[SI] bokeh - Alan's comments
Alan Browne
(http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/56276981)
A wonderful shot. White it displays one of the two main shortcomings of
a cat lens, Chrlz has taken full advantage and turned that defect into a
balanced composition element. It has a quality similar to a "dowled"
aluminum surface and makes a fine background for the silhouetted grasses
in the FG. The grasses are not sharp enough to really make the shot
outstanding and I question whether they would have looked better dead
black or with more fill light (not that the former would been easy to
achieve). One of my favourites and possibly the "cheekiest" response to
the mandate.
Paul Furman
(http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/56276986)
I'm taken with the qualities of the light at the strongly lit subject
vs. similar shade background highlights. The main subject is not very
interesting, however as its random "weedy" look doesn't have any balance
of form that's appealing. The bokeh is well caught and we can see that
the lens is not a particularly great bokeh lens, but it's not terribly
distracting. Had the main subject had a more interesting form with
straight lines or long curves, then the BG would have been a good to
great compliment. (See bandicoot's Still Life example for example of
"nice" weeds and use of their form).
Mark Lauter
(http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/56276987)
Too soft, too centered, too shallow, over exposed. Bokeh is freaky. I
would suggest that it's not neccessary to shoot wide open to get bokeh
and that a subject that has soft edges does not compliment a really
smooth bokeh'd BG.
Jim Kramer
(http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/56276988
Because of the heat "waves" in the air behind the front wall of the
building, I'm having a hard time seeing the bokeh. I'm sure it's there,
but the turbulence in the back "extinguishes" it. I do love the
contrast of the grey/black against the flames which, while frozen, seem
to be intense and full of life.
Tom Gabriel
(http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/56276989)
(Was this resized since first posted?)
Overall the shot seems lost. Spiders are impressive when they really
fill the frame or when there is obvious tension between prey and
predator (of which the spider can be either).
One element that is great is where the spider web shines against the oof
bg. The bokeh, where evident, isn't particularly pleasing to me, it's
just there as a result of whatever desired high speed Tom took in taking
the shot.
Doug Payne
(http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/56276990)
One of my favourites of the set, and I wasn't surprised to learn in
another thread that the lens is the Tamron 90mm (I assume f/2.8). The
element that strikes me the most is the mirror-like "reflection" of the
stamen (?) at the back of the flower. This makes the photo in my
opinion. The bokeh is very smooth, however there isn't much by way of
highlight to really explore the quality. See:
http://www.aliasimages.com/images/56276990.06bokeh_Doug_Payne%20VAR.jpg
For how I would have liked to see it composed, getting a diagonal
treatment. (Better than this hasty crop, but you should get the idea of
what I mean).
Bowser
(http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/56276992)
One of the more creative shots in this set. I agree with Ken that a
"back alley" version would have been great (at the risk of the gun
wielding model being snipered by the police), but I do believe this is
just as authentic a treatment as armed break-ins do occur and people are
held at gunpoint. The perspective treatment, point of focus and angle
of the gun, bad-guy posture, curved (wide angle) effect of non-subject
areas, etc., etc., are very strong. As to bokeh, a bit harsh.
Alan Browne*
(http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/56276993)
Neighbor's garden, gusty day, metered a grey card and shot away. I did
the usual "flat on" shots of this subject:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1534241
but I prefer the oblique treatment:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1534247
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1534254 (a little over exp).
Al Denelsbeck
(http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/56276994)
I'm mystified as to whether that's a small crab or a spider. As to
bokeh, the subject should be in focus (the moss?) and the bokeh should
be out of the BG highlights. So, wrt the mandate I'm lost on this one.
The overall color set here is quite dull and detracts from what could
be an interesting image.
Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Doug Payne
> Doug Payne
> (http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/56276990)
>
> One of my favourites of the set, and I wasn't surprised to learn in
> another thread that the lens is the Tamron 90mm (I assume f/2.8).
Yep, 2.8. (I think there's only a 2.8 in AF).
> The
> element that strikes me the most is the mirror-like "reflection" of the
> stamen (?) at the back of the flower. This makes the photo in my
> opinion.
