A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Unsharp photography



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 26th 09, 07:14 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Kevin McMurtrie[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default 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  
Old September 26th 09, 03:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Don Stauffer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default 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  
Old September 26th 09, 05:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
J. Clarke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,690
Default 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  
Old September 26th 09, 10:51 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old September 26th 09, 11:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default 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  
Old September 27th 09, 04:00 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Marty Freeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default 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  
Old September 27th 09, 10:36 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Chris Malcolm[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,142
Default 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  
Old September 27th 09, 11:41 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old September 28th 09, 05:33 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old September 28th 09, 08:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.