Moose,
Thank you for taking the time do respond to the "challenge" quite
thoughtfully.
I posted both just for the heck of it, but my sentiments are also that
the second one
is really the only worthwhile one:
http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/146/e/4/fern_valley_detail_02_by_philosomatographer-d3h8zhf.jpg
I disagree that the focus plane moved backwards would have improved
the image, though - I quite
carefully positioned it where it is, as the plant on the bottom-right
is quite a key part of the
composition.
Otherwise, I cannot disagree one bit about the "unsmooth" nature of
the 21/2's out of focus
rendering. Oh well, it is what it is. I can't be annoyed by it, and
still enjoy the lens, so
it's just one part of this lens' rather complex character to live
with. I sure am glad I am
not lugging a 21/2.8 Zeiss Distagon around (played with one the other
day, man it's enormous!)
even though the Zeiss might be a bit more forgiving on some aspects of
image quality.
I have to admit, I am in love with Kodak "new" TMAX 400 (TMY2-400) -
the smoothness of this scanned
teeny little frame of 35mm film is very impressive, it truly looks
more like Pan F than a ISO400 film.
All the best for your trip -
Dawid
On 27 May 2011, at 9:23 AM, Moose wrote:
> On 5/26/2011 7:17 AM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
>> . . .
>> The 21/2 has quite frightful coma towards the corners at f/2.0 (it's
>> optically excellent by f/4.0 for 12x16in prints, BTW) so I am
>> shooting
>> it more and more wide open, trying to create layered, dreamy
>> compositions. Here are two recently processed ones, from a (very
>> muddy!) walk in the Knysna Forest.
>>
>> http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/146/2/2/fern_valley_detail_01_by_philosomatographer-d3h8zge.jpg
>> http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/146/e/4/fern_valley_detail_02_by_philosomatographer-d3h8zhf.jpg
>> (Both with OM-3Ti, Kodak TMY2-400, developed in D76 diluted 1+1)
>>
>> Does it work for you as a kind of "soft focus, but still quite
>> sharp" aesthetic?
>> (well, I know Moose hates shallow DOF...)
>
> Little time, as we are getting ready for a three day weekend
> retreat. There is Wi-Fi of a sort, but I'll probably be
> largely too involved/busy to bother to do more than check for
> emergencies.
>
> Still, how can I ignore the challenge? :-)
>
> You've oversimplified my aesthetic feelings about shallow DOF. I
> don't hate it as a matter of principle, and have even
> been known to quite like a few examples. My problem with it is that
> it is very difficult to get right and way too many
> examples that are 'off' a little or a lot are put out into the world.
>
> As I said before, your dreamy image of the little flower girl is
> quite wonderful in all respects - except that the plane
> of focus is in the wrong place. I posted an alternate version with
> the plane relocated to show what I was talking about.
> Good, worth seeing, yes. First rate? To my perhaps overly exacting
> standards, not as shot and presented.
>
> As to these images, I agree with a couple of others, the first
> doesn't much appeal to me and the second comes very close.
>
> Before going into other specifics, I have to say that the deep
> background bokeh is just awful in both to my eye. To me,
> getting that soft, dreamy look requires the image so get softer and
> smoother as it goes OOF. Here, instead, it gets
> hard, edgy and busy, destroying what I imagine the intent to be. OOF
> highlights, instead of being relatively bright in
> the middle, tapering off smoothly toward the edges, are dark in the
> centers, brightening towards a sharp, bright edge.
> Contrasty edges get doubled, rather than mooshing softly off.
>
> The Pictorialists got the soft, dreamy look, sometimes too much for
> me, but they had very different lenses than so many
> modern designs. Clearly at these relative subject and background
> distances, the 21/2 wide open is not the tool "to
> create layered, dreamy compositions", at least to my taste.
>
> One may digitally blur the background, and make things much better,
> but I have yet to find a really satisfactory way to
> correct, rather than somewhat masking, an inherent lens flaw. This
> is one reason I was trying to adapt an old Tessar
> 50/2.8 to one of my Canon digitals. I was hoping that an older
> asymmetric design with very round aperture might have
> better bokeh for dreamy images. Hmmmm, maybe it'll work on the 60D -
> 80 mm eq. portrait lens?
>
> As to the rest of these two images, I find it hard to tell whether
> the way the tree fades into OOF just doesn't work for
> me or whether it is, at least in part, the way the bokeh makes the
> bark look wrong as it goes OOF. The composition is
> OK, but doesn't excite me.
>
> The second is, to my taste, a lovely composition, and well chosen
> for the intended purpose, but for the bokeh. 'Twere
> mine, I'd also be asking myself if another with the plane of focus
> back a bit might be as good or better. As it is, I'd
> crop off the top and blur and darken the bright shiny disks.
>
> Shallow Moose
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
