If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
ThomasH wrote:
Alan Browne wrote: warning: large files (4+ and 5+ MB resp.). http://konicaminolta.com/products/co...eimage001.html This AF 50mm f/2.8 Macro lens has a nice bokeh! Not sure that that photo is a good bokeh test. Put some foliage in the back under direct sunlight with the subject in shade and then you'll have a good bokeh test. -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
ThomasH wrote:
Alan Browne wrote: warning: large files (4+ and 5+ MB resp.). http://konicaminolta.com/products/co...eimage001.html This AF 50mm f/2.8 Macro lens has a nice bokeh! Not bad. I'd like to see a shot with more sunlit folliage in the BG to really see it ... OTOH not a lens I would buy... Cheers, Alan -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Magnus W wrote:
Alan Browne wrote in : Magnus W wrote: Judging from the only sample picture, which is half size, it's good. Where did you see an ISO 1600 sample? Got a link? It is on a japanese site, but the site is expecting high traffic and is totally inaccessible right now. I managed to get 3/4 of the image down but then my resuming program wouldn't resume anymore, overwriting the file :-P Could I have the _link_, please. -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Magnus W wrote:
Alan Browne wrote in : Magnus W wrote: Judging from the only sample picture, which is half size, it's good. Where did you see an ISO 1600 sample? Got a link? It is on a japanese site, but the site is expecting high traffic and is totally inaccessible right now. I managed to get 3/4 of the image down but then my resuming program wouldn't resume anymore, overwriting the file :-P Could I have the _link_, please. -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Browne wrote:
2. The shutter speed was 1/160 which is the max x-sync for the camera. The camera would not know if a studio light was used (triggered by PC sync, that is a shutter system dumb contact which the s/w would not know about). EXIF records built-in flash or mounted flash action. Good points Alan. (You're smarter than I thought you were. ;-) I wonder why the EXIF didn't state focus distance? It says unknown. I'd assume this was taken by the 85/1.4 lens, and furthermore would assume that Minolta has the D version available, which should have reported distance to subject, eh? 3. It could have been diffused natural light ... the shot is 2.3 stops open from sunny-16. The scene behind the lady suggests outdoor siding so could have been a screened in porch area or similar. Zoom in on her eye and it sure looks like a softbox signature, however ... could be a window also. I'd say window. The background looks like a curtain to me. That pomegranate picture is a bad example if you ask me, as most of the picture is out of focus. Canon had some similarly poor shots when the EOS-1Ds first came out. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Browne wrote:
2. The shutter speed was 1/160 which is the max x-sync for the camera. The camera would not know if a studio light was used (triggered by PC sync, that is a shutter system dumb contact which the s/w would not know about). EXIF records built-in flash or mounted flash action. Good points Alan. (You're smarter than I thought you were. ;-) I wonder why the EXIF didn't state focus distance? It says unknown. I'd assume this was taken by the 85/1.4 lens, and furthermore would assume that Minolta has the D version available, which should have reported distance to subject, eh? 3. It could have been diffused natural light ... the shot is 2.3 stops open from sunny-16. The scene behind the lady suggests outdoor siding so could have been a screened in porch area or similar. Zoom in on her eye and it sure looks like a softbox signature, however ... could be a window also. I'd say window. The background looks like a curtain to me. That pomegranate picture is a bad example if you ask me, as most of the picture is out of focus. Canon had some similarly poor shots when the EOS-1Ds first came out. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Browne wrote in
: Could I have the _link_, please. http://article.pchome.net/2004/09/15/PICT0050.JPG |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Tuthill wrote:
