[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuartr /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think we will see it at Photokina...at least, I assume they will bring out some new primes made for the FX/film format.

I really hope so. My dad is thinking of getting a D3. I'm sure the availability of new FX format primes will help in his decision.

-Ed

 

[nineohtoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY /img/forum/go_quote.gif Further proving that good pictures come from good photographers; not necessarily good cameras.

I really can't agree anymore. I see so much money squandered on equipment, only to see dull and uninspired photos. I know art is subjective, but it's surprising to see some of the pictures that really stand out to me aren't made on pro cameras, etc. Some are on consumer DSLRs, or even basic point and shoots. I think people are more fascinated with having the latest and greatest then actually going out and taking pictures.

Quote:

Primes are very versatile if it is a good lens of a moderate focal length...the rest you can do with your feet and on the strength of your composition.

I wholeheartedly agree. Unless you're getting paid, I think you can really save yourself money, and enjoy shooting more by using primes.

I personally enjoy shooting with my old film cameras more, but its more costly and time consuming, whereas with my D50, I can just pull out my eeepc and start seeing results and tweaking.

Here's to Nikon updating their primes. Give me an affordable DX wide to normal length 1.4 lens to compete with the Siggy 30mm(my most used lens).

 

[Edwood]

No more DX lenses for me. I want to keep them around for when I eventually upgrade to full frame.

-Ed

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif No more DX lenses for me. I want to keep them around for when I eventually upgrade to full frame. -Ed

It is true. DX is dead.

 

[milkpowder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY /img/forum/go_quote.gif Further proving that good pictures come from good photographers; not necessarily good cameras.

Absolutely! It helps to be proficient at post-processing too

I doubt the RAWs (or whatever Leica likes to call them) looked as colourful or 'contrasty' straight out of the camera.

What I am most surprised by is how noise-free the pictures are. This Leica and most of its Panasonic equivalents have extremely high noise levels at relatively low ISOs, making them super difficult to shoot with in low-light conditions. Is it possible to remove noise via post processing?

I got bored revising

- 'Notes on ulcerative colitis'

[size=xx-small]Camera: Panasonic DMC-FX9, 6mm F/2.8 1/25 ISO100; Post processing: Picasa 2[/size]

and another version which I like a lot more:

[size=xx-small]Camera: Panasonic DMC-FX9, 6mm F/2.8 1/25 ISO100; Post processing: FastStone Image Viewer[/size]

The camera used is the Panasonic DMC-FX9, the older cousin of the Leica C-Lux 2 (lacks the wide-angle lens and is 6MP vs Leica's 7.2MP). Pictures look fine touched-up and resized, but the direct-off-camera JPEGs are pretty abysmal @ 100%.

 

[dj_mocok]

Those images from Leica ones are the result of the mastery of both photography and post processing skill. There is no way you can create that kind of image without the skills of Photoshop.

A long time ago at photo.net, there was one 'photographer' who got so many excellent pictures in his portfolio, and then he got busted for stealing images from other photographs and photoshopped it, mixed it with other bits and pieces and created a great picture. At first he denied it, but after evidence was presented, he couldn't say anything anymore. What he did basically was just taking other people's work and combining them together, and didn't really take the images himself.

There is no doubt that he got serious skills in photoshop and creative sense of creating a nice image, but sometimes you wonder if this kind of people is still considered as photographer, not image creator...

PS: Darn it Milk, if you wanna create such a nice, elegant picture of fountain pen, can't you at least write something nice, not diarrhoea & mucus discharge?

 

[milkpowder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Those images from Leica ones are the result of the mastery of both photography and post processing skill. There is no way you can create that kind of image without the skills of Photoshop. A long time ago at photo.net, there was one 'photographer' who got so many excellent pictures in his portfolio, and then he got busted for stealing images from other photographs and photoshopped it, mixed it with other bits and pieces and created a great picture. At first he denied it, but after evidence was presented, he couldn't say anything anymore. What he did basically was just taking other people's work and combining them together, and didn't really take the images himself. There is no doubt that he got serious skills in photoshop and creative sense of creating a nice image, but sometimes you wonder if this kind of people is still considered as photographer, not image creator...

It really depends on the product. There are far too many pictures I've seen posted on photography forums which have been over-edited: over-saturated colours, over-aggressive sharpening, etc... Jim Radcliffe's photos are no doubt heavily post-processed, but they still retain a very genuine, non-pretentious quality which really appeals to me.

Quote:

PS: Darn it Milk, if you wanna create such a nice, elegant picture of fountain pen, can't you at least write something nice, not diarrhoea & mucus discharge?

Haha! Having been inspired by Jim Radcliffe's photos (LOL!), I decided to see what my Panasonic FX-9 (a cousin of the Leica C-Lux 2) is capable of. To my dismay, it is even more basic than I had imagined and lacks any sort of manual adjustment. Post processing was done via some messing around in Picasa 2 with fill light, highlights, shadows, sharpening and a shadow gradient. I had a good laugh tweaking that picture though since I only noticed afterward what was in the foreground

 

[M0T0XGUY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif Definitely not at 800; the warranty's more than worth the price difference. I usually see them go for about 700 on eBay, which is still less difference from new than what I'd personally want, but it's incredibly rare to ever see a 2-ring go lower.

OK, good. I put in a bid for $800 before having second thoughts about the value of a warranty - but the lens is already up to $810 and with $25 shipping.

EDIT: $830 with $25 shipping! These people really are nuts.

 

[M0T0XGUY]

As an aside, are there any free (preferably legal) NEF converters available on the web? This one is always at the top of my search list on Google, but I'm really not sure I trust the website or the program. What's your opinion?

 

[milkpowder]

I'm using FastStone Image Viewer to do my post-processing at the moment. It can batch convert/rename, etc almost any file. The wonderful "save as" preview function has proven to be exceptionally useful too.

FastStone Image Viewer - Powerful and Intuitive Photo Viewer, Editor and Batch Converter

 

[M0T0XGUY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm using FastStone Image Viewer to do my post-processing at the moment. It can batch convert/rename, etc almost any file. The wonderful "save as" preview function has proven to be exceptionally useful too. FastStone Image Viewer - Powerful and Intuitive Photo Viewer, Editor and Batch Converter

Looks good - I'll give it a try.

 

[Towert7]

You know what I have a hard time understanding, is just how finicky the kit 18-55mm lens is (the older one).

I just took this picture the other day, and I can not get over how sharp it came out (even at full size!).

What bothers me is that I can use this lens at different distances and focal lengths and get results ranging from this all the way to complete junk.
It seems this lens does better near its far end...
Real finicky.

 

[milkpowder]

Geez nice shot! Do you mind posting (or linking to) a larger or resampled photo so that the whiskers aren't so jagged. Pretty please! I want to have a copy if you don't mind.

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You know what I have a hard time understanding, is just how finicky the kit 18-55mm lens is (the older one).\ What bothers me is that I can use this lens at different distances and focal lengths and get results ranging from this all the way to complete junk. It seems this lens does better near its far end... Real finicky.

Yeah, that's the problem with zoom lenses. Never really consistent across the focal length range. With prime lenses there is only one to contend with, and it's always the same quality. For better or worse.

-Ed

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif Geez nice shot! Do you mind posting (or linking to) a larger or resampled photo so that the whiskers aren't so jagged. Pretty please! I want to have a copy if you don't mind.

Sure thing.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2300/...e22c30e3_o.jpg
If the page does not work let me know and I'll see what I can do.