Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Another Rollei Planar 50/1.4 Image
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 4:31 pm    Post subject: Another Rollei Planar 50/1.4 Image Reply with quote

This is an image looking straight down into a creek bed, with a nice ledge of Oxalis showing.

No saturation changes; however, I did add small amount of Unsharp Mask at 1/25/0. Otherwise, exactly as taken.

Rolleiflex SL35-M
Rollei Planar 50/1.8

Oxalis Ledge


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

another provia? i really like this "anti-bayer" colors of yours.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bob van Sikorski wrote:
another provia? i really like this "anti-bayer" colors of yours.


Yup, this could be considered "anti bayer AND anti foveon" I guess.

Looking at the image, it sure "loses" a lot in the web form. The original transparency is biting sharp, but I see problems in this image that are not in the transparency.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laurence wrote:
but I see problems in this image that are not in the transparency

do you mean that left border is sharp on the slide ?


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i understand. when i saw one picture taken by my brother in his web gallery (on S-IPS LCD) and later on Fomabrom paper (baryt-based), i was almost shocked how HUGE is difference "on web" (loss of quality).


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bob van Sikorski wrote:
i understand. when i saw one picture taken by my brother in his web gallery (on S-IPS LCD) and later on Fomabrom paper (baryt-based), i was almost shocked how HUGE is difference "on web" (loss of quality).


And these are the reasons why when I travel I always shoot slides, and also why I have taken a darkroom course.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
Bob van Sikorski wrote:
i understand. when i saw one picture taken by my brother in his web gallery (on S-IPS LCD) and later on Fomabrom paper (baryt-based), i was almost shocked how HUGE is difference "on web" (loss of quality).


And these are the reasons why when I travel I always shoot slides, and also why I have taken a darkroom course.


Orio, you are a man after my own heart! I too, feel that slides
are not only more "dense" than digital - but shooting slides out
in the field is a whole lot simpler. And...I think that with slides,
I tend to pick out better scenes to photograph simply because
I must conserve a bit with just 36 chances per roll. I guess it is
spelled out passionately by Ken Rockwell. He tends to get a bit
TOO passionate, but I do agree with his views on shooting slides
in the field.

I wish I could have you guys see the slide on the light box -
the images are SO much more vibrant than jpegs for the web.

Also, I think the darkroom can be a penultimate craft to learn,
and will serve you very well Orio.

Bob, does your brother have a web site where I could see
his images? Cool


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's a great image, Laurence, my first thought was the lack of sharpness,
but vivid colors!

Orio, when are you going to have mailers available so I can send you my
rolls to process? Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laurence i understand possibly too much. last 3/4 year i spend shooting 35mm films with Minolta bodies and now i have few days Pentax K200D. shooting in same places with capacity for 478 raw files is MUCH different than going to forest with one or two rolls and have no chance to switch between different sensitivies in place without loosing frames on 35mm. shooting digital is much more easiest, but also fastest and cheapest to see your mistakes, but again, have less soul and heart than shooting with manual body and manual lens (not mention developing rolls yourself, which i still don't tried Smile).

my brother: http://majezek.czweb.org/