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
|
|||
|
|||
Unsharp photography
In article
, eNo wrote: Lately I've been wrestling with the question of whether I'm putting too much emphasis on sharpening in my photos. See some of my musings on the subject at http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=702. ~~~ eNo http://esfotoclix.com/blog1 It matters which part is sharp. That's why photographers who create art can be so picky about lenses. Not just the perfect ones, but the curiously flawed ones too. -- I will not see your reply if you use Google. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Unsharp photography
Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
In article , eNo wrote: Lately I've been wrestling with the question of whether I'm putting too much emphasis on sharpening in my photos. See some of my musings on the subject at http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=702. ~~~ eNo http://esfotoclix.com/blog1 It matters which part is sharp. That's why photographers who create art can be so picky about lenses. Not just the perfect ones, but the curiously flawed ones too. This brings up the topic of portraiture. There were some lenses that were not the sharpest that were sought after for portraiture. Not all blurs were good, but there is a spot profile that does look good for a portrait, that has a narrow central peak, but a lot of stuff out in the wings. A quick approximation are the softening masks made by stretching a fabric screen in front of the lenses. The diffraction blur profile is the proper type blur, and the nets or screens produce this type of blur. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Unsharp photography
Don Stauffer wrote:
Kevin McMurtrie wrote: In article , eNo wrote: Lately I've been wrestling with the question of whether I'm putting too much emphasis on sharpening in my photos. See some of my musings on the subject at http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=702. ~~~ eNo http://esfotoclix.com/blog1 It matters which part is sharp. That's why photographers who create art can be so picky about lenses. Not just the perfect ones, but the curiously flawed ones too. This brings up the topic of portraiture. There were some lenses that were not the sharpest that were sought after for portraiture. Not all blurs were good, but there is a spot profile that does look good for a portrait, that has a narrow central peak, but a lot of stuff out in the wings. There are lenses made specifically for portraiture that introduce a certain amount of spherical aberration. The Lietz Thambar is probably the most famous, but not the only one--there are such lenses in the Canon and Pentax lines and maybe Nikon--I'm not clear on what exactly the "DC" feature on the DC-Nikkors does. A quick approximation are the softening masks made by stretching a fabric screen in front of the lenses. The diffraction blur profile is the proper type blur, and the nets or screens produce this type of blur. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Unsharp photography
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 12:04:07 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote: Don Stauffer wrote: Kevin McMurtrie wrote: In article , eNo wrote: Lately I've been wrestling with the question of whether I'm putting too much emphasis on sharpening in my photos. See some of my musings on the subject at http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=702. ~~~ eNo http://esfotoclix.com/blog1 It matters which part is sharp. That's why photographers who create art can be so picky about lenses. Not just the perfect ones, but the curiously flawed ones too. This brings up the topic of portraiture. There were some lenses that were not the sharpest that were sought after for portraiture. Not all blurs were good, but there is a spot profile that does look good for a portrait, that has a narrow central peak, but a lot of stuff out in the wings. There are lenses made specifically for portraiture that introduce a certain amount of spherical aberration. The Lietz Thambar is probably the most famous, but not the only one--there are such lenses in the Canon and Pentax lines and maybe Nikon--I'm not clear on what exactly the "DC" feature on the DC-Nikkors does. The brochure of the time (yes, I've still got one!) says: "AF DC-Nikkor lenses - Unique Nikkors for unique portraits. AF DC-Nikkors feature exclusive Nikon Defocus-image Control technology. This allows photographers to contro the degree of spherical aberration in the foreground or background by rotating the lens DC ring. This will create a rounded out-of-focus blur that is ideal for portrait photography. No other lenses in the world offer this special technique" A quick approximation are the softening masks made by stretching a fabric screen in front of the lenses. The diffraction blur profile is the proper type blur, and the nets or screens produce this type of blur. Another trick was smearing the front of the lens with vaseline. Eric Stevens |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Unsharp photography
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 12:04:07 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: Don Stauffer wrote: Kevin McMurtrie wrote: In article , eNo wrote: Lately I've been wrestling with the question of whether I'm putting too much emphasis on sharpening in my photos. See some of my musings on the subject at http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=702. ~~~ eNo http://esfotoclix.com/blog1 It matters which part is sharp. That's why photographers who create art can be so picky about lenses. Not just the perfect ones, but the curiously flawed ones too. This brings up the topic of portraiture. There were some lenses that were not the sharpest that were sought after for portraiture. Not all blurs were good, but there is a spot profile that does look good for a portrait, that has a narrow central peak, but a lot of stuff out in the wings. There are lenses made specifically for portraiture that introduce a certain amount of spherical aberration. The Lietz Thambar is probably the most famous, but not the only one--there are such lenses in the Canon and Pentax lines and maybe Nikon--I'm not clear on what exactly the "DC" feature on the DC-Nikkors does. The brochure of the time (yes, I've still got one!) says: "AF DC-Nikkor lenses - Unique Nikkors for unique portraits. AF DC-Nikkors feature exclusive Nikon Defocus-image Control technology. This allows photographers to contro the degree of spherical aberration in the foreground or background by rotating the lens DC ring. This will create a rounded out-of-focus blur that is ideal for portrait photography. No other lenses