Yeah, I liked the way it turned out too. The brown "reflections" are
actually deep pink in the flower, but they came out nicely matching the
colour of the anthers in that lighting. Stamen is the whole deal
including the filament (stalk), anther is the brown part at the end
carrying the pollen. I haven't got a clue what the little 3-fingered
hand is called :-)
> The bokeh is very smooth, however there isn't much by way of
> highlight to really explore the quality. See:
> http://www.aliasimages.com/images/56276990.06bokeh_Doug_Payne%20VAR.jpg
> For how I would have liked to see it composed, getting a diagonal
> treatment. (Better than this hasty crop, but you should get the idea of
> what I mean).
Tried a more diagonal shot, but couldn't get it to "fit", without losing
parts of the large petals. It was backlit by a window, so the blown
highlights of the window background were just too nasty for my taste.
Just the way the geometry of the flower worked out. I settled for the
diagonal lines in the petals.
It's an amaryllis by the way; we grow a couple every winter. Thanks for
the comments.
Alan Browne
> On 25/02/2006 3:10 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Doug Payne
>> (http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/56276990)
>>
>> One of my favourites of the set, and I wasn't surprised to learn in
>> another thread that the lens is the Tamron 90mm (I assume f/2.8).
>
>
> Yep, 2.8. (I think there's only a 2.8 in AF).
>
>> The element that strikes me the most is the mirror-like "reflection"
>> of the stamen (?) at the back of the flower. This makes the photo in
>> my opinion.
>
>
> Yeah, I liked the way it turned out too. The brown "reflections" are
> actually deep pink in the flower, but they came out nicely matching the
> colour of the anthers in that lighting. Stamen is the whole deal
> including the filament (stalk), anther is the brown part at the end
> carrying the pollen. I haven't got a clue what the little 3-fingered
> hand is called :-)
Pistil?
Paul Furman
I really pooped out on this one.
Alan Browne wrote:
> Paul Furman
> (http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/56276986)
>
> I'm taken with the qualities of the light at the strongly lit subject
> vs. similar shade background highlights. The main subject is not very
> interesting, however as its random "weedy" look doesn't have any balance
> of form that's appealing. The bokeh is well caught and we can see that
> the lens is not a particularly great bokeh lens, but it's not terribly
> distracting. Had the main subject had a more interesting form with
> straight lines or long curves, then the BG would have been a good to
> great compliment. (See bandicoot's Still Life example for example of
> "nice" weeds and use of their form).
Hey that's Lepechinia (PItcher Sage) it's loveley stuff <grin> I just
framed it bad. That durn little 45/2.8P lens is supposed to be a
bokemeister, well, at least pretty good compared to the options. I still
don't really know what happens sometimes, here's a really freaky one:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-06-19-bees&PG=2&PIC=7>
that's the super 70-200 with 2X TC gone berserk at f/6.3 just because
that plant has very reflective glands on it.
> Jim Kramer
> (http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/56276988
>
> Because of the heat "waves" in the air behind the front wall of the
> building, I'm having a hard time seeing the bokeh. I'm sure it's there,
> but the turbulence in the back "extinguishes" it. I do love the
> contrast of the grey/black against the flames which, while frozen, seem
> to be intense and full of life.
The heat wave *is* the bokeh in this case. It's not a matter of the lens
or even being out of focal range perhaps. I think this was a very
creative interpretation of the mandate.
> Alan Browne*
> (http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/56276993)
>
> Neighbor's garden, gusty day, metered a grey card and shot away. I did
> the usual "flat on" shots of this subject:
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1534241
> but I prefer the oblique treatment:
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1534247
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1534254 (a little over exp).
That's really loveley bokeh and it definitely plays a major role in the
composition but what bugged me about this shot is the background flowers
are bigger than the foreground flowers which is contradictory to normal
perception of perspective. Although maybe that's the charm of the image
that the OOF dominates and it really gives a unique and almost
unsettling feel like everything is pushed to the limit and it's such a
wild colorful show that you feel lucky to even glimpse a bit of it in focus.
