View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
ForenSeil
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
Rick1779 wrote: |
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
This is the digital age, colour rendition is infinitely tweakable in software so lens selection for colour rendtion is rather redundant. |
+1000
![Laugh 1](images/smiles/laugh-1.gif) |
-10000
I can really understand that people are rhapsodizing about "Leica colors" - Modern Leica lenses have even better colors than modern T* for my taste (though of course I would never pay that much for that difference, the pop-song-like T* colors are good enough for me )
I think you can't reproduce them easily with PP
Here's a sample for different color rendition
--->Same place, same time, same light, same camera, same camera settings ("vivid mode" which of course highly increases color differences due higher saturation), very similar PP (sharpening, some minor tweakings etc.)<---
Rodenstock Rodagon 105mm F5.6
_DSC4979
Carl Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8 T*
Carl Zeiss Sonnar 55 1.8
Check out colors of the fur or the grass ^^
The Rodagon is good sample for rather bad colors (I love that lens anyway, but only for macro/closeup work or technical/reproduction stuff)
Both lenses are very sharp, high contrast, virtually no CAs, no glow,... basically both are optically flawless, but for my eyes they highly differ in their color rendition and the modern T* gives much more beautiful colors than the Rodagon which was unlike the Zeiss never optimized for colors. Despite oversaturation the T* looks imho much more natural and pleasing
[b]Feel free to try to reproduce colors of the modern T* coating by post processing
I can not do that, not even close to that! (Though of course I know many people are very much better than me in PP but I think even for them it wouldn't be easy)
I think colors of a lens are at least as important as it's bokeh and it sharpness etc., unnatural colors can make a good picture look bad for me.
Luckily not many lenses have seriously bad or weird colors but there can be huge differences. _________________ I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language)
Last edited by ForenSeil on Mon Dec 21, 2015 1:40 pm; edited 5 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
std
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 09 Feb 2010 Posts: 1826 Location: Bulgaria
|
Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
std wrote:
ForenSeil: It will be interesting if you can make the Sonnar behave like a manual lens (like taping the electronic contacts) - just to be sure that this is not a software tweak to the colors which Sony is making in camera for native e-mount lenses. _________________ Stefan
My lens list:
SLR MD: Rokkor 1,7/50 Exakta: Kilfitt-Makro-Kilar E 3.5/4cm; CZJ 2/50 Pancolar;M42: CZJ 2.8/50 Tessar; Mir-1B 2.8/37; Jupiter-9 2/85 T-mount: Tamron 5.9/200; Tamron 6.9/300; Tamron 7.5/400 C-mount: Cosmicar 1.8/50 Y/S: Sun 3.5/38-90, Sun 4/70-210 RF Contax RF: Jupiter-8 2/50; Contax G:CZ 2,8/21 Biogon T; CZ 2,8/28 Biogon T; CZ 2/35 Planar T; CZ 2/45 Planar T; CZ 2,8/90 Sonnar T |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
calvin83
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7555 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
std wrote: |
ForenSeil: It will be interesting if you can make the Sonnar behave like a manual lens (like taping the electronic contacts) - just to be sure that this is not a software tweak to the colors which Sony is making in camera for native e-mount lenses. |
The aperture will stay at the smallest setting(F22) if the lens is not powered. ![Exclamation](images/smiles/icon_exclaim.gif) _________________ https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
ForenSeil
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
std wrote: |
ForenSeil: It will be interesting if you can make the Sonnar behave like a manual lens (like taping the electronic contacts) - just to be sure that this is not a software tweak to the colors which Sony is making in camera for native e-mount lenses. |
Taping is not possible like calvin said (or F22 only).
Distortion and maybe vignetting are corrected by the camera automatically when shooting in JPEG (but not when shooting in RAW), but camera does nothing with the colors it doesn't also do to the Rodagon.
