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

What a difference a lens made
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Alessandro Borgia? Laughing
Your ananas recipe is perfect for killing someone Wink


Of glicemy Laughing

Orio wrote:

Older lenses can be good if you need a lower macro-contrast as a starting point for digital transformations.
However, it's worth noting that the internal reflections can also impact the micro-contrast, with consequences on the perceived sharpness which are not as easy and without consequences to recover as the macro-contrast.


Yep, I completely agree with you.

Orio wrote:

If detail is an issue (e.g. for printing large), then I would suggest to use the sharpest lens available while setting the lowest contrast value in the camera preferences (most DSLR offer this kind of control). This, in addition to the 4-stops latitude range of the RAW file, should provide with enough histogram room to handle also the contrasted lenses.


Still sometimes you need less microcontrast for a softer, gentler result, especially with some subjects (some kind of food for example but also in portraits, etc).
About the 4 stops RAW latitude is a dangerous terrain, you'd better shot to the right (histogrammatically talking) because the noise, especially with the APS sensor and even more with 4/3, is soon an issue and most agencies would reject a photo with that much noise. Using a Canon 5D or even better the new Nikon D3 helps a lot in this matter (my next digital would be a full frame for sure just for that issue).

poilu wrote:

For a cheap solution, I would suggest a Rodenstock Rodagon


I'm searching one of them to use on a bellow but they would need to have a m39 thread.

poilu wrote:

Maybe for serious work it is better to invest in a Hasselblad


You're very right. I'm investing now in large format but a Hassy is on my top list. I tried it extensively and it's amazing. Also the RB67 isn't that bad but I prefer the Zeiss lenses than Sekors.

trifox wrote:

only one pic is OK and can be processed for print


Neither one is good for printing. I left them in predevelopement stage to make a fair comparison. Then there are also lightining problems that I solved in further shots (the reflexes in the plate).
One day I shot the same food set both with digital Olympus and with MF Provia film with the Pentacon Six and while the film was almost ready to be printed, the digital shot needed a lot of post processing to get a comparable (not equal) quality.
This also drove me to try to learn to use large format.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
admitting - almost printed ... Smile you know what the best result is Smile did you shoot with Pentacon on ortochromatic material? thanks..tf

trifox wrote:

only one pic is OK and can be processed for print


Neither one is good for printing. I left them in predevelopement stage to make a fair comparison. Then there are also lightining problems that I solved in further shots (the reflexes in the plate).
One day I shot the same food set both with digital Olympus and with MF Provia film with the Pentacon Six and while the film was almost ready to be printed, the digital shot needed a lot of post processing to get a comparable (not equal) quality.
This also drove me to try to learn to use large format.[/quote]


PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:
Orio wrote:
Alessandro Borgia? Laughing
Your ananas recipe is perfect for killing someone Wink


Of glicemy Laughing


No, no, of cardiac arrest, and a painful one at that, similar to the effect of stricnine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerium
All parts of the Oleander plant have high concentration of poisons (two or three different types at once). Small animals can die even by drinking water in which an oleander leaf has been soaked for a few hours. This site:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002884.htm
reports that even honey made by bees from oleander pollen can be poisoning.
I personally know of a farmer near Parma who left his cows out in the garden one night and the morning after they were all dead because they browsed the oleander shrubs.
In Southern Africa, two men died because they grilled meat over the fire made with Acokanthera venenata, a shrub of the same family of Oleander (Apocynaceae). The shrub is named "Arrow poison" because the local tribes used to soak the tip of their arrows in the sap of the plant.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="ChrisLilley"]A lens can't [i]add[/i] contrast, it can only loose it through internal reflections which give veiling flare. .[/quote]


Believe me: i shut a church with my summicron M 50/2 a time ago. In the pícs I saw spots on the wall of the church. My eyes never can see them in the wall with the top contrast that were in the pics and I tried this for five or six years in differents lights, seasons, etc!!!!

