Jack_Flesher Posted October 2, 2007 Share #1 Posted October 2, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I posted some M8 images over in the "people" photo section where the thread will probably die a rapid death. But they are M8 images taken in really high-contrast light if you're interested. Here's a link to save you click time: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/35296-m8-50-pre-asph-lux.html#post368899 Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 2, 2007 Posted October 2, 2007 Hi Jack_Flesher, Take a look here M8 in high-contrast light. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
carstenw Posted October 2, 2007 Share #2 Posted October 2, 2007 Great pics, very cute. Did you do anything special to develop them? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkie Posted October 2, 2007 Share #3 Posted October 2, 2007 Nice captures. The lad forgot to bring his ladder Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack_Flesher Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share #4 Posted October 2, 2007 Great pics, very cute. Did you do anything special to develop them? Thanks Carsten. Nothing special at all --- CS3 B&W adjustment layer and hit the "auto" button. I really love this camera for B&W Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack_Flesher Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share #5 Posted October 2, 2007 Nice captures. The lad forgot to bring his ladder Heck, I think he planned it that way! LOLOL! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 2, 2007 Share #6 Posted October 2, 2007 It's good isn't it. Before I moved to digital I shot mainly b&w and I'm loving the results I'm getting from M8 b&w conversions. That's probably just a psycological thing as I can't see why they should be better than from the Canon DSLRs that I've owned. Maybe I'm just enjoying photography more now that I'm back using a rangefinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
smsmd Posted October 2, 2007 Share #7 Posted October 2, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi Jack, At the risk of asking a silly question, did you convert them to B/W as an artistic choice or did the high-contrast lighting affect the decision? With high contrast, will B/W turn out better in general? Thanks, steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill vann Posted October 2, 2007 Share #8 Posted October 2, 2007 Nice Jack, I shot over 2000 wedding in my career and loved these special moments and focused on capturing them for the bridal couple. (they also sold well ! ) been under the weather, some complications from the back surgery. have you posted anything for the 90 you got from me? Having had a camera with the latitude of the M8 i must say finding something somewhat suitable in the ultralight category is proving difficult. Oly makes very good glass but the e-510 metering is bad and the camera blows the highlights much to easily in contrasty lighting. bill van Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack_Flesher Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share #9 Posted October 2, 2007 Hi Jack, At the risk of asking a silly question, did you convert them to B/W as an artistic choice or did the high-contrast lighting affect the decision? With high contrast, will B/W turn out better in general? Thanks, steve It was simply artistic choice. He is in black, she in white and the background and other elements are irrelevant IMO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack_Flesher Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share #10 Posted October 2, 2007 have you posted anything for the 90 you got from me? Hi Bill: Nothing yet... I have been shooting primarily with the 75 as my long lens choice as I actually find the 90 a tad long for my style. But if I get something I will post it! And best wishes for a speedy recovery! Jack Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted October 2, 2007 Share #11 Posted October 2, 2007 Jack, I posted the same question that Carsten did, above, but in the referenced post. So, let me ask my question a different way. I am interested in working with the high dynamic range option in the v4-beta of C1. Do you think this kind of photo would work well with HDR processing? Geez, every day a new homework assignment.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted October 2, 2007 Share #12 Posted October 2, 2007 Jack - The photographs are utterly charming of course, but the tenor of your post is that the M8 handled extremely harsh light very well. Whist I recognise that the light conditions were severe for digital capture, I would have thought that electing to blow highlights in order to gain these otherwise lovely images worked against your assumption. I mean absolutely no disrespect to you, but I would have thought that in print, rather than on screen, that those blown highlights would have rendered your images poorly. The kids are a couple of heart melters though. ................ Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack_Flesher Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share #13 Posted October 2, 2007 Jack, I posted the same question that Carsten did, above, but in the referenced post. So, let me ask my question a different way. I am interested in working with the high dynamic range option in the v4-beta of C1. Do you think this kind of photo would work well with HDR processing? Geez, every day a new homework assignment.... You certainly could do that, but I'm not sure you'd need to with these. Contrary to the print comment after yours, these look great as-is becuse in the base file none of the whites are fully blown -- that was the point of my post here. So if you did use HDR processing methods, you'd really only gain added shadow detail in these --- which may be desireable. Also, if one is going into the situation KNOWING they are going to do HDR processing, we might have dialed in minus-2/3 then processed for the shadows. Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted October 2, 2007 Share #14 Posted October 2, 2007 ..... Contrary to the print comment after yours, these look great as-is becuse in the base file none of the whites are fully blown -- that was the point of my post here........, Jack - As this quote is aimed at my posted criticism, then I'm delighted to hear that the whites are not blown. I am on a Mac, and used Mac's Digital Colour Meter to check what the whites were doing. So perhaps I need a tutorial on what numbers the Digital Colour Meter is seeing as it measured brightest whites in your posted images as 255, 255, 255. I have never questioned the accuracy of Digital Colour Meter because my files numbers are always measured within Photoshop; I find the disparity odd. So I'm pleased [for all our sakes] to be corrected, I apologise for adding confusion. ................... Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 2, 2007 Share #15 Posted October 2, 2007 Chris you may want to switch your gamma to 2.2 on the Mac Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted October 2, 2007 Share #16 Posted October 2, 2007 Guy -Thanks, but that doesn't explain the disparity; I switched quite some time ago. ................. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 2, 2007 Share #17 Posted October 2, 2007 Safari or Firefox they will render different Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkie Posted October 2, 2007 Share #18 Posted October 2, 2007 Heck, I think he planned it that way! LOLOL! LOL, he will go far in life bless him Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack_Flesher Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share #19 Posted October 2, 2007 So perhaps I need a tutorial on what numbers the Digital Colour Meter is seeing as it measured brightest whites in your posted images as 255, 255, 255. Note I said "in the base file" !!! I convert my DNG to a 16-bit tiff in Prophoto, then from there work on it and finally convert it to the onscreen 8-bit sRGB jpeg you see here. On the jpegs, I'll set the levels so the tails hit 000 black and 255,255,255 white so you get as full a tonal range as possible onscreen (blown whites don't look as bad onscreen as they do in a print, at least IMO.) Also, if there is what I consider to be irrelevant data in the onscreen jpeg, I may push the limits a bit to give more tonality in the main subject --- in this case, the last image has a guy in white pants is standing in the sunlight, but in the background --- I let his pants blow because it was simpler (I was being lazy) than masking them out whiel I boosted the kids for the web post Similar with the very first image --- the little girl is in direct sun and it is bright, so for web I let it go a bit. Actually the first image is the worst, since the girl is in bright white and in direct sun close to the camera. There is actually a small area in her hair --- surprisingly NOT the dress --- that is blown out. I have another that is better on exposure, but not as good on composition. Since this was a quickie post, I went for the better composition. In print, it is actually still good enough and I could still use this image by applying a few simple post-production tricks to make it look right on paper. Hope that clarifies! Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted October 3, 2007 Share #20 Posted October 3, 2007 ....Hope that clarifies! ... Jack - Indeed it does. Thank you. ................. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.