As said camera was set to "Vivid"-mode, which gives that slightly oversaturated colorful look, but that's applied on both pics
When shooting RAW and increasing saturation in Lightroom the difference it similar. _________________ I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language)
Last edited by ForenSeil on Mon Dec 21, 2015 1:42 pm; edited 5 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
kuuan
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 14 Jan 2008 Posts: 4569 Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
ForenSeil wrote: |
...
I think colors of a lens are at least as important as it's bokeh and it sharpness etc., unnatural colors can make a good picture look bad for me... |
my thinking too ![Like 1](images/smiles/like-1.gif) _________________ my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
Abbazz
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 23 Jun 2007 Posts: 1098 Location: Jakarta
|
Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2015 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Abbazz wrote:
ForenSeil wrote: |
I can really understand that people are rhapsodizing about "Leica colors" - Modern Leica lenses have even better colors than modern T* for my taste (though of course I would never pay that much for that difference, the pop-song-like T* colors are good enough for me )
I think you can't reproduce them easily with PP
[...]
Feel free to try to reproduce colors of the modern T* coating by post processing
I can not do that, not even close to that! (Though of course I know many people are very much better than me in PP but I think even for them it wouldn't be easy) |
It is possible to correct a lens color cast, or to mimic the color rendition of a particular lens by using a color profile created with the help of a Colorchecker target.
Cheers!
Abbazz _________________ Il n'y a rien dans le monde qui n'ait son moment decisif, et le chef-d'oeuvre de la bonne conduite est de connaitre et de prendre ce moment. - Cardinal de Retz
The 6x9 Photography Online Resource:
http://artbig.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
calvin83
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7555 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2015 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
The Colorchecker thing is good for the workhorses or those lens with yellowed element.
To enjoy the characters of the lens, I will not correct the colors but pay attention to the WB. It is important for us to understand the characters of the lenses so that we can pick the right lens at the right time for the right scene. _________________ https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
kds315*
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 12 Mar 2008 Posts: 16623 Location: Weinheim, Germany
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2015 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
kds315* wrote:
Abbazz wrote: |
ForenSeil wrote: |
I can really understand that people are rhapsodizing about "Leica colors" - Modern Leica lenses have even better colors than modern T* for my taste (though of course I would never pay that much for that difference, the pop-song-like T* colors are good enough for me )
I think you can't reproduce them easily with PP
[...]
Feel free to try to reproduce colors of the modern T* coating by post processing
I can not do that, not even close to that! (Though of course I know many people are very much better than me in PP but I think even for them it wouldn't be easy) |
It is possible to correct a lens color cast, or to mimic the color rendition of a particular lens by using a color profile created with the help of a Colorchecker target.
Cheers!
Abbazz |
![Like 1 small](images/smiles/like-1s.gif) _________________ Klaus - Admin
"S'il vient a point, me souviendra" [Thomas Bohier (1460-1523)]
http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums my albums using various lenses
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV BLOG
http://www.travelmeetsfood.com/blog Food + Travel BLOG
https://galeriafotografia.com Architecture + Drone photography
Currently most FAV lens(es):
X80QF f3.2/80mm
Hypergon f11/26mm
ELCAN UV f5.6/52mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f4/60mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f2/62mm
Lomo Уфар-12 f2.5/41mm
Lomo Зуфар-2 f4.0/350mm
Lomo ZIKAR-1A f1.2/100mm
Nikon UV Nikkor f4.5/105mm
Zeiss UV-Sonnar f4.3/105mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f1.8/45mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f4.1/94mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f2.8/100mm
Steinheil Quarzobjektiv f1.8/50mm
Pentax Quartz Takumar f3.5/85mm
Carl Zeiss Jena UV-Objektiv f4/60mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha II f1.1/90mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha I f2.8/200mm
COASTAL OPTICS f4/60mm UV-VIS-IR Apo
COASTAL OPTICS f4.5/105mm UV-Micro-Apo
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f4.5/85mm
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f5.6/300mm
Rodenstock UV-Rodagon f5.6/60mm + 105mm + 150mm
|
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
mfkid
![Level 1 Level 1](rating1.gif) Joined: 23 Jul 2015 Posts: 53 Location: Florida USA
|
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