Alan Browne
Uhmmm... Where bokeh is concerned I'm a strict constructionist. I do
like the way the heat distorts the fire engine in the BG, but that's not
bokeh unless you count the "lensing" of the heatwaves...
>
>
>> Alan Browne*
>> (http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/56276993)
>>
>> Neighbor's garden, gusty day, metered a grey card and shot away. I
>> did the usual "flat on" shots of this subject:
>> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1534241
>> but I prefer the oblique treatment:
>> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1534247
>> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1534254 (a little over exp).
>
>
> That's really loveley bokeh and it definitely plays a major role in the
> composition but what bugged me about this shot is the background flowers
> are bigger than the foreground flowers which is contradictory to normal
> perception of perspective.
Thanks (re: bokeh). Actually, as bokeh goes, it's not quite
"highlighty" enough to really show the bokeh in the highlight sense,
though the hard white edges of the lower part of the flowers do chalenge
the lens in the same manner.
re: contradiction: I'm not sure what you mean. I don't see it that way.
(BTW: The rearmost flower is on the left...)
> Although maybe that's the charm of the image
> that the OOF dominates and it really gives a unique and almost
> unsettling feel like everything is pushed to the limit and it's such a
> wild colorful show that you feel lucky to even glimpse a bit of it in
> focus.
I think more DOF would have benefited most of those photos, but it was
gusty that day so I had to shoot between puffs of wind. Bad enough that
it was ISO 50 film...
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
rnia/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-06-19-bees&PG=2&PIC=7>
>>> Jim Kramer
>>> (http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/56276988
>>>
>>> Because of the heat "waves" in the air behind the front wall of the
>>> building, I'm having a hard time seeing the bokeh. I'm sure it's
>>> there, but the turbulence in the back "extinguishes" it. I do love
>>> the contrast of the grey/black against the flames which, while
>>> frozen, seem to be intense and full of life.
>>
>> The heat wave *is* the bokeh in this case. It's not a matter of the
>> lens or even being out of focal range perhaps. I think this was a very
>> creative interpretation of the mandate.
>
> Uhmmm... Where bokeh is concerned I'm a strict constructionist. I do
> like the way the heat distorts the fire engine in the BG, but that's not
> bokeh unless you count the "lensing" of the heatwaves...
It is indisputably the character of the out of focus elements in this
shot and it contributes a lot to the feeling and composition.
>>> Alan Browne*
>>> (http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/56276993)
>>>
>>> Neighbor's garden, gusty day, metered a grey card and shot away. I
>>> did the usual "flat on" shots of this subject:
>>> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1534241
>>> but I prefer the oblique treatment:
>>> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1534247
>>> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1534254 (a little over exp).
>>
>> ...loveley ...but what bugged me about this shot is the background
>> flowers are bigger than the foreground flowers which is contradictory
>> to normal perception of perspective.
>
> re: contradiction: I'm not sure what you mean. I don't see it that way.
> (BTW: The rearmost flower is on the left...)
Normally the flowers in the distance would be smaller than the
foreground. It's sort of an optical illusion and that's a bit
unsettling/confusing.
>> Although maybe that's the charm of the image that the OOF dominates
>> and it really gives a unique and almost unsettling feel like
>> everything is pushed to the limit and it's such a wild colorful show
>> that you feel lucky to even glimpse a bit of it in focus.
>
> I think more DOF would have benefited most of those photos, but it was
> gusty that day so I had to shoot between puffs of wind. Bad enough that
> it was ISO 50 film...
Heh, well it can be fun to struggle with limitations. It turns out my
perception was correct that it was a struggle to get anything in focus,
and that makes it all the more rewarding perhaps. Some folks would see
that scene on a calm day & in a fury, throw a heavy ND filter on to try
& get some motion blur & crank up the OOF <g>. That's one of the
emotional impacts of heavy handed bokeh: that it reveals a
challenge/struggle.
Of course a perfect sharp image can send a chill up my spine too.
Matt Clara
news:wK4Mf.37599$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Thanks for commenting on all of them Alan!
> I really pooped out on this one.
