Logic be damned I bought an ND

[lotusflower]

Mark, I c what u mean about light capture with compensation. If that's what the MkII and Zeiss can do at the ISO 3200 with 60 2.8 Zeiss imagine the possibilities with the 35/1.4. or1.2 and wider. Questions. 1.The planters and poles were they white or tinted light green? They both show some green on my screen perhaps it's the green light reflecting on both. 2. How does the MKII handle blacks? The photo depicts black on smoking woman as a bit washed in addition to the front of canopy. Perhaps my screen is not calibrated properly.

In any case I can infer a lot from the photo because it is good ex&le of a complicated lighting shot using the 60 2.8 lens and without the use of flash unit. Photo is very helpful, thanks. If I decide on the MKII I will have to intensify my weight lifting routines : )

 

[fotografz]

The green tint was there from the green sign and pole lights. The washed blacks must be the difference in monitors. I did lighten the areas you mentioned, so maybe I shouldn't have ; -)

 

[lotusflower]

Thanks DJ.

Pardon my ignorance but can someone tell me what AFAIK means. I think AF means auto. focus but that it.

Also has any member of this forum posted a complex, same day scene, shot with 1DII and ND using comparable Zeiss lenses? The reason I ask is because I have noticed from the photos posted that there is a difference when the Zeiss lenses are used with the 1DIIs' and ND.

It appears that for bright, sunny days the 1DII compensation must be reduced otherwise photos appear far to bright, and often too contrasty at least on my screen.

DJ, on my screen some of your photos are displaying far too contrasty, an almost overprocessed appearance, most paricularly the last photo your posted here. Ex. The mid-section where overgrowth meets the water is quite contrasty and bright, and the right, left and water where there is reflection of the overgrowth is also far too bright and contrasty. This is not a critizism as I am assuming the cause to be a monitor issue, perhaps mine.

Mark and DJ can you tell me what monitor you both use. I use an Apple cinema 23" Perhaps I need to recalibrate.

Dirk, you outlined Zeiss's dilema precisely. If Zeiss remains in contract with Kyocera and Kyocera refuses to release Zeiss then Contax brand is dead at least until contract expires. I cannot imagine Canon or Sony wanting to take up the Contax brand when Canon is benefitting from this situation and Sony is not. Zeiss will have to convince Kyocera to release them from the contract or partner with Cosina for the next few years. The ND is where I see the real difficulties for users. Personally, I would like to see a serious ND upgrade that I can use but sadly that is unlikely at least for the next few years.

 

[nickser]

As Far As I Know it means this!

 

[djg]

G., I use dual ViewSonic P225f tube monitors, calibrated via Spyder 2 Pro from ColorVision.

What does this look like in your set up?

I can barely differentiate the leftmost two squares.

 

[lotusflower]

DJ,

I can clearly see the diff. the last block on the left is nearly black and the second to the left is dark grey. White is very white

 

[fotografz]

G Ashton, two 23" Apple cinemas. Look at the shot of Irakly lighting a cigarette. Is it washed out at all? Because that one I know is right on the money. There is a full tonal range in the shots of DJ outdoors, and the nighttime shot I just printed to check the darks, is right on. Perhaps your monitor is set to bright? Mine is calibrated to match a bunch of Art Directors that work for me.

DJ, your last two shots look over sharpened to me. BTW, I see all the gradations in your gray scale perfectly.

 

[lotusflower]

Paul, thanks for the explanation.

Mark, your photos are displaying perfectly. I viewed the pic of Irakely and all the others & they display beautifully, no wash out at all except for the minor areas mentioned earlier, and even there it was no big deal as I was mainly interested in lighting. Perhaps your pics are displaying so well because we are using the same displays.

DJ, Mark used the correct term, the photo appears to overly sharpened, that's what I meant when I referred to it as appearing overly-white and contrasty in certain places. I meant to write overly-enhanced but thought better of it in the event that the photos was not enhanced at all. I only mention it because I would like to ensure that I am viewing everyones photos as each were meant to be viewed. Please beleive I am in no way critiquing as I do not believe myself to be qualified.

 

[lotusflower]

Mark, I revisited the Irakely photo for study and only now noticed that you actually captured the smoke. Wonderful. I cannot believe the fine tonal range and sharpness that the MkII with Zeiss lens produces. Really fabulous.

DJ- the photos of Mark also show beautifully, nice, complex daylight shot. skin tonal range exquisite. Sharpness, contrast and clarity superb. Those photos demonstrate well the MKII with Zeiss. I can now do a comparison with ND in daylight. If only these results and night shooting could be had with an upgraded ND.

 

[djg]

Marc wins the award

. I only used the Raw plugin sharpening, but rather than my normal use of the default 25%, based on comments regarding the 1DsII looking soft in outbackphoto.com, this batch I used 75% to experiment. Here's a look at 25%:

My guess is that the extremely fine detailed nature of the image doesn't take the sharpening as well as a smoother content would. I think also the Jpeg compression is killing some of the smoothness. I think I'll end up at 50%.