jaapv Posted February 26, 2018 Share #121 Posted February 26, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) OK gents, you have both had your say. Bear in mind that fighting is forbidden. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 26, 2018 Posted February 26, 2018 Hi jaapv, Take a look here Shooting Wide Open. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted February 26, 2018 Share #122 Posted February 26, 2018 I would suggest that this subject is closed. Posts deleted. We do not need to discuss fellow forum members here in this manner. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adli Posted February 26, 2018 Share #123 Posted February 26, 2018 For portraiture of a single person I only very rarely see a good reason to stop down. Actually portraits at f/5.6 can in many instances prove to be much nicer that at f/0.95. you should try it. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted March 1, 2018 Share #124 Posted March 1, 2018 (edited) I was reading some Thorsten Overgaard and he mentioned he always shoots wide open. His theory is, why pay for a Noctilux if you are always stopped down to f/4. So it got me thinking, does everyone generally subscribe to this same idea? Shoot wide open whenever possible? I do not always shoot wide open with my f/1.0 Noctilux; sometimes a smaller aperture works best for what I am trying to accomplish in a particular image. I would say that I shoot wide open perhaps 70-75% of the time but I will shoot stopped down when it serves my purposes to do so. Thorsten has his ideas and they are usually reasonably well thought out but they are not the immutable laws of the universe. In photography as in life, it is important to learn to think for yourself. Edited March 1, 2018 by Herr Barnack 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 1, 2018 Share #125 Posted March 1, 2018 (edited) If you have a few dollars and wish an adventure you might enjoy the 50mm Sonnetar ƒ1.1 If you can find one. Edited March 1, 2018 by pico Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gelatino Posted March 2, 2018 Share #126 Posted March 2, 2018 https://www.ebay.fr/itm/MS-Optical-R-D-Sonnetar-MC-1-1-50-50-50mm-F1-1-1-1-M39-LTM-M-39-prototype-no-000/391839460565?hash=item5b3b73acd5:g:CB8AAOSwf~9ZaQ1Z Here for "few dollars". Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 2, 2018 Share #127 Posted March 2, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) https://www.ebay.fr/itm/MS-Optical-R-D-Sonnetar-MC-1-1-50-50-50mm-F1-1-1-1-M39-LTM-M-39-prototype-no-000/391839460565?hash=item5b3b73acd5:g:CB8AAOSwf~9ZaQ1Z Here for "few dollars". That's the prototype for collectors. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwelland Posted September 6, 2022 Share #128 Posted September 6, 2022 (edited) I am fortunate to own a Porsche, Ferrari and a Range Rover. None of which I have to, or will drive wide open all the time. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you always should. That said, I only shoot my 0.95 Noctilux wide open 🤦♂️ Edited September 6, 2022 by gwelland 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdolzani Posted September 6, 2022 Share #129 Posted September 6, 2022 (edited) I've been looking at Mark de Paola's photos and he's a Noctilux user. His style is the opposite of my natural inclination towards important (imo) context and careful/thoughtful composition (move yourself or your subject if there's a tree coming out of heads - vs blurring it). But that's also my street style vs his fashion style. However his photos to me are intriguing (perhaps simply due to subject matter...). He has referenced a couple books that I recently bought used, having to do with how the eye and brain perceives the world, and scientists have found (apologies for lame reference) that much of our emotion lies in our peripheral vision and 'out of focus' parts. Which in Mark's view leads him towards the Noctilux style image. I'm intrigued, as I would like to impart emotion into my images, yet relying on an almost out of reach ($$) specific lens to do so is again, intriguing yet dubious. Just commenting here because I'm willing to dive into the wide-open world, and find the 'reasons' to be fascinating, yet on one hand I also feel it's harder to NOT shoot wide open and making intriguing, emotional images. thoughts? brian Edited September 6, 2022 by bdolzani Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Brown Posted September 6, 2022 Share #130 Posted September 6, 2022 There was merch like T-shirts and coffee mugs endorsed by Peter Karbe himself with bold letters "/0.95 STOP DOWN FOR WHAT?" 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobert Posted September 6, 2022 Share #131 Posted September 6, 2022 7 hours ago, gwelland said: I am fortunate to own a Porsche, Ferrari and a Range Rover. None of which I have to, or will drive wide open all the time. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you always should. That said, I only shoot my 0.95 Noctilux wide open 🤦♂️ We can shake hands. I have a Fiat 500, two cylindros. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtai Posted September 6, 2022 Share #132 Posted September 6, 2022 13 minutes ago, bdolzani said: I've been looking at Mark de Paola's photos and he's a Noctilux user. His style is the opposite of my natural inclination towards important (imo) context and careful/thoughtful composition (move yourself or your subject if there's a tree coming out of heads - vs blurring it). But that's also my street style vs his fashion style. However his photos to me are intriguing (perhaps simply due to subject matter...). He has referenced a couple books that I recently bought used, having to do with how the eye and brain perceives the world, and scientists have found (apologies for lame reference) that much of our emotion lies in our peripheral vision and 'out of focus' parts. Which in Mark's view leads him towards the Noctilux style image. I'm intrigued, as I would like to impart emotion into my images, yet relying on an almost out of reach ($$) specific lens to do so is again, intriguing yet dubious. Just commenting here because I'm willing to dive into the wide-open world, and find the 'reasons' to be fascinating, yet on one hand I also feel it's harder to NOT shoot wide open and making intriguing, emotional images. thoughts? brian Before I goggled Mark de Paola I already guessed the subject matter. David Hamilton did it with Vaseline on a $80 Minolta lens. If you don’t blur the naughty bits then it’s not really art I guess. I once did an experiment sampling nudie images from *cough*cough gentleman magazines and superimposed them by multiple exposures over shapes and colors to de-emphasise the sexy parts. Turned out quite well. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaeger Posted September 6, 2022 Share #133 Posted September 6, 2022 (edited) On 2/26/2018 at 3:16 AM, jaapv said: Bear in mind that fighting is forbidden. I guess I missed a lot of fun. Edited September 6, 2022 by jaeger Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.