>
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Paul Furman
>> (http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/56276986)
>>
>> I'm taken with the qualities of the light at the strongly lit subject vs.
>> similar shade background highlights. The main subject is not very
>> interesting, however as its random "weedy" look doesn't have any balance
>> of form that's appealing. The bokeh is well caught and we can see that
>> the lens is not a particularly great bokeh lens, but it's not terribly
>> distracting. Had the main subject had a more interesting form with
>> straight lines or long curves, then the BG would have been a good to
>> great compliment. (See bandicoot's Still Life example for example of
>> "nice" weeds and use of their form).
>
> Hey that's Lepechinia (PItcher Sage) it's loveley stuff <grin> I just
> framed it bad. That durn little 45/2.8P lens is supposed to be a
> bokemeister, well, at least pretty good compared to the options. I still
> don't really know what happens sometimes, here's a really freaky one:
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-06-19-bees&PG=2&PIC=7>
> that's the super 70-200 with 2X TC gone berserk at f/6.3 just because that
> plant has very reflective glands on it.
>
Wow! Is it that bad without the 2x? I certainly hope my 80-200's bokeh
isn't that bad!
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-06-19-bees&PG=2&PIC=8>
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
Paul Furman
> Paul wrote:
>
>>I still
>>don't really know what happens sometimes, here's a really freaky one:
>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-06-19-bees&PG=2&PIC=7>
>>that's the super 70-200 with 2X TC gone berserk at f/6.3 just because that
>>plant has very reflective glands on it.
>
> Wow! Is it that bad without the 2x? I certainly hope my 80-200's bokeh
> isn't that bad!
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-06-19-bees&PG=2&PIC=8>
That's with the 2X teleconverter, but without the +2 diopter closeup
lens. That whole series is the same setup & the others are generally
pretty good. Here's more:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-06-03-triteleia&PG=2>
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
> rnia/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-06-19-bees&PG=2&PIC=7>
>
>>>> Jim Kramer
>>>> (http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/56276988
>>>>
>>>> Because of the heat "waves" in the air behind the front wall of the
>>>> building, I'm having a hard time seeing the bokeh. I'm sure it's
>>>> there, but the turbulence in the back "extinguishes" it. I do love
>>>> the contrast of the grey/black against the flames which, while
>>>> frozen, seem to be intense and full of life.
>>>
>>>
>>> The heat wave *is* the bokeh in this case. It's not a matter of the
>>> lens or even being out of focal range perhaps. I think this was a
>>> very creative interpretation of the mandate.
>>
>>
>> Uhmmm... Where bokeh is concerned I'm a strict constructionist. I do
>> like the way the heat distorts the fire engine in the BG, but that's
>> not bokeh unless you count the "lensing" of the heatwaves...
>
>
> It is indisputably
Since I'm disputing it, it is not indisputably...
;-)
> the character of the out of focus elements in this
> shot and it contributes a lot to the feeling and composition.
I never said different. What I said was that the OOF areas were defined
more by the heat distortion than by bokeh characteristics.
>> re: contradiction: I'm not sure what you mean. I don't see it that
>> way. (BTW: The rearmost flower is on the left...)
>
>
> Normally the flowers in the distance would be smaller than the
> foreground. It's sort of an optical illusion and that's a bit
> unsettling/confusing.
I don't see it. But I have foreknowledge bias.
>> I think more DOF would have benefited most of those photos, but it was
>> gusty that day so I had to shoot between puffs of wind. Bad enough
>> that it was ISO 50 film...
>
>
> Heh, well it can be fun to struggle with limitations. It turns out my
> perception was correct that it was a struggle to get anything in focus,
> and that makes it all the more rewarding perhaps. Some folks would see
> that scene on a calm day & in a fury, throw a heavy ND filter on to try
> & get some motion blur & crank up the OOF <g>. That's one of the
> emotional impacts of heavy handed bokeh: that it reveals a
> challenge/struggle.
>
> Of course a perfect sharp image can send a chill up my spine too.