In the theory, I know, it's very improbable, but it was reality.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
A G Photography wrote:
Orio wrote:
Alessandro Borgia? Laughing
Your ananas recipe is perfect for killing someone Wink


Of glicemy Laughing


No, no, of cardiac arrest, and a painful one at that, similar to the effect of stricnine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerium
All parts of the Oleander plant have high concentration of poisons (two or three different types at once). Small animals can die even by drinking water in which an oleander leaf has been soaked for a few hours. This site:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002884.htm
reports that even honey made by bees from oleander pollen can be poisoning.
I personally know of a farmer near Parma who left his cows out in the garden one night and the morning after they were all dead because they browsed the oleander shrubs.
In Southern Africa, two men died because they grilled meat over the fire made with Acokanthera venenata, a shrub of the same family of Oleander (Apocynaceae). The shrub is named "Arrow poison" because the local tribes used to soak the tip of their arrows in the sap of the plant.


LOL Laughing The flower is just a decoration. It wasn't meant to be eaten and isn't soaked in the syrup. Just like toothpicks that need to be taken out before to eat (they are pretty dangerous too, personal experience with a broken one hidden in a roll of meat).

Good to know though Twisted Evil

Last edited by A G Photography on Tue Aug 05, 2008 6:48 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
ChrisLilley wrote:
A lens can't add contrast, it can only loose it through internal reflections which give veiling flare. .



Believe me: i shut a church with my summicron M 50/2 a time ago. In the pícs I saw spots on the wall of the church. My eyes never can see them in the wall with the top contrast that were in the pics and I tried this for five or six years in differents lights, seasons, etc!!!!

In the theory, I know, it's very improbable, but it was reality.


It must be said that each person eyes can also see different range of colours, contrast and also colors in different tonality. That's the real beauty of photography, that's no matter how the computers can manipulate images we're no machines (still).
Maybe using black and white you could bring those details into your range of perception.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In a recent magazine article, an idiot "celebrity chef" here in UK recommended a wild herb called Henbane for use in salads. When someone pointed out that henbane is toxic he had to issue an apology. Embarassed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7540648.stm


PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
In a recent magazine article, an idiot "celebrity chef" here in UK recommended a wild herb called Henbane for use in salads. When someone pointed out that henbane is toxic he had to issue an apology. Embarassed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7540648.stm


Just to be clear, the flower isn't included in the recipe I gave out in my blog. It just had a photographic decoration porpouse. I'm still not so crazy (I had a recipe with lavender flowers but they are perfectly edible and pretty good too).


PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:
peterqd wrote:
In a recent magazine article, an idiot "celebrity chef" here in UK recommended a wild herb called Henbane for use in salads. When someone pointed out that henbane is toxic he had to issue an apology. Embarassed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7540648.stm


Just to be clear, the flower isn't included in the recipe

Did I say it was? I'm not even certain the flower in your picture is actually an Oleander. I just thought it was funny and pertinent story to add to Orio's comment.

What's "glicemy" by the way?


PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
A G Photography wrote:
peterqd wrote:
In a recent magazine article, an idiot "celebrity chef" here in UK recommended a wild herb called Henbane for use in salads. When someone pointed out that henbane is toxic he had to issue an apology. Embarassed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7540648.stm


Just to be clear, the flower isn't included in the recipe

Did I say it was? I'm not even certain the flower in your picture is actually an Oleander. I just thought it was funny and pertinent story to add to Orio's comment.

What's "glicemy" by the way?


Sorry, it wasn't meant to be offensive to you.
It's just that being dangerous it's better to explain it again and again that it wasn't in the recipe and it's not meant to be eaten. (And btw, it is an oleander flower).

Glicemy... bad translation... it's Glycemia in english: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemia


PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
ChrisLilley wrote:
A lens can't add contrast, it can only loose it through internal reflections which give veiling flare. .



Believe me: i shut a church with my summicron M 50/2 a time ago. In the pícs I saw spots on the wall of the church. My eyes never can see them in the wall with the top contrast that were in the pics and I tried this for five or six years in differents lights, seasons, etc!!!!

In the theory, I know, it's very improbable, but it was reality.


Your eyes also have lenses. My point stands.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
In a recent magazine article, an idiot "celebrity chef" here in UK recommended a wild herb called Henbane for use in salads. When someone pointed out that henbane is toxic he had to issue an apology. Embarassed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7540648.stm


And for my next trick, a tossed belladonna and aconite salad


PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ive seen your site Alessandro - I like the pics of food! Smile

I have tried to take some pics of food Smile)) .
Please, if you have a time, have a look at this topic opened by me
http://forum.mflenses.com/food-collection-mf-lenses-and-flash-t9348.html

and any comments appreciated Smile..thanks .. tf


PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:

LOL Laughing The flower is just a decoration.


