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

Schneider Kreuznach Tele Xenar 135 and CZJ Biotar 58/2
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ffureel wrote:
You are right, good point.


Just like you don't add sugar to one test subject when tasting apples. Wink


PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="A G Photography"]Original 100% shot:

It totally screws up page layout if it's a full size shot.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
As for the differences amongst lenses, they are much smaller than many people think. Often, they are quite subtle. Lens amateurs, such as I think I am, want to "taste" lenses before any post work, just like wine sommeliers want to taste wine in a way that no other taste can get in the way. It's the only way we can appreciate the subtle differences.


I'm really curious now about what are the standard post production passages that are accepted to make a real comparison by lens amateur.

I still think that we're on a pointless field because, also before digital, films greatly contributed to produce detail, contrast and color rendition on the final output. Still neither film, nor a curve, nor a high pass filter can produce things that weren't captured by the lens.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Farside wrote:
Original 100% shot:

It totally screws up page layout if it's a full size shot.


It was asked a 100% shot.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:

I'm really curious now about what are the standard post production passages that are accepted to make a real comparison by lens amateur..


It's simple: none.
All my lens test images are made with the camera set at "standard" values and no post-processing.
Then of course you can say that "standard" for one brand of camerascan be different from another.
I know this, but we have no other choice, if we want to compare lenses on digital cameras.
Post-processing is something that is different from RAW processing, in that normally you intend post processing as something that you do on an image in a developed state.
The settings that you make while RAW processing are, as the word itself says, processing, not post-processing.
The thing is complicated by the fact that most third party RAW development programs put together the RAW processing and non-raw processing that are done on the processed image before output, not on the RAW file as pure RAW processing would require.
Example, if you alter curves in a RAW processing program, this is not real RAW processing, because there is no such thing as a "curve parameter" in the RAW data. What the software does in that case is, first it makes a processed image, then it applies the curves on it. Which is equal to post processing.
So to make the most neutral post processing one should use the native program that comes with the camera, and use standard settings on the RAW parameters (sharpness, contrast, saturation) and nothing else.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I still don't understand Orio.

You want a jpg image from the camera, using standard parameters, which basically is a digital polaroid processed with values that have no correlation to the image, and different for every brand, through a low quality digital post process, or a pure RAW image that is what exactly the sensor did capture but for its nature is extremely dull and its sharpness heavy influenced by the low pass filter of the camera and the demosaicing algorythm?


PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:
I still don't understand Orio.

You want a jpg image from the camera, using standard parameters, which basically is a digital polaroid processed with values that have no correlation to the image, and different for every brand, through a low quality digital post process, or a pure RAW image that is what exactly the sensor did capture but for its nature is extremely dull and its sharpness heavy influenced by the low pass filter of the camera and the demosaicing algorythm?


I already said it's a compromise.
There is no other way to compare lenses on digital cameras, than to compare them on the basis of a standard RAW development.
OF course we know that every camera maker has it's own standard etc etc etc.
But either we require that we all test lenses on the same type of camera, or we just accept the compromise.
I wrote this three replies ago.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here you go, unsharpened, unlevelled, etc etc... still you will see the same feeling from that lens Wink

fixed by Attila

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3215/2596522980_8977b9b279_o.jpg


PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:
Here you go, unsharpened, unlevelled, etc etc... still you will see the same feeling from that lens Wink


Then I must be blind. Because I see a completely different image.
And - my opinion - better than your postwork.
I understand your intent of enhancing the contrast, but you have overdone it - in my opinion of course.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I assure you that the image closer to the real scene as contrast and colors (I remember it pretty well) was the first and not the last one. Just look at the greens.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
A G Photography wrote:
Here you go, unsharpened, unlevelled, etc etc... still you will see the same feeling from that lens Wink


Then I must be blind. Because I see a completely different image.
And - my opinion - better than your postwork.
I understand your intent of enhancing the contrast, but you have overdone it - in my opinion of course.


to me it depends on the application. I believe I too would have gone heavy on the contrast and color saturation when related to food images but as a nature shot it would be a bit rich (talking about the berries).

I think the plate image is very well executed, good light, angle and frameing.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Fotal.