You bring up a good point in that I don't often include motion effects
in available light photography. Mainly because the few times I have
done so, the results have been fairly mediocre. I need to experiment
more on that. OTOH, motion plus rear sync flash is something I do often
and to good effect. (eg: shooting volleyball, I'll shoot upwards of
50% of the shots at 1/10 and rear sync. I like the effect, though these
shots are not as popular with the players).
Alan Browne
>
> Wow! Is it that bad without the 2x? I certainly hope my 80-200's bokeh
> isn't that bad!
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-06-19-bees&PG=2&PIC=8>
That photo actually hurts my eyes. I'm not saying that to be nasty.
There is physical discomfort when I look at it.
Paul Furman
>>>Wow! Is it that bad without the 2x? I certainly hope my 80-200's bokeh
>>>isn't that bad!
>>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-06-19-bees&PG=2&PIC=8>
>>
>>That photo actually hurts my eyes. I'm not saying that to be nasty.
>>There is physical discomfort when I look at it.
>
> Is the "troublesome" bokeh just the result of the 70-200 or is it
> intensified in some way by the 2x teleconvertor?
That lens is supposed to have really good bokeh so yeah the
teleconverter makes it worse. The TC plus the dSLR crop factor make that
a 600mm equivalent telephoto which really exaggerates things plus the
leaves have these extremely shiny glands on them. The more intense the
highlights, the harder to get smooth bokeh so it's possible to get good
or bad bokeh out of any lens under the right lighting.
Beach Bum
news:jR2Mf.30958$W63.8...@weber.videotron.net...
> Mark Lauter
> (http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/56276987)
>
> Too soft, too centered, too shallow, over exposed.
First - the rule of thirds is bunk. Rules, like type safety, are for the
weak minded. Second, the subject isn't centered, it's on the top third
line.
If it appears over exposed then you need to check your monitor settings.
> Bokeh is freaky.
In what way? I'm sure the lens doesn't have a perfectly circular aperture,
but the bokeh looks fine to me.
> I
> would suggest that it's not neccessary to shoot wide open to get bokeh
> and that a subject that has soft edges does not compliment a really
> smooth bokeh'd BG.
It wasn't shot wide open, it was shot very close to the subject at F8 and a
FL of 55mm.
But I do appreciate your comments. :)
--
Mark
Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com/gallery
JimKramer
Alan Browne wrote:
> Jim Kramer
> (http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/56276988
>
> Because of the heat "waves" in the air behind the front wall of the
> building, I'm having a hard time seeing the bokeh. I'm sure it's there,
> but the turbulence in the back "extinguishes" it. I do love the
> contrast of the grey/black against the flames which, while frozen, seem
> to be intense and full of life.
>
The heat waves were intended to bokehify the fire engine in the
background through the window of the burning house.
Jim
Ken Nadvornick
> Rules, like type safety, are for the weak minded.
Ahh... A "bum" who sees the world as do I...
Ken
Kinon O'cann
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:jR2Mf.30958$W63.8...@weber.videotron.net...
>
>
> (http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/56276992)
>
> One of the more creative shots in this set. I agree with Ken that a "back
> alley" version would have been great (at the risk of the gun wielding
> model being snipered by the police), but I do believe this is just as
> authentic a treatment as armed break-ins do occur and people are held at
> gunpoint. The perspective treatment, point of focus and angle of the gun,
> bad-guy posture, curved (wide angle) effect of non-subject areas, etc.,
> etc., are very strong. As to bokeh, a bit harsh.
>
>
Thanks for the comments, as usual. The back alley shot might have worked,
but it's a real gun, and some people may have misunderstood. I wanted to
tell the story using the bokeh area, with one or two strong points of focus.
My son got a kick out of it.
The bokeh is what I get from the Sigma fisheye (15mm 2.8 EX EG) and it is
strange, if nothing else. Normally, you don't see much out of focus when
shooting with this lens.
Beach Bum
news:AAHMf.14247$fU6.10606@trnddc08...
> "Beach Bum" wrote:
>
> > Rules, like type safety, are for the weak minded.
>
> Ahh... A "bum" who sees the world as do I...
