Jump to content
Leica M EV1: Die erste M mit EVF statt Messssucher ×
Leica M EV1: The first M with EVF instead of Rangefinder ×

A walk with a 28mm

M5-User

By M5-User
in Sports & Leisure Time

Recommended Posts

pauledell

pauledell

Posted
Posted

Nice series,

 

Excellent composition, tones and sharpness. Possibly a slightly oversharpened but not by much. Also No. 2 is flat and could use a touch of contrast and darkening control.

Is this eastern downtown area of Indianapolis?

 

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites
M5-User

M5-User

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Nice series,

 

Excellent composition, tones and sharpness. Possibly a slightly oversharpened but not by much. Also No. 2 is flat and could use a touch of contrast and darkening control.

Is this eastern downtown area of Indianapolis?

 

Paul

 

Yes, White River Park, near the NCAA ..

I am going back and changing the sharpening. I noticed this too after I uploaded them.

I am new film scanning.. but all my post is done in ACDSee Pro 3, not the scanning software.

#2 Flat ?? they all look a bit to contrasty to me...:confused:

I'll rework them a bit...

Thanks for the comments... XP2 seems easier to work with between ISO 200-400 IMO

Link to post
Share on other sites
NB23

NB23

Posted
Posted

I have to question the use of the 28mm here. Or at least the 28mm "showcase". It seems all these shots have been severely cropped, therefore killing the 28mm fov and advantage, bringing the images to a 35 and possibly 50mm FOV.

 

So I must ask: Why the "28mm" mention in your title?

 

Also, the very liberal use of the Shadows-highlight tool makes the shadows almost more luminous then the highlights. Why?

Link to post
Share on other sites
M5-User

M5-User

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I have to question the use of the 28mm here. Or at least the 28mm "showcase". It seems all these shots have been severely cropped, therefore killing the 28mm fov and advantage, bringing the images to a 35 and possibly 50mm FOV.

 

So I must ask: Why the "28mm" mention in your title?

 

 

Good Q.

#1: I did crop the extra sky out.. A 35 may been better... no time to change lenses.

#2: was cropped as panoramic... but, the width is fairly true

#3: was cropped a bit more

 

Again, I was just keeping the 28 on an waiting for subjects to move into the image area.

I will have to do the same with my 35mm next time... But, when I shoot candid and such, I use a wider than needed lens at times and crop later.

 

Maybe the title should have been: A walk in the downtown park

 

Thanks for the comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
M5-User

M5-User

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

Also, the very liberal use of the Shadows-highlight tool makes the shadows almost more luminous then the highlights. Why?

 

I over cooked the sharpening. and the contrast may to high also.

I am redoing them.. I am still learning the scanning workflow I need to use. Now, I just scan without any corrections, and do all corrections in post. Plus XP2 @ 50 ISO is harder to work with in post than XP2 @ 200-400 ISO.. to me anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
NB23

NB23

Posted
Posted
Why expose it at 50, it doesnt seem to have worked here? Wouldnt you be better off with an ND filter?

 

Probably just another persistent internet recommendation that's totally erroneous.

Box speed is there for a reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
M5-User

M5-User

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Why expose it at 50, it doesnt seem to have worked here? Wouldnt you be better off with an ND filter?

 

Probably just another persistent internet recommendation that's totally erroneous.

Box speed is there for a reason.

 

The spec sheet says that for finer grain and better highlight detail to expose at 50-100 ISO. But, it looses the finer mid-tones. Plus, it was an experiment to see the results. Better to use a color film like Fuji Realla 100 for B&W conversion later (Since I don't do my own developing). it would be nice to have a C41 ISO 100 B&W film. Not sure on how Kodak BW400CN does at lower ratings. Illford XP2 does fine at 1/2 the rated speed. In fact, ISO 200-640 yields good results.

Link to post
Share on other sites
pauledell

pauledell

Posted
Posted
Nice series,

 

Excellent composition, tones and sharpness. Possibly a slightly oversharpened but not by much. Also No. 2 is flat and could use a touch of contrast and darkening control.

Is this eastern downtown area of Indianapolis?

 

Paul

 

I may have not expressed my comments about picture No. 2 very well. What I am referring to is the tones.If you compare the tones of the brick building near the bridge in No.1 and No.2 then compare them to the tones of the same building in No.3 you will see them to be much lighter. The darker tones of the building in No. 3 look more correct in my opinion. The shadow tones would be better if they were much darker than the highlights which gives more contrast. Do I make any sense with this explaination?

 

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites
NB23

NB23

Posted
Posted
The spec sheet says that for finer grain and better highlight detail to expose at 50-100 ISO. But, it looses the finer mid-tones. Plus, it was an experiment to see the results. Better to use a color film like Fuji Realla 100 for B&W conversion later (Since I don't do my own developing). it would be nice to have a C41 ISO 100 B&W film. Not sure on how Kodak BW400CN does at lower ratings. Illford XP2 does fine at 1/2 the rated speed. In fact, ISO 200-640 yields good results.

 

This is total nonsense.

A film that gives good results anywhere from 200 to 6400 and can be pulled to ISO 50 and still get ok results? So this film is ISO 50-6400?