mfkid wrote:
I like to see the old lens used for video. You can really see how the colors go crazy with the lighting. i can see why using this lens with film might be a problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIok6uYvOx8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqKtSCISW84 |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
woodrim
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
Minolta used to have an advertising theme of "Minolta colors". I very much like my Rokkor lenses. I think Topcor captures colors well, especially blue. I have a Jupiter-9 with yellowed glass that takes very warm pictures, but that probably isn't what is being asked. Aside from those, the only other in my collection that comes to mind is Komura, and in particular, the 3.5/200. _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
hemeterfilms
![Level 1 Level 1](rating1.gif) Joined: 04 Jul 2012 Posts: 80 Location: Mexico City
|
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 10:43 pm Post subject: Lens colour rendering - really ? |
|
|
hemeterfilms wrote:
There is no question that different lenses render colours differently and there is also no question that every camera can produce different colour renderings with the same lens. I have seen pictures claiming Leica colours or Minolta colours or whatever, but the claims amount to nothing because of all of the in camera variables such as white balance, saturation etc. are uncontrolled. Even in film days when these claims originated, processing and printing were rarely consistent enough for the claims to be taken seriously. Nearly everybody now applies a tweak to colour, contrast or whatever which makes claims about the unique colour rendering of some particular lens to be even more redundant.
I now take these claims to be nostalgic whimsy........nothing wrong with that mind you. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
woodrim
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Fri Dec 25, 2015 12:34 am Post subject: Re: Lens colour rendering - really ? |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
hemeterfilms wrote: |
There is no question that different lenses render colours differently and there is also no question that every camera can produce different colour renderings with the same lens. I have seen pictures claiming Leica colours or Minolta colours or whatever, but the claims amount to nothing because of all of the in camera variables such as white balance, saturation etc. are uncontrolled. Even in film days when these claims originated, processing and printing were rarely consistent enough for the claims to be taken seriously. Nearly everybody now applies a tweak to colour, contrast or whatever which makes claims about the unique colour rendering of some particular lens to be even more redundant.
I now take these claims to be nostalgic whimsy........nothing wrong with that mind you. |
I think you are quite right. Back in the old days having pictures printed required a good service for best results, but colors were balanced. Of course, slides offered a more consistent and accurate representation. Today I see a dramatic different between exposures; wide open shots are consistently warmer than those where the metering and color balance is done through a stopped down lens. However, I do see what I perceive to be a noticeable difference in certain colors with certain lenses. I've thought that Topcor gave especially brilliant blues. I have found also that some lenses do a better job of not blowing out the whites. _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
uhoh7
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA
|
Posted: Fri Dec 25, 2015 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
uhoh7 wrote:
You can play with software and try to make a silk purse from a sow's ear, or you can just find a good lens, good sensor and shoot it. You save all that time for less tedious endeavors
Florist by unoh7, on Flickr
Studs by unoh7, on Flickr
Blue Dew by unoh7, on Flickr
And if you do enhance color with software, the more you have to start with, the better you will do
If you have alot of lenses and really shoot them you will probably notice how different they really are, but since light is such a huge factor, you really need many shots in varied conditions to understand a lens colorwise. I shoot the CV 35/1.2 quite a bit. It has a very particular palette. Generally I like it fine, but you can play all you want, it won't look like a ZM 35/2. Of course you can change both of those lenses. But they always look different. Play as you might.
MS Optical Sonnetar is another lens with it's own ideas about color.
L1032624 by unoh7, on Flickr
Some get the idea that because you can alter something, that means you can change it into whatever you want. The are few things more attractive to humans than the fantasy of control ![Wink](images/smiles/icon_wink.gif) _________________ Making MFlenses safe for the letter *L* ![Smile](images/smiles/icon_smile.gif) |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
Gerald
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 25 Mar 2014 Posts: 1196 Location: Brazil
|
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:45 pm Post subject: Re: Lens colour rendering - really ? |
|
|
Gerald wrote:
Unique color renditions? Hmmm...