<g>
What I've recently become aware of is that the more I concentrate on rules
and technical aspects the worse my photography becomes. Lately it's been
really lousy. Hopefully I'm getting past that.
Paul Furman
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:jR2Mf.30958$W63.8...@weber.videotron.net...
>
>>
>>Bowser
>>(http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/56276992)
>>
>>One of the more creative shots in this set. I agree with Ken that a "back
>>alley" version would have been great (at the risk of the gun wielding
>>model being snipered by the police), but I do believe this is just as
>>authentic a treatment as armed break-ins do occur and people are held at
>>gunpoint. The perspective treatment, point of focus and angle of the gun,
>>bad-guy posture, curved (wide angle) effect of non-subject areas, etc.,
>>etc., are very strong. As to bokeh, a bit harsh.
>>
>>
>
>
> Thanks for the comments, as usual. The back alley shot might have worked,
> but it's a real gun, and some people may have misunderstood.
A title of "home invasion" would have helped. My thought after
consideration, is to have staged it in a convenience store.
> I wanted to
> tell the story using the bokeh area, with one or two strong points of focus.
> My son got a kick out of it.
>
> The bokeh is what I get from the Sigma fisheye (15mm 2.8 EX EG) and it is
> strange, if nothing else. Normally, you don't see much out of focus when
> shooting with this lens.
My Sigma 12-24 has the most hideous bokeh around. But yeah, I never see
it unless I try. Yours looks fine to me, light-years smoother than the
12-24.
Kinon O'Cann
>
> My Sigma 12-24 has the most hideous bokeh around. But yeah, I never see it
> unless I try. Yours looks fine to me, light-years smoother than the 12-24.
The Sigma fisheye is my first Sigma product in decades. I had sworn them
off, but have read some very good things about some of their lenses, so I
thought I'd take a chance. So far, it's a nice lens.
Titles. Hmmm..... OK, when my camera comes back from Canon service, and I
can shoot some more, I'll do a better job with titles. Grainy B&W may have
helped, too.
For now, it's the Yashica Mat 124G, and nothing else.
Ken Nadvornick
> For now, it's the Yashica Mat 124G, and nothing else.
Nice. And quite the pleasant little camera. I'm the original owner of a
well-used, but still absolutely pristine, unit. I even have the original
Yashica lens hood, a few B&W contrast filters and a set of close-up
supplementary lenses.
If you'll start using yours, I'll start using mine also... <g>
Ken
William Graham
in Japan, and a friend of mine bought a little TLR, called the "Yashika 44"
I think it used 35 mm film, or something about that that size that no longer
exists......It was a neat little camera, like a "baby Rollieflex", and he
took a lot of pictures with it.....He also got it very cheap. As I remember,
he paid less than 10,000 yen for it, and, at that time the exchange rate was
360 yen per dollar.
Kinon O'Cann
OK, here we go...
I got my Yashica when I was in high school (1970), have had it refurbed
once, and it still works realy nicely. As long as you don't beat the crap
out of it physically, it'll last quite a while. It's now pretty old, and I
could never bring myself to sell it, and likely never will. I'm going to
shoot some Ilford Delta this weekend in Maine. After I get the negs back
from the lab (Yikes!) I'll scan and post a couple. Hell, I'll post a shot
from 1976 for the next shoot-in, as well. It hadn't occured to me, but it is
a backlit shot.
>
> Ken
>
>
Kinon O'Cann
"William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:mZmdnYDbOr0sG5nZ...@comcast.com...
That may have been one of the 4x4cm cameras that used, I think, 620 film.
Rollei made a similar unit, and you can find them all over e-bay.
>
>
William Graham
"Kinon O'Cann" <some...@over.the.rainbow> wrote in message
news:Ee1Nf.3$YJ...@bos-service2.ext.ray.com...
Ken Nadvornick
> I got my Yashica when I was in high school (1970), have had it refurbed
> once, and it still works realy nicely. As long as you don't beat the crap
> out of it physically, it'll last quite a while. It's now pretty old, and I
> could never bring myself to sell it, and likely never will. I'm going to
> shoot some Ilford Delta this weekend in Maine. After I get the negs back
> from the lab (Yikes!) I'll scan and post a couple. Hell, I'll post a shot
> from 1976 for the next shoot-in, as well. It hadn't occured to me, but it
is
> a backlit shot.
