Thank you for the initial responses, I'll include some copywrite images for the discussion purpose.
[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/850x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/12/0537.rz35_2D00_104.jpg[/img]
[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/850x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/12/1778.chairs.jpg[/img]
This is the sort of thing I am talking about.
Cheers,
Steve
Steve U
Wine, Food and Photography Student and Connoisseur
Steve
I think DOF (a fast 1.4 lens) and the awesome contrast of a Ziess lens that you are seeing. Next maybe the skill to pull that out of the shot when they did it.
So I think first ...the right tools.
Second the right skills to set up the picture right to pull that look out of it.
Rick
Steve those are great examples.Originally Posted by Steve U
The first one is using mostly perspective to acheive this affect. The Second is using thin DOF and perspective, when the DOF is thin your eye focuses on the perfectly in focus part and the our of focus parts are blured and look almost 3D.
As far as Ziess contrast goes I have not seen anything unusual about it, I looked at Bryans ISO crops and they mostly lack contrast compared to Canon's lenses.If you post-prosses your pictures that difference is thrown right out the window as you set the contrast for the image. It mattered more for film but in the digital era that difference in negated.
John.
John
Bryan's review of the 21mm distagon say "Image sharpness/resolution/contrast, even wide open on a full frame body, right into the extreme corners,is what I'm most pleased with."
But even at that I don't think any of the reviews posted here would apply in this situation, unless I am mistaken the boat picture was taken with a lens that hasn't been in production for a very long time. If you try to buy that lens it will cost you almost as much if not more than the best 24mm lens canon makes. So the person taking the picture either knew what this lens could do and choose it over the Canon lenses, or they just like to collect old things.
From what I understand you are saying, that contrast a lens produces would be no different than adding contrast in post processing? I would think the contrast out of the lens would be superior to simulated contrast from the computer.
Rick
Correct Rick it is about a 40 year old lens. But the qualities are there in current lenses as well, you just don't see it that often. There seems to be a group of people that hunt for and produce these type of images. I like them and I'm working at it.
Steve.
Steve U
Wine, Food and Photography Student and Connoisseur
I had a play this arvo, but this is more about bokeh than 3D pop, maybe if there was some reference point in the foreground and it needs more contrast. There are a lot of factors to consider. I think there might be a formula and when you work it out you will be able to make it happen.
[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/650x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/12/2235.IMG_5F00_6518_5F00_001.jpg[/img]
@24mm, f1.4 1/13 sec ISO 100
Gotta work on my compostion. C&C very welcome to point me in the right direction.
Thanks for viewing.
Steve
Steve U
Wine, Food and Photography Student and Connoisseur
I agree, Steve. I think this shot might benefit from a little more depth of field. You've isolated the flower, but as you say everything else is bokeh. For the 3D effect, I think the viewer needs to be able to judge the distance and relative size of background objects, which isn't easy in this shot. A narrower aperture would have helped to isolate the foreground branch from the background and provide just a little extra definition of the background without bringing it into sharp focus.
An alternative would be to step back a little and try the shot with a slightly longer subject distance, which will also increase the depth of field. This might need a bigger subject to work well. Another option would be to try with your 24-70mm lens, then you can experiment with different focal lengths, as well as apertures and compositions to see what works best. Make a note of your focus distance for each shot (it's in the EXIF data).
The dark, empty space on the right of this image doesn't help the composition, nor does it help your shutter speed, which isn't slow enough to stop movement of the flower in a breeze. If you put the flower in front of this dark patch, this may improve the contrast around the flower
I hope that helps. Keep at it, and let us see some more some time.
Last edited by Andy Stringer; 11-11-2011 at 07:22 PM.
Hi Steve,
WIth no practical experience at this, I would suggest that the effect is most prominent when the background is only slightly blurred accompanied by reasonable perspective; subtle separation of the subject from the background.
IMO this is similar to the human eye, which I don
Rick
I said mostly not all of Ziess's lenses are slightly less contrasy.I looked at Bryan'sISO crops fromthe Distagon and ithas a little less contrast than the 24mm f/1.4 II at the same apetures but only slightly. The diferance is not enough todestinquish a Ziess lens from another high quality lens from a contrast stand point.
Not exactally, in real life pictures vary to much in lighting and cotrast to use the image out of the camera 95% of the time and youhave to set a tone curve very different from what comes out of the camera.A lens that produces higher contrast and saturationproduces an image that is closer to reality than one that is less contrasty and saturated, but we are talking about two very high quality lenses that have very similar contrast and not enough to make any real world difference.
John.
John
Thats very true. I own the 24mm F1.4II and you would probably have to look real close to see any diffrences between the lenses. But sometimes this hobby is more of an obssession and lookto close is what I do sometimes.
I have read so many reviews about the color quality and contrast of certain Ziess lenses (not all just select lenses). It makes a person wonder, is there somthing there? SinceI do not have one in hand it leaves me wondering. When I looked at Bryan's sample pics on the site from the Ziess 21mm they seem to have a certain richness or quality to them. Some of the TSE 24mm tilt pictures seem to have this as well, and in coparison they seem better than the 24mm F1.4L II.
Rick
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote