Beyder28 Posted June 22, 2011 Share #1 Posted June 22, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Ok so I dont mean to get in the middle of this heated debate but below is another pic I shot at 160 ISO with the same 50mm cron (same one that I originally posted the PF necklace with to start this thread). Please disregard the subject:D: and instead look at the bokeh, that looks horrible, no?! Granted, I made some adjustments to the image in Aperture. I upped the exposure by one stop, added some contrast and brought out the shadows a bit. Should this happen? This is not what I expected from a lens that people call the "best 50mm in the world." Any help/explanation would be greatly appreciated. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/154956-bokeh/?do=findComment&comment=1709989'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Hi Beyder28, Take a look here Bokeh?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Beyder28 Posted June 22, 2011 Author Share #2 Posted June 22, 2011 I forgot to mention that the background was even worse before I used the denoise slider to .20. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted June 22, 2011 Share #3 Posted June 22, 2011 5 questions: [1] What exactly don't you like about the background? [2] To be able to answer your question well, we need the exposure data, but there is no exif data in the image, nor did you give the data. So what are does data? [3] I do not understand the question: "Should this happen?". It may suggest that you are disappointed by the product. It may also mean that you think there is something wrong with the particular lens that you bought. Or it may mean that you want to understand more about bokeh and what postprocessing does with it, since you did not expect this to happen. So what is your question exactly? [4] Since it is hard to judge a screen image like this, we need a 100% crop from the area you do not like, both before and after post processing. Can you give that? [5] Which 50 mm summicron is it? Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 22, 2011 Share #4 Posted June 22, 2011 I cannot say that I see anything wrong with what the lens did. I do see underexposure and a green/cyan color cast in postprocessing. And you missed critical focus on the eyes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted June 22, 2011 Share #5 Posted June 22, 2011 In that reduced-size web image, background bokeh looks just fine to me in the better part of the image but indeed looks harsh and uneasy in the sunlit parts of the grass at the frame's bottom. This is typical bokeh for a (relatively) fast lens at full aperture and usually will get better when stopping down by half an f-stop or one f-stop with most lenses. Has the image been taken at full aperture? On a more general note ... the days when the Summicron-M 50 mm 1:2 was considered the world's best standard lens for 35-mm-format cameras are gone. Actually, I consider the Summicron the least desirable among the current 50 mm choices. Get the marvellous Summilux-M 50 mm Asph or maybe even a Noctilux-M 50 mm Asph when you need a fast lens; get the wonderful Summarit-M 50 mm 1:2.5 when not. The latter is as sharp as the Summicron (with the possible exception of the farthest corners), it has the smoothest, most natural-looking transition from sharpness to blur I ever encountered in a 50 mm standard lens, it has nice bokeh, and it will flare less in back-lit situations than the flare-prone Summicron. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecar Posted June 22, 2011 Share #6 Posted June 22, 2011 I sort of see what you mean. Trees are somewhat mushy. Probably the result of underexposure and perhaps applying post-processing too aggressively in order to get some life back in the shadows. Nothing wrong or *horrible* with the lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted June 22, 2011 Share #7 Posted June 22, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) the bokeh, that looks horrible, no?! Horrible? No. A bit harsh maybe. It’s the background bokeh of a lens over-corrected for spherical aberration so disks of confusion have a bright ring. Is it that what is bothering you or is it something else? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haich Posted June 22, 2011 Share #8 Posted June 22, 2011 I'd say it's down to underexposing then dragging it up in post. Try re-shooting in nice light and get the exposure spot on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zimboom Posted June 22, 2011 Share #9 Posted June 22, 2011 Ok so I dont mean to get in the middle of this heated debate but below is another pic I shot at 160 ISO with the same 50mm cron (same one that I originally posted the PF necklace with to start this thread). Please disregard the subject:D: and instead look at the bokeh, that looks horrible, no?! Granted, I made some adjustments to the image in Aperture. I upped the exposure by one stop, added some contrast and brought out the shadows a bit. Should this happen? This is not what I expected from a lens that people call the "best 50mm in the world." Any help/explanation would be greatly appreciated. You did not meter for the face. You lost some detail on is hair, color not so good, is ear and lips are same color of the shirt, to much manipulation with your software. Take the pic again and meter is face not the background. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted June 22, 2011 Share #10 Posted June 22, 2011 This is why I carry a little Leica SF24D and assorted diffusors a wee bit of fill would sure help here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted June 22, 2011 Share #11 Posted June 22, 2011 I can detect some purple fringing on the bubbles. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beyder28 Posted June 22, 2011 Author Share #12 Posted June 22, 2011 Thank you guys for the feedback. Especially to those who understood that I was looking for responses to the bokeh and not the subject. The reason the subject looks off is because I was not concentrating on the subject but rather on the bokeh in that background which I noticed in another shot and tried to recreate it. FYI, I did meter for the face. To clarify, what seems off to me in the background is that there is way too much noise for 160 ISO and trees in the background look really mushy and grainy. That is what I was unpleased with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted June 22, 2011 Share #13 Posted June 22, 2011 I can detect some purple fringing on the bubbles. I originally thought that was purple fringe, but I think it is actually thin-film interference ( like the rainbow effect you see in a gasoline spill). Hard to make out the rainbow effect in the bubbles here since they are out of the depth of field. I can't help but comment on the photo (apologies to the OP) but having such a tough-looking guy with bubbles floating around made me smile. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beyder28 Posted June 23, 2011 Author Share #14 Posted June 23, 2011 Then as an artist, I have gotten my desired reaction out of you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted June 23, 2011 Share #15 Posted June 23, 2011 To clarify, what seems off to me in the background is that there is way too much noise for 160 ISO and trees in the background look really mushy and grainy. That is what I was unpleased with. But that’s not bokeh (i.e. something created by the lens) but just shadow noise (created by the sensor, amplified by enhancing the shadows, and not properly suppressed by the raw converter). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted June 23, 2011 Share #16 Posted June 23, 2011 Then as an artist, I have gotten my desired reaction out of you. Yes, that is what it is all about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beyder28 Posted June 23, 2011 Author Share #17 Posted June 23, 2011 But that’s not bokeh (i.e. something created by the lens) but just shadow noise (created by the sensor, amplified by enhancing the shadows, and not properly suppressed by the raw converter). I use Apertuer as my all in one right now for raw conversion along with all other PP. I tried C1 and when I would load files into it, they would come out very "blah" compared to Aperture RAW conversion. Am I doing something wrong? I have heard many on here praising the RAW conversion of C1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted June 23, 2011 Share #18 Posted June 23, 2011 I use Apertuer as my all in one right now for raw conversion along with all other PP. I tried C1 and when I would load files into it, they would come out very "blah" compared to Aperture RAW conversion. Am I doing something wrong? I have heard many on here praising the RAW conversion of C1. Since the complaint has now moved away from the 50 summicron and its bokeh to the software and the rendering of the image and since I got no answers to my questions, I can't help you with the original question you had. But I'm sure you will sort it out, Beyder28 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beyder28 Posted June 26, 2011 Author Share #19 Posted June 26, 2011 5 questions: [1] What exactly don't you like about the background? [2] To be able to answer your question well, we need the exposure data, but there is no exif data in the image, nor did you give the data. So what are does data? [3] I do not understand the question: "Should this happen?". It may suggest that you are disappointed by the product. It may also mean that you think there is something wrong with the particular lens that you bought. Or it may mean that you want to understand more about bokeh and what postprocessing does with it, since you did not expect this to happen. So what is your question exactly? [4] Since it is hard to judge a screen image like this, we need a 100% crop from the area you do not like, both before and after post processing. Can you give that? [5] Which 50 mm summicron is it? Thanks. [1] Mushyness and noise and just not the creamy goodness that I expect from a good Leica Lens [2] F2, 1/500, ISO 160 [3] My question is: Should the background look the way it looks? (Thought that was pretty straight forward:confused:) [4] I really dont think a 100% crop will help at all it will just be mush. But you probably dont need it any more since (hopefully) you now know which part of the image I am referring to. [5] Latest version. Thanks for the help. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beyder28 Posted June 26, 2011 Author Share #20 Posted June 26, 2011 Since the complaint has now moved away from the 50 summicron and its bokeh to the software and the rendering of the image and since I got no answers to my questions, I can't help you with the original question you had. But I'm sure you will sort it out, Beyder28 The reason this went to PP from bokeh is because there is a relationship on some level between the RAW converter used and the rendering of the image and its background. I wanted to see if what I was doing in C1 was off and or forgot to put in a specific profile, etc. which is why I did not get the better results in converting with C1 over Aperture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.