Got mine in the 80s when I was in college. And even though I'm currently
jonesin' for an RB67, I, too, would *never* part with the Yashica. But
then, I consider all of my camera and lens purchases to be for life. Of
course, back then things were made such that with a little care that goal
was not unreasonable.
While anxiously waiting for Maine, here's a quick mid-80s family snap from
mine. Straight scan from a handmade mounted print, no digital
sleight-of-hand. An on-camera gloriously all-manual cheap flash with no
effort (obviously) to control the background - little guys move way too fast
for that. He was interested in me for only about a nanosecond. Tri-X, I
think. And absolutely no computers of any kind were used in the original
making of this photograph.
(Link guaranteed good for about a week. 1280x1024, or higher, required for
full frame viewing...)
http://mysite.verizon.net/kjnadvor/Photos/TLR/YashicaMAT124G.htm
If I remember correctly, when discontinued these cameras were going for $99
each. Today pristine used ones fetch $200-$300 at that auction place.
Why people are happily willing instead to pay $1,500 - $8,000 for the latest
supercomputer-ized digital imaging thingies is an unfathomable mystery to
me...
Ken
Kinon O'cann
>
> Got mine in the 80s when I was in college. And even though I'm currently
> jonesin' for an RB67, I, too, would *never* part with the Yashica. But
> then, I consider all of my camera and lens purchases to be for life. Of
> course, back then things were made such that with a little care that goal
> was not unreasonable.
>
> While anxiously waiting for Maine, here's a quick mid-80s family snap from
> mine. Straight scan from a handmade mounted print, no digital
> sleight-of-hand. An on-camera gloriously all-manual cheap flash with no
> effort (obviously) to control the background - little guys move way too
> fast
> for that. He was interested in me for only about a nanosecond. Tri-X, I
> think. And absolutely no computers of any kind were used in the original
> making of this photograph.
>
> (Link guaranteed good for about a week. 1280x1024, or higher, required
> for
> full frame viewing...)
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/kjnadvor/Photos/TLR/YashicaMAT124G.htm
Cool shot! I love look. It has that typical Tri-X souped in D76 look. Nice
tonality.
>
> If I remember correctly, when discontinued these cameras were going for
> $99
> each. Today pristine used ones fetch $200-$300 at that auction place.
>
> Why people are happily willing instead to pay $1,500 - $8,000 for the
> latest
> supercomputer-ized digital imaging thingies is an unfathomable mystery to
> me...
Guilty as charged. I have a Canon 5D, and love it. Why? I used to make some
serious attempts at home color processing, not because I loved spending
hours and hours in a darkroom, but because I wanted color prints. I tried
Cibachrome, E-6, and unicolor processing. All worked; all were a complete
pain in the ass. Now, with the 5D and an Epson 2200, I can go from pressing
the shutter button to perfect print in minutes. No, I don't miss color
processing. For each Ciba print, I had to stand there and roll that damned
drum for about 20 minutes. Sheer torture. Never again. I'll shoot Ilfor
Delta this weekend, but send the film to Boston for processsing and contact
sheets, thank you. Besides, my home is on septic tank, and I just can't put
all that water and chemical content into the tank. I cannot tell you how
many hours I spend here:
http://home.comcast.net/~xelbon/darkroom.jpg
Tha Yashica Mat 124G is on the desk, staring at me now. For what you pay, it
is a simply wonderful camera, and I honest to God believe everyone should
own one. I guess I've come full circle now.
Tony Polson
>
>If there was a source of 620 film, I would buy one.....
William.
B&H sell 620 film, and 127 film too:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=search&Q=&ci=336
Norm Fleming
620 film is the same size as 120. So if you can find some of the old skinny
620 reels, (junkshop cameras) you can rewind 120 on to them in the darkroom
and they will fit your 620 camera. There are a few tips for doing this on
various web sites - it's simple. Since this film is 6 cm wide it will not
work in a 4x4 camera. You will need 127.