Just out of curiosity I took out some shots of that day made in film (Pentacon Six/Flektogon 50 with Provia 100) and with digital (Olympus e410/Schneider 135) processed with Provia Curve plugin.





I can see a huge difference in the greens, probably because of a not perfect white balance, but contrast and saturation are higher in the film shot. Provia, and Velvia even more, are very saturated and contrasted slide.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
One reason why slide films are often made with dense colouring is that slides, when projected, lose naturally part of the colour density due to the retroillumination.

As a natural consequence in the nature of light itself: the higher luminance, the lower density.
Slide film is made to counter-balance that.

If we scan slides and judge them based on the scan, we actually see a denser colour than what the slide is supposed to give in the natural condition (i.e. projected)

Of course we can also take advantage of that for some application (still life for instance), but normally, a milder slide such as Agfachrome is better suited to scanning/home printing.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:
Farside wrote:
Original 100% shot:

It totally screws up page layout if it's a full size shot.


It was asked a 100% shot.


Better to host it somewhere and link to it. Otherwise it takes over the page layout by its width and the text becomes unreadable without lots of back and forth sideways scrolling.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I fixed huge image in his post.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
One reason why slide films are often made with dense colouring is that slides, when projected, lose naturally part of the colour density due to the retroillumination.


Also LCDs have retroillumination, that's not a point. Beside that 80% of pre digital shots used for printing on magazines were from scanned slides and paper has no retroillumination.

Orio wrote:
Of course we can also take advantage of that for some application (still life for instance), but normally, a milder slide such as Agfachrome is better suited to scanning/home printing.


Velvia is very used professionally for landscape and nature shooting because of its colors (especially green and magenta). Provia is more suited to still life and food. For portaits and fashion is Astia because Velvia and Provia will make skin too red.

Now after I showed that contrast and saturation in the photoshop post processed image is even less than in film, you're saying that Fujifilm slides aren't suited for scanning, thousands of Pro shooters are wrong and we should use just Agfachrome for scanning?

One can say "hey I just don't like how Velvia and Provia render the colors", you'll be my friend anyway Smile

But please, stop beating a dead horse.

Last edited by A G Photography on Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:15 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
I fixed huge image in his post.


Cheers, mate Smile


PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:

Also LCDs have retroillumination, that's not a point.


I spoke of prints not of monitors.
But does not matter.
Try to lighten a monitor in a dark room.
Measure the light against a wall with your faithful meter.
Then turn off, and turn on a slide projector.
Then meter again the light.
If it's the same light intensity, I accept your remark of "that's not a point"
If the light of the projector is more intense, well, you can keep your remark in the drawer.

Quote:
Now after I showed that contrast and saturation in the photoshop post processed image is even less than in film, you're saying that Fujifilm slides aren't suited for scanning, thousands of Pro shooters are wrong and we should use just Agfachrome for scanning?


Pro shooters use drum scanners.
We use Epson or HP home scanners. Or, at best, Nikon slide scanners. Which are laughable compared to printing house scanners.
Do you know the difference between a drum scanner and a home scanner?
It's like comparing a disposable camera with a 5D.
Home scanners are not able to capture the dynamic range and contrast of the Velvia slides optimally.
THis is why scanning an Agfachome at home is much easier.
This is also why brands like Rollei are producing special film for scanners that has low contrast.
I don't think that at Rollei they are such idiots to produce low contrast film for scanning, if it was so easy to scan Velvias at home like you say.
Of course printing houses like Velvia to scan, they have so powerful scanners that we can only dream about, unless you are millionaire.

A G Photography wrote:
But please, stop beating a dead horse.


I don't like this tone.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio, I give up.

I sincerely don't want to continuosly argue and I don't have to convert anyone, I'm not a preacher Very Happy

Probably we're aimed towards a different audience or, simply, have different tastes and experiences.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:

Probably we're aimed towards a different audience or, simply, have different tastes and experiences.


I think we can agree on that Smile
Except, I don't have any audience. I don't have the skills for an audience. I consider it a success when I manage to just please myself Laughing


PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I consider it a success when I manage to just please myself Laughing


Oh you said it Orio, this little fact is getting more and more apparent to me too. Smile
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2