At 1/31/2024 10:18 PM, Moose wrote:
>On 1/26/2024 8:22 AM, Wayne Shumaker wrote:
>>At 1/25/2024 10:23 PM, mOOse wrote:
>>>This year's amaryllis has put up three flower stalks!
>>>
>>>The first one was kinda short and has now collapsed. I took the opportunity
>>>to do some play with lenses for overall rendering and
>>>bokeh.<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Lenses/TTArtisan_&_Oly12-200/ThreeinOne.htm>
>>>
>>>All three are hand stacks. Lots of spots from the dirty window on the
>>>natural bokeh samples. I didn't worry about that, as blurring was
>>>anticipated.
>>>
>>>Tastes will vary as to which is "best".
>>>
>>>A different test n process . . .
>>>
>>>Mixed Results Moose
>>There seems to be a halo effect around two of the top ones.
>>Is that from the stacking?
>
>No; from imperfect masking. As this is one a a series of tests, not a finished
>image, I left them.
>
>>What is different between TTArtisan 100/2.8 and the original below?
>>Same for Nikon NewSoft filter?
>
>The bottom row is as they came out of the camera. The top row is with messed
>with background/bokeh.
>
>I'm working on two, maybe three things. I am a gadget guy. I like things that
>do stuff. Especially, I may like lenses a bit overmuch. A new, or new to me,
>lens is fun. I can handle it, adjust it, put it on a camera, peer at things,
>take pictures . . . so I have a lot of them.
>
>But I also have a problem and a desire.
>
>1 -------------------
>The problem is travel. We usually, pandemics allowing, are gone for 7-9 weeks
>in the fall involving travel across the country and/or an ocean. The vast
>majority of my Alt lenses, esp. my favs, are for FF. The vintage ones and some
>contemporary ones are classic brass and glass â?? big ? heavy.
>
>I can't/won't carry an additional bodyy and a big, heavy bag o' lenses on
>these trips. Not a big problem in new places and on the move. capturing all
>the new stuff in straightforward ways is fine.
>
>OTOH, we revisit many places in the NE. And this year, we caught COVID and
>spent 10 days in self quarantine in Maine. Some alternative imaging options
>would have been fun.
>
>This test was about that. I'm looking for ways to get images on µ4/3 at least
>close to what I can make on FF, preferably with small, light additional gear.
>So the comparison for me is of the Sony Soft filters on my ordinary lens vs.
>the TTArtisans lens.
>
>2 -------------------
>My desire is to make, on FF or smaller gear, photos that are like many old LF
>photos. The particular example I always have in mind is Karsh's famous
>portrait of Winston Churchill. I had plenty of uncrowded time with a full size
>print at Boston's MFA. At normal viewing distance, it had what I might call a
>gentle overall look. Close-up, there was a lot of fine detail, but without
>sharp edges. I remember particularly the folds of skin on his knuckles.
Are you referring to this image?
https://www.artsy.net/artwork/yousuf-karsh-winston-churchill-38
One can zoom in with the mouse scroll wheel.
I noticed that perhaps the hand on the chair is slightly out of the plane of
focus.
But I think I can see what you mean in the face.
>I've thought for a long time that the "look" of these old, LF lenses is, at
>least in part, a function of absolute aperture size and absolute distance to
>film. Diffraction effects don't depend on relative measures such as f-stop.
>Thus, perhaps, the combination of edge softness with detail and great DoF?
>
>Clearly, with conventional lenses on small formats, smaller apertures for
>greater DoF and softness are antithetical. I have LOTS of lenses, both vintage
>and contemporary ones designed for various form of softness, dreaminess,
>swirly or bubbling bokeh. The one thing they all have in common is that all
>their "special" qualities diminish, vanish at small apertures.
>
>In the early '80s, some lenses with adjustable softness came out. I have the
>Canon 85/2.8 Soft Focus and Minolta 85/2.8 Varisoft. Both work the same way,
>optically, by increasing spherical aberrations, though using mechanically
>different operation. With both, as aperture gets smaller, one may up the
>softness setting, part way, anyway.
>
>In my travels I encountered the Nikon Soft filters, and along the way found
>out that Nikon's designer abandoned the lens approach after developing a
>prototype using, guess what, adjustable spherical aberrations, for softness.
>His reasoning was apparently the same as mine. So he developed filters that
>attempt to emulate lens softness, but aren't affected by the aperture of the
>lens behind them. <https://archive.fo/ICZOA>
>
>Some time ago, I tried them out a bit, but something, likely my love of
>gadgets, led me to continue trying lenses. After all, there's nothing to
>fiddle with, adjust, hardly anything to fondle to a filter. ð???
>
>Anyway, I seem to be trying again, looking for a lens with interesting
>rendering at wide apertures and a cross-over to interesting rendering a small
>apertures combined with deep DoF, with a filter. And, of course, I would be
>pleased to manage it all with a µ4/3 compatible lens, with EXIF(?), so I
>don't need yet another body when traveling.
>
>Impossible? Well, I may find out.
>
>That still leaves the problem of bokeh at small apertures. I'm afraid that may
>only be modified in post.
>
>>I guess I'm not quite clear on what you did?
>>I vote for TTArtisan Origiinal bokeh.
>
>Yes, that's very nice. OTOH, the middle top one, regular zoom with filter, is
>rather appealing to me too. The color/contrast can be modified to be more like
>the TTArtisan, if desired. And I can do it with nothing more than a filter!
>
>Swamp Slogging Moose
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I'm not hindered by the FF limit as I have
yet to find a reason to go back to u43. However, I have one lens that is quite
diminutive in LTM (m39), the Topcor-S 1:2 f=5cm. It is quite sharp stopped down
and might be great for travel. I don't have a lot of samples but here are two:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/8XdBSSTB8qZzuk8W6 wide open
https://photos.app.goo.gl/wS99F16N9hVuwkcu5 I think F6.3, or maybe not?, no
sharpening done
Getting close to a LF look I have not thought about. Interesting question. Here
is one person's attempt to recreate LF look:
https://fstoppers.com/diy/how-get-large-format-film-effect-any-digital-camera-568513
Clearly not a portable solution :-)
With large format, an F2.5 lens might be equivalent to an F0.7 lens on smaller
format? Or some such ratio? antithetical as you say.
clueless WayneS
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|