 

So why use a light meter? Just stick the settings at f5.6@1/1000 and shoot away night and day, regardless of the light. "Good Results" Guaranteed!

Link to post
Share on other sites
M5-User

M5-User

Posted
  • Author
Posted
This is total nonsense.

A film that gives good results anywhere from 200 to 6400 and can be pulled to ISO 50 and still get ok results? So this film is ISO 50-6400?

 

So why use a light meter? Just stick the settings at f5.6@1/1000 and shoot away night and day, regardless of the light. "Good Results" Guaranteed!

 

I said earlier

"The spec sheet says that for finer grain and better highlight detail to expose at 50-100 ISO. But, it looses the finer mid-tones. Plus, it was an experiment to see the results. Better to use a color film like Fuji Realla 100 for B&W conversion later (Since I don't do my own developing). it would be nice to have a C41 ISO 100 B&W film. Not sure on how Kodak BW400CN does at lower ratings. Illford XP2 does fine at 1/2 the rated speed. In fact, ISO 200-640 yields good results."

 

This is a fact...I did not say 50-6400, I said 50-800. Big difference on the high side...

Illford XP2 is a C41 B&W film. If you go to the Illford website, you can read the PDF there. AND, Many have said that XP2 at 50 may be good for highlights and lighter midtones, but shadows have less detail as compared to shooting at 200-400. A C41 B&W film is very versital, but, it has it's problems at either extreme. (Over/Under 1 stop from box rated)

Link to post
Share on other sites
JJKapsberger

JJKapsberger

Posted
Posted

These images don't work.

 

1: Totally insipid. What’s the story? Female walks puppy? Nothing interesting per se. And nothing done compositionally to make the story interesting. The subject’s too small and not positioned well.

 

2: Same: totally insipid story. Poor composition.

 

3: Same: totally insipid. Two people shown from behind doing nothing interesting at all. They’re awkwardly placed in the scene.

 

You’ve cropped all three images excessively and realized nothing interesting in terms of composition. The tonality is unacceptably poor. Can you not see that these images are unsuccessful?

Link to post
Share on other sites
M5-User

M5-User

Posted
  • Author
Posted
the images are good; nice tones - but much too cropped for 28 emphasis in the title - keep posting! :)

Thanks for that...

These were just quick snaps..yes, I cropped a bit...But, I don't always frame, some are hip shots, so I crop those if needed.

I am no pro, and I don't get 10/10 keepers either. As some may indicate by there comments. IE: If is not a "Perfect", don't post.. I tried to see some images from those that posted overly critical comments, (Or, lets say comments that has some valid points, BUT was written with a very "SNOOTY" attitude)..Maybe some Leica owners feel the need to be this way...

 

Anyway... I found NO IMAGES, So, How do I now this guy has anything to show me that is "Better". In Fact, most of this guys posts are "very harsh" for the short amount of time he has been a member here! I'm thick skinned. I just hope that most of you are not "Leica Snobs"...But enjoy the quality of the gear over the name on the gear. That's way I bought a Leica, Quality... Not Brand. If The Russian Feds were quality, I'd get a Fed instead of Leica. If I am out of my league here because I am not "Top Shelve" economically, then, I'll go elsewhere to share with other Leica Communities.

Link to post
Share on other sites
pauledell

pauledell

Posted
Posted

I believe most forum members are trying help the photographer to improve their pictures or give them a different way of seeing.

Do I think your pictures are worthy to post?---Yes

Do I think improvements could be made?------Yes

Do I think your pictures are worthy of ridicule?----Absolutely not.

I hope you don't feel that the ones that suggest changes are "snooty" Leica owners. Perhaps my comments are not always valid. I am only expressing my opinion.

Also, don't let your wonderful Leica camera and lenses master you, you need to master them.

I am very sorry if you have been offended by any comments that have been made and hope you continue to work at your photography and post often.

 

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites
biglouis

biglouis

Posted
Posted

Guys, I know the op asked for comments but c'mon. He only joined in February and it is hardly welcoming or supportive.

 

M5-user, these pictures do appear over-exposed and over-sharpened. Clearly they mean something to you, so perhaps you can explain what they feature and then we can explain whether or not they work for us?

 

Keep posting and over time you will improve and also become more selective in what you post in return.

 

LouisB

Link to post
Share on other sites
M5-User

M5-User

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I believe most forum members are trying help the photographer to improve their pictures or give them a different way of seeing.

Do I think your pictures are worthy to post?---Yes

Do I think improvements could be made?------Yes

Do I think your pictures are worthy of ridicule?----Absolutely not.

I hope you don't feel that the ones that suggest changes are "snooty" Leica owners. Perhaps my comments are not always valid. I am only expressing my opinion.

Also, don't let your wonderful Leica camera and lenses master you, you need to master them.

I am very sorry if you have been offended by any comments that have been made and hope you continue to work at your photography and post often.

 

Paul

 

Your comments are welcome. Not snooty at all. AAMOF, #2 was a bit more difficult to get the tones right. I use ACDSee Pro 3 for 90% of my post... It has a great 9 slider tone control. But, at times, one slider may move more shades of gray then others. I use PSP-X3 for spotting and layers..Already had it, So I find a use for it. It does a better job with healing and cloning than ACDSee Pro 3,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...