The pictures below were taken with a Hasselblad HV (not mine, unfortunately ) in exactly the same conditions, that is, using the same camera settings and the same illumination. Photos are out of the camera without any manipulation in PP. One picture was taken with the awesome Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 24-70mm F2.8 lens. Can you guess which is that picture?
Photo #1:
Photo #2:
Photo #3:
![](http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20161/8001_Photo_3_1.jpg) _________________ If raindrops were perfect lenses, the rainbow did not exist. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
Gardener
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 22 Sep 2013 Posts: 950 Location: USA
|
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gardener wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
It's like someone buying a Ferrari then thinking it makes them Michael Schumacher. |
It often does. In the sad sense. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
Gardener
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 22 Sep 2013 Posts: 950 Location: USA
|
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:43 pm Post subject: Re: Lens colour rendering - really ? |
|
|
Gardener wrote:
hemeterfilms wrote: |
Even in film days when these claims originated, processing and printing were rarely consistent enough for the claims to be taken seriously. Nearly everybody now applies a tweak to colour, contrast or whatever which makes claims about the unique colour rendering of some particular lens to be even more redundant. |
It's just that in the film days such tweaks were a domain of professionals, and now everyone can do it, and do it well, if he/she is willing to spend the time. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
wolan
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 30 Jun 2015 Posts: 576 Location: Zurich
|
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
wolan wrote:
The Nikon 35-70mm D lens is an example of unique colour rendition with its bluish and cool tones.
Here an example:
With the Takumar lenses too I have the impression to have to do with unique colours, maybe a bit on the warm side:
![](http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20161/9132__DSC7551_1.jpg) |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
Gerald
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 25 Mar 2014 Posts: 1196 Location: Brazil
|
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:35 am Post subject: Re: Lens colour rendering - really ? |
|
|
Gerald wrote:
Gerald wrote: |
Unique color renditions? Hmmm...
The pictures below were taken with a Hasselblad HV (not mine, unfortunately ) in exactly the same conditions, that is, using the same camera settings and the same illumination. Photos are out of the camera without any manipulation in PP. One picture was taken with the awesome Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 24-70mm F2.8 lens. Can you guess which is that picture?
Photo #1:
Photo #2:
Photo #3:
![](http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20161/8001_Photo_3_1.jpg) |
The photo #2 was taken with the Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 24-70mm F2.8 lens! ![Laugh 1](images/smiles/laugh-1.gif) _________________ If raindrops were perfect lenses, the rainbow did not exist. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
meanwhile
![Level 1 Level 1](rating1.gif) Joined: 29 May 2014 Posts: 225 Location: Australia
Expire: 2016-11-28
|
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
meanwhile wrote:
#2 & #3 seem to be the same lens, as they are exactly the same down to the pixel. So if only one is the Zeiss, then #1.
If more than one is the Zeiss, then you cheated in your description. ![Smile](images/smiles/icon_smile.gif) _________________ In my bag: Sony A7II - Olympus OM 21mm f/3.5 - Minolta M-Rokkor 40mm f/2.0 - Konica Hexanon 57mm f/1.2 AR - Olympus Zuiko OM 100mm f/2.8 - Pentax 135mm f/3.5 |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
Gerald
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 25 Mar 2014 Posts: 1196 Location: Brazil
|
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gerald wrote:
meanwhile wrote: |
#2 & #3 seem to be the same lens, as they are exactly the same down to the pixel. So if only one is the Zeiss, then #1.
If more than one is the Zeiss, then you cheated in your description. ![Smile](images/smiles/icon_smile.gif) |
In fact, all the three photos were taken with the Zeiss. To be more exact, the three pictures are JPEG conversions of the SAME RAW file! The first picture is the result of converting RAW -> JPEG by Adobe CameraRaw, the second by a generic online converter and the third by DCRAW. The three converters used their default settings and the pictures suffered no post-processing except downsizing.
