The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

Fun with MF images - ARCHIVED - FOR VIEWING ONLY

Status
Not open for further replies.

tsjanik

Well-known member
I shot this tonight for fun and the Pentax Day event on Feb. 4th. These are 3 minute exposures at ISO 400 at f/10 with the Pentax 645D and A 35mm lens. Kinda hard focusing without light.


LOL. :ROTFL: Seems you and I were taking the same shots yesterday. Here's an image I took last night. A plane traveling diagonally through the frame, perpendicular to star trails. Trees illuminated by a nearly full moon and some window light. 645D, 67 55mm lens.

_IGP6973 by tsjanik47, on Flickr
 
Last edited:

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Quentin

Really lovely tulips - and I can imagine it looks terrific printed as indicated.

Any hints on the post-processing...?

Thanks for sharing,

Sinuhe
Hi Sinuhe

Thanks I am glad you like the shot.

Well to go back to the beginning, my wife asked me whether I could take a picture of some Tulips she had purchased as table decoration so the picture could be hung on the kitchen wall. I took a few shots in my small studio but while they were OK as flower shots go, they looked a bit ordinary and too high key. This got me thinking about using these shots as a first step in a new project I wanted to start. I do a lot of fairly high-key shots and white background shots, which can be good but I wanted to try a different approach with these tulips, something moodier and more subtle.

So I took a slightly underexposed shot of the Tulips and ran Silver Effex Pro II on a top layer in Photoshop, adjusting the image until I had achieved the effect I wanted - failry high structure and contrast. I added a slight warm tint and a border and then in Photoshop I set the opacity of the monochrome layer to about 80% so a hint of colour shows through. I have also darkened the boders slightly and messed around with some other secret sauce :thumbup:

I was very pleased with the final effect, and so (I am happy to report) is my wife. ;)

Phase two will be to take more shots that will form part of this series, which I am looking forward to doing.

Quentin
 

Shashin

Well-known member
LOL. :ROTFL: Seems you and I were taking the same shots yesterday.
Tom, you know how it is when you live so far north in winter. You need to take advantage of any sunlight you can, whether direct or indirect.

But it looks like you got the Pleiades at the top of your frame.
 

MaxKißler

New member
Spent the morning at an abandoned radar station where you get a nice view on the city. Too bad it's freezing cold here especially the wind up there is killing you...

Mamiya 50mm shift / Fuji Velvia 50 / several painful seconds



 

mediumcool

Active member
It seems that "the Geek" has no better understanding of perspective than the people criticised, and does not seem to understand long words like "telephoto":

It is, of course, the angle of view of the lens that is significant, as demonstrated in this case where images from different formats are being compared.

For images taken on the same format (without cropping) the focal length determines the perspective effect...

Edit: It is so obvious it should not need to be sated, but the focal length affects the perspective by allowing us to fill the viewfinder with the subject at different distances.

but a "telephoto" lens is a lens shorter than it's focal length, and the construction or physical dimensions of the lens are irrelevant to perspective. The word "telephoto" is mis-used to describe lenses of relatively long focal length (longer than the diagonal of the format) but lenses of long focal length do not need to be telephoto, and I have several such lenses.
You are way out of line on this one.
 

Chris Giles

New member
Ironically, what we need is a little perspective...
Here you go, perspective:

MF, Portra 160, H1, 80mm 2.8 on the left, 1Ds3, 50L 1.8 on the right. I'm posting this to address the comments, not looking to ruin the thread.

All set using a light meter. (Sekonic L-358)

 

gazwas

Active member
Some clarity, contrast, a dash of sharpening and a WB tweak to the 1Ds file and they'd be pretty much identical no? As it stands the 1Ds file looks like it has a lot more DR but that could be your scan.

I've forgotten what we're trying to prove.......
 

Chris Giles

New member
The last one I posted had a reference image from my 1Ds3 but it was pointed out it would of been better to use the 50L instead of the 85L for perspective purposes.

The 1Ds3 better represents the colours but is crazy soft in comparison. The film image needs pulling back a bit I think.
 

Grayhand

Well-known member
Landscapelover, I realy is intrigued by your photo of Daniels Park!

For me, it has a "touch" of Shinzo Maeda.

Ray
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top