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!
Hmm... interesting. Not something I've noticed, to be honest. I do tend to shoot this lens wide open most of the time, however.Very nice image Lloyd, you have posted many excellent images taken with the 75 2.5 in the close focusing range, with a smooth OOF rendition.
I tried the 75 myself and liked the OOF rendition in close wide open, but found the middle distant image to have a harsher look (stopped down a stop or two), and did not buy the lens as a result.
Have you had a similar experience ?
Your images always have me wondering if my assessment was too hasty
Nice. I particularly like this one. So, you gonna share what you're doing here?I had already posted some images of this Circus Circus trapeze artist, but wanted to try some different ones with this new style of processing.
I guess the short answer is "I'm not sure what I'm doing." I was messing around in Lightroom and liked what I came up with. Now I paste those same settings into other images for a starting point and then mess around until the settings suit that particular photo.
Great first post. Nice work, great lenses, wonderful processing, beautiful model. :thumbup:Hello All, beautiful photos. Nice to see samples of different lenses.
Made me want to make my first post and share some photos
Beautiful shot, Helen. Rockin' in analog and digital. Nice!:thumbup:50/1.5 Sonnar....
late Afternoon at Il Bucco
waiting for my Glass of Wine to cool me Out
and a latte to keep me going
Thanks for the info, David. Always interesting to see what others are doing. You make a good point about the two images... one not better, only different. Had I seen either alone, I would find much to like either way. I love the subtle light on the sides of the first, which tends to emphasis the vanishing point effect. The second is much more dramatic, and the strong detail in the carpet is especially impressive.I guess the short answer is "I'm not sure what I'm doing." I was messing around in Lightroom and liked what I came up with. Now I paste those same settings into other images for a starting point and then mess around until the settings suit that particular photo.
Some of the settings are fairly extreme. For the photo you mentioned, I have Recovery at 4, Fill Light at 92, Blacks at 49, Brightness at 50, Contrast at -18, Clarity at 57, and Vibrance at -100. The Tone Curve is pumped up with Highlights at 0, Lights at 39, Darks at 11, and Shadows at 32. For the third image in that group, I have Recovery at 48, Fill Light at 64, Blacks at 36, Brightness at 50, Contrast at 57, Clarity at 71, and Vibrance at -100. The Tone Curve is the same as the other image. And for the first image in that group, I have Recovery at 73, Fill Light at 57, Blacks at 27, Brightness at 50, Contrast at 73, Clarity at 83, and Vibrance at -100. The Tone Curve is the same as the other two.
These settings make some images look awful. For others, they look crisper with an inner glow, though you lose mid-tone detail.
Here's an example. I shot this a few weeks ago at the Las Vegas Convention Center with the 18mm. The first was processed my usual way -- first with Capture One, then Lightroom, and then Silver Efex Pro. With the second one, I loaded the DNG file directly into Lightroom and applied the settings (with no Capture One or Silver Efex Pro adjustments). In this case, I don't think the second one is necessarily better -- only different.
[My server tends to be slow. You may have to hit the refresh button if the images don't load the first time.]
These really are wonderful. :bugeyes:
Thank you Lloyd. And Thanks for starting the thread.