Cheers
NF
William Graham
"Tony Polson" <t...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fb0e02tfal8i9sb7a...@4ax.com...
Thank you.....I thought they had stopped making it several years
ago.......Perhaps Kodak did, and others did not.......
Alan Browne
I get the point, but as bokeh is a lens quality on an other wise
unperturned background and its highlights, I just can't say it's
"bokeh". I do like th treatment of the fire engine in the back, it adds
a dramaic flare (heh-heh) ... but it isn't bokeh.
Cheers,
Alan.
Alan Browne
> What I've recently become aware of is that the more I concentrate on rules
> and technical aspects the worse my photography becomes. Lately it's been
> really lousy. Hopefully I'm getting past that.
The "rulz" for the SI are harldy so imposing that they should affect
your photography. If they do then your "lousiness" is due to other
things...
what does the SI ask for:
.. a photo that answers the mandate as -you- see it.
.. that it be submitted on time ... late entries (a day or two)
usually allowed
.. that it be cropped to the right size
.. that it be from a still camera
If that's ruining your phtography .... hmmm.
Alan Browne
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:jR2Mf.30958$W63.8...@weber.videotron.net...
>
>
>
>>Mark Lauter
>>(http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/56276987)
>>
>>Too soft, too centered, too shallow, over exposed.
>
>
> First - the rule of thirds is bunk. Rules, like type safety, are for the
> weak minded. Second, the subject isn't centered, it's on the top third
> line.
Where did I suggest "rule of thirds"? "Centered" shots work for some
subjects, some time, but certainly should be avoided. Rule of thirds,
DOES work sometimes ... but not always. Compared to "centered", rule of
thirds is better, but not the best approach.
>
> If it appears over exposed then you need to check your monitor settings.
In that the flower petals are washed out / lacking saturation, that
photo is over exposed. Overexposed does not require that something be
blown out. My monitor contrast and brightness are checked/adjusted
every time I do photo work (scanning or digital).
>
>
>>Bokeh is freaky.
>
>
> In what way? I'm sure the lens doesn't have a perfectly circular aperture,
> but the bokeh looks fine to me.
Circular aperture contributes to reducing blade artifacts but does not
improve "bokeh" which is an optical (glass and glass configuration)
issue. I believe this shot would have been improved (subject and bokeh)
had you stopped down a little bit (more, in light of what you say below).
>
>
>>I
>>would suggest that it's not neccessary to shoot wide open to get bokeh
>>and that a subject that has soft edges does not compliment a really
>>smooth bokeh'd BG.
>
>
> It wasn't shot wide open, it was shot very close to the subject at F8 and a
> FL of 55mm.
Then stop down some more! See above.
>
>
> But I do appreciate your comments. :)
But of course!
Alan Browne
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:jR2Mf.30958$W63.8...@weber.videotron.net...
>
>
>
>>Mark Lauter
>>(http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/56276987)
>>
>>Too soft, too centered, too shallow, over exposed.
>
>
> First - the rule of thirds is bunk. Rules, like type safety, are for the
> weak minded.
If, by "type safety" you mean as a code design practice, it is often a
requirement in contracts that strong typing be used. For realtime s/w,
re-entrancy / recursion and task rendezvous are also, contractually,
excluded in some cases that I know very well.
Ada was conceived with very strong (probably the strongest type rules
there are) typing due to the extreme high cost of software non-quality
in past languages employed by the US DoD (mostly by its s/w suppliers),
including COBOL, FORTRAN and many, many, many others. Legacy code
that's over 30 years old is running and with module re-use it will not
be unusual for code to be 50 or more years old. Strong typing will help
assure future compilers will compile bug free.
While I can't say I was a strong typing maven, in some design work it
strengthens the design through well thought out abstraction. A recent
simulator (thermal management system) I designed and coded took full
advantage of strong typing and saved me tons of work as each module was
quickly tested to bugfree before integration with the rest of the
simulation modules. Moreso as I write less than 1000 lines of code per
year now, so a more disciplined approach is more efficient.
Cheers,
Alan