Clearly, only the first image is visually acceptable; the other two are simply awful. It seems that ACR made a "smart" conversion, probably using the metadata embedded in the RAW file, such as color temperature, gains of the RGB channels, lens profile, etc. In contrast the other two converters seem to have made "dumb" conversions.
Visually, the three images are totally different, but the JPEG images are equivalent in principle, in the sense that it would be possible to transform an image into another by post-processing. To prove this point, I took the Photo # 3 and by manipulating by trial-and-error the curves, levels, contrast, intensity and saturation in Photoshop, I tried to get the same rendering of the Photo # 1. I came to Photo # 3 corrected, which is quite close to Photo # 1.
Photo #1:
Photo #3:
[/quote]
Photo #3 corrected:
The lesson I draw here is that speaking of unique color rendering of a lens is somewhat misleading. Perhaps this discussion made more sense in the era of film. In the digital age, the data generated by the sensor suffer so many processing that it is perfectly possible an average quality lens produces photos with color as good or better than very expensive lenses. After all, a good lens, as well as a perfectly clean glass window, should produces no color by itself. _________________ If raindrops were perfect lenses, the rainbow did not exist. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
cyrano
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 15 Feb 2013 Posts: 857 Location: UK
Expire: 2016-12-30
|
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cyrano wrote:
As above. Colour is not too hard to adjust with the right software, a good sensor helps but not as much as a good lens design ,glass and coatings. You don't need to pay the earth to take an acceptably good shot, you just need 'the eye' and the digital darkroom skills. Only those who were present during the taking of any of these shots would know how much difference there was between the natural light and that which appeared on the screen post session. For instance the takumar shot of horse and rider, that could have been late afternoon one summer, shades of the golden hour in there. This is all just my thoughts, not facts.
I think if you up the ante on your PP skills colours are whatever you want them to be. ![Like Dog](images/smiles/like-dog.gif) _________________ A whole bunch of stuff. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
kuuan
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 14 Jan 2008 Posts: 4569 Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
I was quite certain that all 3 versions had been the same photo ( better had said that earlier ..) It shows how important conversion and PPing are, not surprisingly so.
The other way around would prove the point, if it was taken with 3 different lenses known for their particular colour rendering and you had made all 3 look indistinguishable the same. _________________ my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
cyrano
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 15 Feb 2013 Posts: 857 Location: UK
Expire: 2016-12-30
|
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cyrano wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
What I object to is people who spout nonsense in order to justify their expensive purchase.
Attributing mystical qualities that are quite laughable in reality.
It's like someone buying a Ferrari then thinking it makes them Michael Schumacher. |
and then repeatedly crashes it every time they take it for a drive. Oh well, just buy another one with a different colour, that should do it...oh...wait... ![Laugh 1](images/smiles/laugh-1.gif) _________________ A whole bunch of stuff. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
meanwhile
![Level 1 Level 1](rating1.gif) Joined: 29 May 2014 Posts: 225 Location: Australia
Expire: 2016-11-28
|
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
meanwhile wrote:
Quote: |
The lesson I draw here is that speaking of unique color rendering of a lens is somewhat misleading |
No. Your post was misleading, that's all.
Quote: |
The other way around would prove the point, if it was taken with 3 different lenses known for their particular colour rendering and you had made all 3 look indistinguishable the same |
Bingo.
As someone else said earlier - Yes, it is possible to infinitely manipulate the colour of your images now in PP, but that doesn't automatically mean you can achieve the same result as a particular lens. _________________ In my bag: Sony A7II - Olympus OM 21mm f/3.5 - Minolta M-Rokkor 40mm f/2.0 - Konica Hexanon 57mm f/1.2 AR - Olympus Zuiko OM 100mm f/2.8 - Pentax 135mm f/3.5 |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
|