I know. It was a little joke Wink
Besides if it was really part of your recipe you would not be here now to tell us, Laughing
However, it is not an issue to take lightheartedly. One thing I have learned with the time is, there is no limit to how idiot some people can be. I have had an Ebay transaction recently, where the buyer managed to make everything he did, wrong, from the bid itself, to the payment, to the choice of shipping time, to the shipping address. I mean, everything.
So I would not be surprised if someone that reads your forum would be stupid enough to actually use an oleander flower as part of the preparation, just because he sees it there.
If I was in your place, I would put a warning on the blog, that the flower is there only for decoration, and that it's very poisonous, and should not be used or even just placed on the food, for any reason.
THen, we know that 999 people on 1000 will not need the warning. But maybe there is the 1000th that would do a stupid thing if he does not read the warning.

By the way - even just placing the flower on the food for some time, could be dangerous. Probably not to a lethal point, but, I would not be anxious to test that.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You're right Orio. I just edited the blog post just to be sure.

Funny thing this evening a friend of mine told me the same about oleander flowers. Now I just have to prepare a special salad to my office manager Wink


PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:
You're right Orio. I just edited the blog post just to be sure.
Funny thing this evening a friend of mine told me the same about oleander flowers. Now I just have to prepare a special salad to my office manager Wink


Laughing
I know what you mean Rolling Eyes

You would not be the first one to prepare such salads, by the way: I read once, that the peculiar properties of Oleander (and of Taxus baccata as well) were well known to the Romans, who sometimes used them to their advantage (or disadvantage, depending on the point of view!).

The story of Taxus baccata (English Yew) is also funny. Romans called it the Tree of Death (for obvious reasons), and used the twigs to decorate their heads during the funerals. But differently from Oleander, which is poisonous for all animals, the Taxus is deadly for men, but not so for birds (who appreciate much the fruits) and not even for horses, who can browse it without consequences. Very strange!


PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="A G Photography"].
It must be said that each person eyes can also see different range of colours, contrast and also colors in different tonality. That's the real beauty of photography, that's no matter how the computers can manipulate images we're no machines (still).
.[/quote]

I agree with you. We are no machines. We see and feel the world in different way. And is a fabulous thing that in spite of that, we can agree with others persons about the beauty of the photography.

Regards. Rino


PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="ChrisLilley"][quote="estudleon"][quote="ChrisLilley"]A lens can't [i]add[/i] contrast, it can only loose it through internal reflections which give veiling flare. .[/quote]


Believe me: i shut a church with my summicron M 50/2 a time ago. In the pícs I saw spots on the wall of the church. My eyes never can see them in the wall with the top contrast that were in the pics and I tried this for five or six years in differents lights, seasons, etc!!!!

In the theory, I know, it's very improbable, but it was reality.[/quote]

Your eyes also have lenses. My point stands.[/quote]




Yes, my eyes are lenses too. But my point is that the photography lenses not only loose contrast through internal reflections which give veiling flare, they can add contrast - in the real world of course. My experience of add contrast was ONLY with summicron M 50/2 - 1974 six elements - F/8 and fuji velvia at iso 50. Never with other equipment (carl zeiss, nikon, canon, etc).


PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ChrisLilley wrote:
And for my next trick, a tossed belladonna and aconite salad


Very HappyVery Happy

As for lenses in eyes, we actually "see" with our brains. It's how the brain interprets the information that counts, not the light rays passing into the eye. I'm quite prepared to believe a camera lens (or a pair of bins) can alter an image sufficiently that our brain sees it in a different way than with the naked eye.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
ChrisLilley wrote:
And for my next trick, a tossed belladonna and aconite salad


Very HappyVery Happy

As for lenses in eyes, we actually "see" with our brains. It's how the brain interprets the information that counts, not the light rays passing into the eye. I'm quite prepared to believe a camera lens (or a pair of bins) can alter an image sufficiently that our brain sees it in a different way than with the naked eye.


Try to shot a reflective shop glass window and you'll have the evidence our brain filter reality differently than a camera.
We usually see what's behind the glass, the camera will show the reflexes.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2