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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=39064364 Looks very "busy." You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your inability to comprehend written material. -- Peter |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
Rich perhaps likes the diffused and bland background of a typical and boring
studio shot. To each his own. "PeterN" wrote in message ... On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=39064364 Looks very "busy." You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your inability to comprehend written material. -- Peter |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
On 09/08/2011 22:41, PeterN wrote:
On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=39064364 Looks very "busy." You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your inability to comprehend written material. You really like the bokeh in the first photo? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
On 2011-08-09 15:46:46 -0700, OG said:
On 09/08/2011 22:41, PeterN wrote: On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=39064364 Looks very "busy." You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your inability to comprehend written material. You really like the bokeh in the first photo? There is more to this than condemning a lens on one piece of work from one photographer, and posted with unknown exposure data. The result is more likely to be due to photographer error and unfamiliarity with his equipment, than an issue with the lens. It is quite possible the photographer had no idea what he was going to end up with, and didn't even notice the quality of the bokeh, or even understood what bokeh is. Rich is going to find fault with anything, and everything. That is his role in this World. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:41:52 -0400, PeterN
wrote: : On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote: : http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=39064364 : : Looks very "busy." : : You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your : inability to comprehend written material. Actually, I sort of agree with Rich. It looks like it's raining half dollars and Canadian doubloonies in the background. Of course if somebody actually is dumping coins for effect, that's a different matter. But it is distracting. Bob |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
On 8/9/2011 6:46 PM, OG wrote:
On 09/08/2011 22:41, PeterN wrote: On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=39064364 Looks very "busy." You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your inability to comprehend written material. You really like the bokeh in the first photo? Not really, but some small touch up would be nice, and there are others that are fine. -- Peter |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
On 8/9/2011 7:37 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:41:52 -0400, wrote: : On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote: : http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=39064364 : : Looks very "busy." : : You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your : inability to comprehend written material. Actually, I sort of agree with Rich. It looks like it's raining half dollars and Canadian doubloonies in the background. Of course if somebody actually is dumping coins for effect, that's a different matter. But it is distracting. But that was only one shot out of a series. See the Duck's comment. -- Peter |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 01:51:36 +0100, Bruce wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote: : : On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:41:52 -0400, PeterN : wrote: : : On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote: : : http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=39064364 : : : : Looks very "busy." : : : : You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your : : inability to comprehend written material. : : Actually, I sort of agree with Rich. It looks like it's raining half dollars : and Canadian doubloonies in the background. Of course if somebody actually is : dumping coins for effect, that's a different matter. But it is distracting. : : : +1 here. : : For a lens that is specifically designed for portraiture, and should : reasonably be expected to produce pleasantly blurred out of focus : highlights, this is a poor result. : : For an top quality state-of-the-art nano-coated multi-aspheric lens : costing $1800, it is a major disappointment. : : When will more people realise that they can get better bokeh - and : almost equally good sharpness - from a Samyang/Rokinon lens costing : ONE SIXTH of the price? Surely learning how to focus manually is : worth a $1500 saving? For the kind of event work I do, I'd never be able to keep up if I had to focus manually. For posed portraits, sure. But my wife's Canon 60mm f/2.8 macro is a decent portrait lens with AF and nice bokeh, and I'm pretty sure I paid less than $500 for it. Bob |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
Bruce wrote:
Robert wrote: On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:41:52 -0400, wrote: : On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote: : http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=39064364 : : Looks very "busy." : : You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your : inability to comprehend written material. Actually, I sort of agree with Rich. It looks like it's raining half dollars and Canadian doubloonies in the background. Of course if somebody actually is dumping coins for effect, that's a different matter. But it is distracting. +1 here. For a lens that is specifically designed for portraiture, and should reasonably be expected to produce pleasantly blurred out of focus highlights, this is a poor result. For an top quality state-of-the-art nano-coated multi-aspheric lens costing $1800, it is a major disappointment. Nah, nobody claimed it had magic bokeh angels included. When will more people realise that they can get better bokeh Got anything to substantiate that? - and almost equally good sharpness - from a Samyang/Rokinon lens costing ONE SIXTH of the price? Surely learning how to focus manually is worth a $1500 saving? http://preview.tinyurl.com/3qpv56d or: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...ical_Lens.html |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
"Charles" wrote in
: Rich perhaps likes the diffused and bland background of a typical and boring studio shot. To each his own. I don't like bokeh that seems to invoke great motion. A couple Voigtlander lenses I've used have been similar, but stop them down 2 stops and they look great. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Jews, he should pour dark smogs before the quiet brave foothill, whilst Lionel locally laughs them too, Rich Dumb Dominatrix. | Big Rich Soprano | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | June 27th 06 10:38 AM |
[SI] Dumb Dummy I am wastefully healthy, so I irritate you. oysPd3u2NDw Dumb Dummy | Lionel Lauer | Digital Photography | 0 | April 10th 06 07:15 PM |
Dumb, dumb dumb Qestion | David Napierkowski | Digital Photography | 2 | October 30th 04 09:43 PM |