an E-510 can be used to demonstrate maximum "sharpness". Maybe it's me only but there is a distinct difference when comparing the same test images taken with an E-510 and, for example, a G1.

in the end the images above are both nice to look at and, certainly, sharp enough. Hey, you are looking good there Kevin!

/Jonas

 

[Vivek]

The smoking shot is smoking. :thumbup:

Very nice light!

 

[kevinparis]

Jonas

wasn't claiming that the 510 was the ulitimate in sharpness - was merely expressing that if you get all the fundementals of photography right then even modest cameras can produce results that probably exceed many people expectations.

Too many people get caught up in the gear lust and look to buying the latest and greatest thinking that will allow them to take 'better' pictures. Of course there will always be better options available - but sometimes we should all look at our responsibilities in the picture taking process and not put it all on the camera.

people take pictures - cameras dont

its not about the pixels its about the picture

I have used the same lens on my e-p1... and I have got pleasing pictures



Hanging Garden by kevinparis, on Flickr

Are they as sharp - don't know... and frankly don't care

cheers

K

PS thanks for the 'good looking' comment....you smooth talker you

 

[jonoslack]

Too many people get caught up in the gear lust and look to buying the latest and greatest thinking that will allow them to take 'better' pictures. Of course there will always be better options available - but sometimes we should all look at our responsibilities in the picture taking process and not put it all on the camera.

people take pictures - cameras dont

its not about the pixels its about the picture

Oh So True
Was it you that told me the chef joke? . . .

A guy after a splendid meal said to the chef:

"You must have fantastic saucepans"

Me? I can take crap pictures with any camera!

P.S. Love the smoking shot - excellent (and the others are pretty damned good too!)

 

[kevinparis]

thanks vivek

good natural Belgian light... first we have seen in 2 days of rain


K

 

[kevinparis]

jono

didn't tell you the joke... but I like it... encapsulates my feelings exactly

looking forward to seeing you next week

K

 

[scho]

... a good lens, some light and a tripod... and an Oly 510
Nikkor 105/2.5 and OM 100/2.8

Nice series of self portraits and agree with others that the smoking shot is great. The ecstatic expression in the smoking shot might have been more convincing had you been smoking grass instead of tobacco.

 

[Vivek]

Carl, How could you tell if it is really tobacco?

 

[M5-Guy]

Very nice Kevin
Which one was with the OM 100 f/2.8... Not that it matters as far as your fine examples go... I am thinking to get this lens for my G1

But, you are right....
Good Glass, good light, good technique (steady camera)....

 

[biglouis]

They are very good photographs - very well composed and equally as good as anything you would see hanging in a gallery. BUT reviewing the originals in Flickr they are not sharp. They contain very good detail and I am sure at even 16x12 99% of people would not notice a lack of distinctness but it is in there if you want to nit-pick.

I think what this prooves is that you can pay many times the amount for cameras and lenses with fantastic technical qualities but it is actually the photographer that makes the difference and even with less than technically perfect kit the results will always be ten times better than poor photographers with the best kit money can buy.

Hope this makes sense and they are in any case very good portraits.

LouisB

 

[scho]

Carl, How could you tell if it is really tobacco?

Vivek, The wrapper label says "Camel". Twenty years ago this would have been a great advertising shot for the brand. Now we only see autopsy shots of dead smoker's lungs on TV.

 

[M5-Guy]

They are very good photographs - very well composed and equally as good as anything you would see hanging in a gallery. BUT reviewing the originals in Flickr they are not sharp. They contain very good detail and I am sure at even 16x12 99% of people would not notice a lack of distinctness but it is in there if you want to nit-pick.

I think what this prooves is that you can pay many times the amount for cameras and lenses with fantastic technical qualities but it is actually the photographer that makes the difference and even with less than technically perfect kit the results will always be ten times better than poor photographers with the best kit money can buy.

Hope this makes sense and they are in any case very good portraits.

LouisB

I don't think kevin sharpened them for examples used here., or Flicker has a funky compression that losses sharpness. They do sharpen up quite nice though. His whiskers sharpen right up on the 1st one.

1st one is the Nikkor 105. 2nd one is the OM 100

 

[kevinparis]

thanks guys for all the good comments

i can confirm

1) I smoke camels... the other stuff never really works for me

2) the smoking picture was done on the OM 100/2.8... a lens i haven't made work for me handheld on the street, but does seem to work nice in this environment

3) No sharpening in PP... jut some levels and B/W conversion in Aperture

think everyone has picked up on my point that too many people obsess on the wrong things on too many forums.... supposedly superior equipment doesn't result in superior pictures... i could point to a thread on this forum, where folks with outrageous budgets display the giant results of their effort... most of which apart from their apparent pixel count are badly exposed,poorly pp'd and just plain boring

cheers

K

 

[Jonas]

Jonas

wasn't claiming that the 510 was the ulitimate in sharpness - was merely expressing that if you get all the fundementals of photography right then even modest cameras can produce results that probably exceed many people expectations.

Good morning Kevin,

No, the E-510 isn't the ultimate in sharpness but you mentioned it as one of the ingredients when revealing your recipe for sharpness... so, after the "Ssssssharp" comment I had to jump in. Deviation is my second hobby anyway.

And yes, my tripod is my best lens.

Too many people get caught up in the gear lust
(...)
its not about the pixels its about the picture

So true, and I am guilty of this as well from time to time. I also remember your thread "How fast lens do you need" (or something similar) over at another forum - a thread partly responsible for me now mainly having settled for f/2 lenses rather than the very fast and super fast lenses available.

PS thanks for the 'good looking' comment....you smooth talker you

Nah, just the plain truth, there for everyone to see.

Cheers,

/Jonas

ps
Never trust a non-smoker

 

[pellicle]

I was somewhat surprised by these shot - didn't think the camera had that quality in it

I'm not ... even the 410 has the ability to make sharp images. Lighting has a lot to do with it, and strobe even helps to reduce any camera shake effects (its surprising how much mirror slap can get the camera bouncing about on the tripod)

well done and nice atmosphere (cough)