in the world offer this special technique" A quick approximation are the softening masks made by stretching a fabric screen in front of the lenses. The diffraction blur profile is the proper type blur, and the nets or screens produce this type of blur. Another trick was smearing the front of the lens with vaseline. Most of us stayed with doing that to a filter rather than the front element of a lens. Regardless, those "tricks" are no longer very useful simply because with digital image processing it is so much easier to accomplish with post processing. However... It can be a fun "parlor trick"! It works well enough even if only the camera's LCD display is available, but its much more fun with a laptop handy so that a larger monitor can be viewed. Take a paper napkin, tear a ragged hole roughly about half the size of the front of your lense, and hold it over the lense while shooting a few "head shots". A rubber band will help hold it in place, but even hand held will work. People will think you've had a little too much... until they see the results. If there are out of focus specular highlights it's also interesting to use a pair of scissors to cut a hole with a particular shape, such as a heart or a diamond. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Unsharp photography
"J. Clarke" wrote:
There are lenses made specifically for portraiture that introduce a certain amount of spherical aberration. The Lietz Thambar is probably the most famous, but not the only one--there are such lenses in the Canon and Pentax lines and maybe Nikon--I'm not clear on what exactly the "DC" feature on the DC-Nikkors does. Funny thing is, at one time people used their soft-focus lenses for landscapes and the sharp ones for portraits, then after the death of Pictorialism it switched to being the other way round! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Unsharp photography
Marty Freeman wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote: There are lenses made specifically for portraiture that introduce a certain amount of spherical aberration. The Lietz Thambar is probably the most famous, but not the only one--there are such lenses in the Canon and Pentax lines and maybe Nikon--I'm not clear on what exactly the "DC" feature on the DC-Nikkors does. Funny thing is, at one time people used their soft-focus lenses for landscapes and the sharp ones for portraits, then after the death of Pictorialism it switched to being the other way round! A British landscape photographer whose name I've forgotten used to search the second hand and junk shops for good sharp old lenses which had some tiny bubbles in the glass. As lens technology improved it became impossible to buy such lenses new. The bubbles had the effect of lowering the contrast in the image, and one of his fortes was sunlit landscapes with detail in both the highlights and shadows. -- Chris Malcolm |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Unsharp photography
In article , John Navas
wrote: Nikkor AF 2.0 135 mm DC is another famous portrait lens, considered by many to be one of the very best Nikkor lenses ever. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-best.htm although the 135 dc is a very good lens, listing it along with the 18-200, 18-55 and the 28-80 as the 'best ever' is a joke, not to mention citing kenny boy as a credible source is a joke in and of itself. he even hints his list a joke. the 28-80 is barely even mediocre. the only thing good about that lens is that it's often given away for next to nothing, mainly because very few people would actually pay for one. he's also wrong about it focusing closer and faster than other nikon lenses (and he's on some serious drugs if he thinks it's faster than an af-s lens). in fact, the 18-55, which he also claims is the 'best ever', focuses closer. what's really unfortunate is a lot of people believe his crap. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Unsharp photography
In article , John Navas
wrote: not to mention citing kenny boy as a credible source is a joke in and of itself. he even hints his list a joke. Not so. very much so. citing a reference where the referenced individual brags about fabricating information just for kicks is a joke. it ranks right up there with citing a tabloid newspaper as a reference. it didn't even take long to find a couple of errors on that page, and i didn't even look all that hard. i'm sure there are many more lurking, just as kenny says there will be. http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up things lurking...The only thing I do guarantee is that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does The Onion. that is certainly *not* an attribute one associates with a credible reference. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Unsharp photography
In article , John Navas
wrote: citing a reference where the referenced individual brags about fabricating information just for kicks is a joke. it ranks right up there with citing a tabloid newspaper as a reference. it didn't even take long to find a couple of errors on that page, and i didn't even look all that hard. i'm sure there are many more lurking, just as kenny says there will be. http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up things lurking...The only thing I do guarantee is that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does The Onion. that is certainly *not* an attribute one associates with a credible reference. I hope you'll forgive me for having far more respect for him than I have for you, an anonymous poster with no credentials at all who bashes people who do have them. it has nothing to do with me, who i am or my credentials, nor am i bashing anyone. ken *himself* admits he's a liar. *he* made the statement, not me. if anyone is bashing anyone, it's ken bashing ken. i'm only citing *his* claim. since you think he's credible, you have to accept that what he writes is correct, including statements about himself. you can't pick which ones to accept and which ones to reject. furthermore, there are statements on the page you linked that are factually incorrect, which can easily be determined by looking at nikon's specs for the various lenses. if *nikon* says it's wrong, it's wrong. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unsharp photography | Robert Spanjaard | Digital Photography | 0 | September 25th 09 11:47 PM |
Unsharp photography | Floyd L. Davidson | Digital Photography | 0 | September 25th 09 11:07 PM |
D70: unsharp pics | thijs | 35mm Photo Equipment | 35 | November 2nd 04 03:06 PM |
D 70: unsharp? | thijs | Digital Photography | 15 | November 1st 04 05:44 AM |
Unsharp Mask | BenOne© | Digital Photography | 35 | October 20th 04 09:00 PM |