Alan Browne wrote: 2. The shutter speed was 1/160 which is the max x-sync for the camera. The camera would not know if a studio light was used (triggered by PC sync, that is a shutter system dumb contact which the s/w would not know about). EXIF records built-in flash or mounted flash action. Good points Alan. (You're smarter than I thought you were. ;-) You have no idea! ;-) I wonder why the EXIF didn't state focus distance? It says unknown. I'd assume this was taken by the 85/1.4 lens, and furthermore would assume that Minolta has the D version available, which should have reported distance to subject, eh? Yes that's the lens per the page (85mm f/1.4 D) http://konicaminolta.com/products/co...mpleimage.html There are a few EXIF tags there with numbers, I suspect one of them is the distance ... hang on a minute ... 37396 = 0x9214 value = 1504 (milimeters from subject?) or 1504/256 = 5.875 ... feet? tag 41989 = 0xA405 value = 127 (no idea) The EXIF def ( http://it.jeita.or.jp/document/publi...lish/Exife.pdf ) shows subject distance as being in tag 37382 (0x9206)... which does not appear in the EXIF with the image that I can see. The two tags above are not defined. So ... not sure at all... 3. It could have been diffused natural light ... the shot is 2.3 stops open from sunny-16. The scene behind the lady suggests outdoor siding so could have been a screened in porch area or similar. Zoom in on her eye and it sure looks like a softbox signature, however ... could be a window also. I'd say window. The background looks like a curtain to me. with those perfect horizontal lines ... don't think so ... wallpaper maybe. That pomegranate picture is a bad example if you ask me, as most of the picture is out of focus. Canon had some similarly poor shots when the EOS-1Ds first came out. It also has blown out highlights on the second piece of fruit suggesting that to get that lovely color and texture they over expd slightly ... not much margin on the high end with digital. I've noticed that the full DOF photos at dpreview are usually a bit dull to look at. The marketing photos with narrower DOF usually have a prominent colorful (or lovely) subject with oof bg to emphasize the subject. Cheers, Alan -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Tuthill wrote:
Alan Browne wrote: 2. The shutter speed was 1/160 which is the max x-sync for the camera. The camera would not know if a studio light was used (triggered by PC sync, that is a shutter system dumb contact which the s/w would not know about). EXIF records built-in flash or mounted flash action. Good points Alan. (You're smarter than I thought you were. ;-) You have no idea! ;-) I wonder why the EXIF didn't state focus distance? It says unknown. I'd assume this was taken by the 85/1.4 lens, and furthermore would assume that Minolta has the D version available, which should have reported distance to subject, eh? Yes that's the lens per the page (85mm f/1.4 D) http://konicaminolta.com/products/co...mpleimage.html There are a few EXIF tags there with numbers, I suspect one of them is the distance ... hang on a minute ... 37396 = 0x9214 value = 1504 (milimeters from subject?) or 1504/256 = 5.875 ... feet? tag 41989 = 0xA405 value = 127 (no idea) The EXIF def ( http://it.jeita.or.jp/document/publi...lish/Exife.pdf ) shows subject distance as being in tag 37382 (0x9206)... which does not appear in the EXIF with the image that I can see. The two tags above are not defined. So ... not sure at all... 3. It could have been diffused natural light ... the shot is 2.3 stops open from sunny-16. The scene behind the lady suggests outdoor siding so could have been a screened in porch area or similar. Zoom in on her eye and it sure looks like a softbox signature, however ... could be a window also. I'd say window. The background looks like a curtain to me. with those perfect horizontal lines ... don't think so ... wallpaper maybe. That pomegranate picture is a bad example if you ask me, as most of the picture is out of focus. Canon had some similarly poor shots when the EOS-1Ds first came out. It also has blown out highlights on the second piece of fruit suggesting that to get that lovely color and texture they over expd slightly ... not much margin on the high end with digital. I've noticed that the full DOF photos at dpreview are usually a bit dull to look at. The marketing photos with narrower DOF usually have a prominent colorful (or lovely) subject with oof bg to emphasize the subject. Cheers, Alan -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Magnus W wrote:
Alan Browne wrote in : Could I have the _link_, please. http://article.pchome.net/2004/09/15/PICT0050.JPG Thanks ... you're right it is slow.. I'll keep plugging at it. -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
3rd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr | Thad | 35mm Photo Equipment | 31 | December 14th 04 05:45 AM |
RFD: rec.photo.dslr | Thad | Digital Photography | 21 | September 5th 04 02:22 AM |
Submitting Digital images | dperez@juno_nospam.com | Digital Photography | 27 | September 1st 04 02:32 PM |
Make Professional Quality Posters from Your Digital Images | gerry4La | Other Photographic Equipment | 0 | June 22nd 04 05:03 AM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 10:51 PM |