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

Finnish Autumn Gloom [C&C]
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Gallery MF
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:37 pm    Post subject: Finnish Autumn Gloom [C&C] Reply with quote
Hi,

I thought I'd share a little series of photos from my bike ride last Sunday (10/10/10). I was planning to shoot some fancy autumn colours but the weather was against me most of the time. So, some grey autumn gloom from Helsinki:

#1 MC Volna-9 50mm f/2.8



#2 Samyang 14mm f/2.8



#3 MC Volna-9 50mm f/2.8



#4 Samyang 14mm f/2.8



#5 Samyang 14mm f/2.8



#6 Samyang 14mm f/2.8



#7 Samyang 14mm f/2.8



#8 Samyang 14mm f/2.8



#9 MC Volna-9 50mm f/2.8



#10 MC Volna-9 50mm f/2.8



The sun finally came out for a little while as I was heading back:

#11 Vest Pocket Kodak Meniscus lens



#12 Vest Pocket Kodak Meniscus lens



Comments welcome as always. =)


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
i am surprised at how much i like the samyang shots, not being much of a samyang fan. but i find the colors, sharpness and lack of distortion compelling--and the composition on those shots very good also. what camera did you use?

also, what is a 'vest pocket kodak miniscus lens'?


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You did solve very well light problems , I like also Samyang shoots very much. Some of them with rocks in water I think great subject for B&W conversion.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
really nice series. #2 is my fav!


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
i am surprised at how much i like the samyang shots, not being much of a samyang fan. but i find the colors, sharpness and lack of distortion compelling


Actually the Samyang 14mm has the most distortion out of all my (non-fish-eye) lenses, and I haven't corrected for it. If you look closely, you can see the horizon curving up in the middle in almost all the Samyang shots. But as I'm a huge fan of ultra-wide and the lens has no other flaws, it has quickly become one of my most frequently used lenses.

rbelyell wrote:
what camera did you use?


Sony DSLR-A900.

rbelyell wrote:
also, what is a 'vest pocket kodak miniscus lens'?


A single-element lens found on a 1910's Vest Pocket Kodak camera. The soft glow in shot #11 is not post-processing but the lens…

Here you can see how it is used with digital (although that's my other Vest Pocket Kodak with a different lens, and my other DSLR):



(To conversion-haters: the camera was not harmed, conversion can be perfectly reversed in 5 minutes. =)


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Some of them with rocks in water I think great subject for B&W conversion.


Yes, I did consider that, but then again I kind of like how they are almost B&W as it is, with just a bit of colour in the rock and seaweed. But maybe I'll try a conversion later.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
very well done Arkku!


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Now I notice that those clouds/sky photos looks like HDR make. Did you?
That Kodak pics are interesting.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
spleenone wrote:
Now I notice that those clouds/sky photos looks like HDR make. Did you?


If HDR means multiple exposures, then no. But the skies would have been overexposed to near white if not brought back in raw development, so dynamic range is more compressed than it would be with default development. (I think one shot has -1.75 EV compensation, the rest less.)


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
spleenone wrote:
Now I notice that those clouds/sky photos looks like HDR make. Did you?


If HDR means multiple exposures, then no. But the skies would have been overexposed to near white if not brought back in raw development, so dynamic range is more compressed than it would be with default development. (I think one shot has -1.75 EV compensation, the rest less.)

I see. Nicely handled. It is easily apparent by that aura effect around darker objects. I dislike HRD only like remark =/


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
great series, my favs #10#11


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Beautiful shots !
Very interesting compositions and effects.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
#8 for me - it is so difficult to get decent shots of forests.


patrickh


PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
i am surprised at how much i like the samyang shots, not being much of a samyang fan. but i find the colors, sharpness and lack of distortion compelling--and the composition on those shots very good also. what camera did you use?

also, what is a 'vest pocket kodak miniscus lens'?


Lack of distortions? I was about to ask if I am just imagining it, but isn't there quite a bit of barrel distortion even in near the center of the image (where the horizon is). Still, I'd love to have the lens, but only on a full frame camera I don't have Sad


PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think, #2 is nice - I imagine you found the vibrance-slider in the depelopement process Smile

#5 is well processed (and shot) to emphasize the existense and effects of the distant subject in the center.

#6 with the bike is nice - you used the trees well to frame the image.

#10 is not good. Usually we all just praise images, but I don't like #10. #7 is crap too Wink Yes, really constructive criticism, sorry. I just can't do better right now Smile

#3 front rocks look ugly. Though of course you did that on purpouse to emphasize the beatifully vibrant colours in the center. Maybe a different composition instead?

#11 is my other favorte (the bike one is the other) - just shows that top-notch equipment are not necessary for interesting images. Very nice retro-feel. The imperfection makes this image work well for me!

#12 is boring and flat. Sorry - I just feel being a bit blunt today. A polarizing filter would have done something to save the image, but the light is just not good.

So sorry about my harsh words. Rahter lots of contrast in the aestetichal quality for me, luckily that is just subjective Smile


PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
great photos Arkku!
also for me above all those taken with the Samyang are very impressive.

Anu wrote:
....Still, I'd love to have the lens, but only on a full frame camera I don't have Sad


hm..why would it not be good on APS-C? I mean, of course besides loosing the wide angle, would it not make a good eff. 21mm on my Pentax?


PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:
great photos Arkku!
also for me above all those taken with the Samyang are very impressive.

Anu wrote:
....Still, I'd love to have the lens, but only on a full frame camera I don't have Sad


hm..why would it not be good on APS-C? I mean, of course besides loosing the wide angle, would it not make a good eff. 21mm on my Pentax?


Sure, but it would also be a big lens. I prefer to use smaller lenses. If I were to get 14mm, I might accept the extra size Smile


PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
How relaxing pix ! thanx for the trip : )


PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anu wrote:
I think, #2 is nice - I imagine you found the vibrance-slider in the depelopement process :)


Yes, it's at -0.22 (yes, negative). =)

Anu wrote:

#10 is not good. Usually we all just praise images, but I don't like #10. #7 is crap too ;) Yes, really constructive criticism, sorry. I just can't do better right now :)


It's entirely okay to criticise, although some more comments as to the why would be appreciated.

Personally I find #7 a weird one because I really like it viewed full screen on black but I agree that it's not good at this size or context. Wouldn't call it as “crap” in being a part of the series, though.

As for #10 I like it as part of the series, but not as an individual photo.

Anu wrote:

#3 front rocks look ugly. Though of course you did that on purpouse to emphasize the beatifully vibrant colours in the center. Maybe a different composition instead?


Yes, I decided not to “punch it up” like #2 to get that overall grey gloom in sky, sea, and ground all. I find the contrasty & colourful processing at odds with the mood—actually I think #2 is the worst shot in this regard, but as ever the attention whore I recognise that it's probably the most easily appealing take on these rocks (and it has almost double the view count on flickr compared to the other rock shots).

As for different composition, hmm, well, I do have quite a few on my hard drive to choose from, I kind of like this one. The others are more dramatic (i.e. again more like #2), which is contrary to the intent.

Anu wrote:

#12 is boring and flat. Sorry - I just feel being a bit blunt today. A polarizing filter would have done something to save the image, but the light is just not good.


Out of curiosity, what do you think would have been the effect of the polariser on this shot? Personally I really like de-vibranced red leaves fading towards blue in the shadow at the top and the muted autumn background.


Anu wrote:

Rahter lots of contrast in the aestetichal quality


One reason may be that I intentionally lowered my standard for uploading these as they were part of a 10/10/10 project—photos #3-10 in particular are mostly intended as a series rather than individual shots.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
(Samyang 14mm)
kuuan wrote:

hm..why would it not be good on APS-C? I mean, of course besides loosing the wide angle, would it not make a good eff. 21mm on my Pentax?


Well, to be honest I would never even have considered it for APS-C—14mm is just not wide enough to justify the price when for not-so-much more one can have a used Sigma 10-20mm.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is my favorite from series I made two variants.




PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
This is my favorite from series I made two variants.


The all-B&W variant is nice, actually better than I thought it would be. The selectively coloured one is a bit strange for my taste. =)

What software do you use for B&W conversion, by-the-way?


PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
Anu wrote:
I think, #2 is nice - I imagine you found the vibrance-slider in the depelopement process Smile


Yes, it's at -0.22 (yes, negative). =)


-0.22 doesn't really tell much - they've not yet standardized the vibrance numbers at the ISO (the organization, not the sensitivity Wink )...Smile

Sometimes I also experiment with the negative values - some images really pop when the irrelevant is desaturated this way.

Arkku wrote:

Anu wrote:

#10 is not good. Usually we all just praise images, but I don't like #10. #7 is crap too Wink Yes, really constructive criticism, sorry. I just can't do better right now Smile


It's entirely okay to criticise, although some more comments as to the why would be appreciated.

Personally I find #7 a weird one because I really like it viewed full screen on black but I agree that it's not good at this size or context. Wouldn't call it as “crap” in being a part of the series, though.

I agree it it interesting how images change with different output sizes - we're lucky to have computers so we can try out multiple sizes easily before deciding which is the right size.

Arkku wrote:
Anu wrote:

#12 is boring and flat. Sorry - I just feel being a bit blunt today. A polarizing filter would have done something to save the image, but the light is just not good.


Out of curiosity, what do you think would have been the effect of the polariser on this shot? Personally I really like de-vibranced red leaves fading towards blue in the shadow at the top and the muted autumn background.


I thnk at the moment the picture is rather messy - complex background and the front doesn't really pop out (though I guess that was the idea for some reason). Polarizer, IMHO would have made the front seem more alive, though all things considering, I do doubt it would have saved the image for me Smile (I should not complain about lack of pol-use, as I am so lazy myself with it... I should use it 10 times I use it now.)

I forgot #1 - nice retro look. Some of your images make me think you copy the Sergio Leone way of shooting horses from behind - of course instead of horses you have chairs and stuff Smile


PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Superb stuff ! I really enjoyed every photograph.

AND You have a very nice Bike !!


Cheers
Tobias


PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
Attila wrote:
This is my favorite from series I made two variants.


The all-B&W variant is nice, actually better than I thought it would be. The selectively coloured one is a bit strange for my taste. =)

What software do you use for B&W conversion, by-the-way?


Silver FX pro high details setting
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Gallery MF
Page 1 of 1