On 4/12/2012 2:36 AM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
> Moose, thank you - the effort, and the reasons behind it - it is much
> appreciated :-)
You are a nice fellow, to see what I'm trying to do and put up with the
badgering. :-)
> You put me in a very difficult position, you know. The types of image
> I have been posting (*here* - I post medium and large format elsewhere)
I would be interested in browsing some of those.
> are bound by two constraints:
>
> - Small, compact cameras to carry around everywhere, and capture
> moments largely unnoticed
> - I shoot B&W film, and I print in the darkroom. Now, my prints look a
> heck of a lot smoother than the scans I post here, because they are
> not digitally sharpened.
Aren't at least some of the images posted here scans of those wet darkroom
prints?
In any case, a highlight which is a flat disk, brighter at the hard outside
edge than the middle, originates with the
lens, and would be visible in a print, too. Same for multiple fine dark lines
where the subject had only one.
> You are basically saying that I simply cannot use OM Zuikos to realise
> my vision properly?
If that vision includes both very shallow DOF to isolate a selected 'slice' AND
smooth OOF areas that don't introduce an
edge quality AND moderate focal lengths, that may well be what I'm saying.
But in viewing images, I am quite equipment agnostic. I believe I would have
the same reactions to the images if they
were shot with a Blazendorfer buffet camera with hand modified Wigglesworth 7
cm Semi-Ulnar. I am only interested in
equipment when I would like to know if I could do something similar.
So - if what you have been posting, and I have been carping, I hope at least
partly creative/constructively, about, is
the best that can be done with those lenses ... If you vision is more like my
altered version of "What's Keeping Her?"
that the one you posted ...
Then yup, those aren't the lenses, camera, films, whatever to realize that
vision. But only based on the results.
> Because, much as I also have the ability to
> digitally smooth my backgrounds (I have been doing hard-core digital
> imaging including 3D modeling, animation, 2D illustration, HDR, etc
> since I was 15), I did not get into traditional photography just to
> mess with the image structurally in the digital realm. That's not what
> it's about for me.
I understand. I do have to say, though that softening such images so that they
look at least somewhat like good bokeh,
not just blurred, is not the easiest task in the world. The simple looking
little example I just posted involved things
like an edge mask to concentrate blurring on the edges.
> I would perhaps ask you, which fast 35mm lenses would actually suit
> your tastes in terms of smooth out of focus rendering? Even my large-
> format lenses are an odd mix of good and bad bokeh, but in 35mm it
> seems to be basically impossible to find a fast lens that you agree
> with? Even Leica M lenses can be tricked in to producing horrible
> bokeh, but it seems I should sell all my gear and save up for a
> Noctilux ASPH 50/0.95 (contrary to the title of my original post,
> funnily enough...). Even there, it might be a let-down. The Zeiss C-
> SOnnar 50/1.5 is very nice, 80% of the time. Can be bad as well.
Your vision isn't particularly close to mine, so I know next to nothing about
fast 35 mm lenses. I really don't know if
there are one or more that will do what you want reliably.
What I would like to be able to do is recreate the fascinating combination of
sharp and smooth of the best old portrait
lenses in a 35 mm lens. I have my own theories about why that may simply not be
possible. Certainly lenses like Heliar
and Tessar don't do it, and the real soft lenses go too far in losing detail.
> At this time, only the Heliar 50mm f/3.5 - which has inherently deep
> DOF - does the trick it seems :-)
>
> http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/100/1/7/a_grandmother_taken_for_tea_by_philosomatographer-d4vns42.jpg
> http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/100/7/1/contessa_interiour_by_philosomatographer-d4vnsgv.jpg
> http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/100/3/4/breakfast_for_one_by_philosomatographer-d4vns9f.jpg
> (all three at f/3.5 - see the problemtic deep DOF for my style of work?)
Yup, yup, the problems are clear (including a slightly edgy look in the upper
left of #1, even with the Heliar). A
solution though, that's the tough part.
Logically, though, if
1. There are no lenses that do what you want directly.
2. The software solution is not acceptable.
Then there is no solution to creating the desired results with the chosen
equipment.
Therefore either the vision must be modified or abandoned.
Or a different approach is necessary.
That might involve a different film format
Or modifying existing lenses
Or making one's own lenses.
That may seem crazy, but there are successful artists doing just that.
> Even the Nikkor-H.C 50mm f/2.0 I shoot in my F is bloody awful most of
> the time bokeh-wise:
> http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/077/0/b/treasures_in_the_corner_by_philosomatographer-d4t4hfq.jpg
>
> Though it can be wonderful sometimes - if there are no highlights in the
> background.
With many double gauss derived designs, it seems that bokeh is strongly
affected by absolute primary subject distance
and by relative background distance. Not things easily controlled for outside
controlled shooting situations.
> I find it very interesting that you honestly think it matters all that much -
> that the emotional connection
> with the image is altered by bokeh smoothness. Not disagreeing, just finding
> it interesting :-)
It just seems to be how I see (and hear). I'm not aware of asking to find some
things in art enjoyable and others
annoying, it just seems to have turned out that way. ;-)
It would be interesting to see in a gallery situation which sort of images are
most popular.
E. Q. Agnostic Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
