DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
Logic be damned I bought an ND
- Thread starter kdemas
- Start date
D
djg
It definitely looks much nicer than the non-processed version, but you've lost a lot of raw detail - look at the grill at the middle-right - the louvers have been melted together at the extremes. But it's a great way to save an image from being unshowable. Looking now again at Indy, I can see that some of the hair detail has been smoothed out, but it actually doesn't look obvious at these image sizes.
BTW, when I tried my ND ISO 400 I wasn't using raw format, so it should be an improvement using raw.
BTW, when I tried my ND ISO 400 I wasn't using raw format, so it should be an improvement using raw.
DJ,
Your assessment is right on. I actually could have eased up on the "smoothing effect" and kept a bit more of the detail but I thought it was interesting to just see what it could do with the noise.
If I remember right you use a Canon MkII as well. I have seen some of the noise ninja results, carefully applied, to very high ISO shots from that camera and they are truly amazing. The camera is terrific to start with, and the NN just takes it one step further.
Play with it a bit when you have a chance.
Take care,
Kent
ps- I am going to go and try NN on a Raw file for the heck of it. This was applied on the PSD from JPG.
Your assessment is right on. I actually could have eased up on the "smoothing effect" and kept a bit more of the detail but I thought it was interesting to just see what it could do with the noise.
If I remember right you use a Canon MkII as well. I have seen some of the noise ninja results, carefully applied, to very high ISO shots from that camera and they are truly amazing. The camera is terrific to start with, and the NN just takes it one step further.
Play with it a bit when you have a chance.
Take care,
Kent
ps- I am going to go and try NN on a Raw file for the heck of it. This was applied on the PSD from JPG.
IMO, this obsession with smoothness destroys the very characteristics that make this camera different than many other digital cameras.
Yesterday Irakly and I were discussing the qualities of the ND with Zeiss glass, and the Epson RD-1 with Leica glass, which both use CCD sensors verses CMOS. In both cases we agreed that using German designed glass with CCD sensors produces a more film like feel to the photos than those from our Canon machines (D20, 1DMKII, 1DsMKII using L glass).
The image s&les posted above simply look plastic to me. A sure sign of digital. The dog photo is a very nice capture, but after the post work the hair now looks sculpted from polyester and the leaves like those from an artificial plant store.
Both Irakly and I also see that film quality in the images produced using a Kodak 645C Proback with a CCD sensor on a Contax 645 using Zeiss lenses. Irakly's work with this camera, lens and back is phenomenal. So much so that Lexar is featuring his stunning images on their web site.
Both Leica and Zeiss lenses distinguish themselves in the area of micro detail. With proper exposure, and post processing care the ND is quite useable to ISO 250 and even above with correct technique and reasonable expectations similar to what's expected from film of that ISO range and then scanned. If you run a program that eliminates that micro detail, you might as well be using Sigma glass IMO.
Attached is an Epson RD-1 wedding image using a 6 meg CCD sensor and a Leica M lens. It favors emotional impact like film produces, over smooth rendition of every aspect. The detail in the veil is incredible.
In short, don't become pixel peepers at the price of the emotional impact the ND can produce with a little re-thinking.
Irakly should give a seminar on how to pull the most out of the ND. What he does with it is nothing short of amazing and emotionally fulfilling.
Yesterday Irakly and I were discussing the qualities of the ND with Zeiss glass, and the Epson RD-1 with Leica glass, which both use CCD sensors verses CMOS. In both cases we agreed that using German designed glass with CCD sensors produces a more film like feel to the photos than those from our Canon machines (D20, 1DMKII, 1DsMKII using L glass).
The image s&les posted above simply look plastic to me. A sure sign of digital. The dog photo is a very nice capture, but after the post work the hair now looks sculpted from polyester and the leaves like those from an artificial plant store.
Both Irakly and I also see that film quality in the images produced using a Kodak 645C Proback with a CCD sensor on a Contax 645 using Zeiss lenses. Irakly's work with this camera, lens and back is phenomenal. So much so that Lexar is featuring his stunning images on their web site.
Both Leica and Zeiss lenses distinguish themselves in the area of micro detail. With proper exposure, and post processing care the ND is quite useable to ISO 250 and even above with correct technique and reasonable expectations similar to what's expected from film of that ISO range and then scanned. If you run a program that eliminates that micro detail, you might as well be using Sigma glass IMO.
Attached is an Epson RD-1 wedding image using a 6 meg CCD sensor and a Leica M lens. It favors emotional impact like film produces, over smooth rendition of every aspect. The detail in the veil is incredible.
In short, don't become pixel peepers at the price of the emotional impact the ND can produce with a little re-thinking.
Irakly should give a seminar on how to pull the most out of the ND. What he does with it is nothing short of amazing and emotionally fulfilling.
B
bereskin
Dirk, a propos your email of 22 February concerning Zeiss' statement that it is impossible to fit a C/Y lens on an N mount, presumably this can be done if the adapter incorporates a lens. Could you please ask your Zeiss contact if this can be done without unduly degrading the quality of the lens? Perhaps the existing C/Y mount could be removed, to be replaced with a mount that incorporates the extra lens. If so, this might be a project for this group, especially fans of the ND like me.
Here's a little experiment using a Contax 28-85 on a Canon 1DsMKII via an adapter. I walked around my home shooting hand held with the Canon set @ ISO 800. This shot is of a stairway that I use to test for barrel distortion and edge sharpness. I shot at 28mm wide open, and used PSCS to correct perspective distortion. Then checked for barrel distortion ... there was none on the right side and a small amount on the left.
The Canon 24-70 I once used and sold, showed a lot of distortion both sides top and bottom on this same shot.
The Canon 24-70 I once used and sold, showed a lot of distortion both sides top and bottom on this same shot.
The 28-85 Zeiss is also way sharper out to the edges than the Canon zoom was.
I have ordered split focusing screens for both my Canon digital cameras to make focusing surer. The 28-85 will now become my mid-range zoom for Canon digital work including weddings.
Here's a detail crop of the bottom right corner of the stairway shot.
I have ordered split focusing screens for both my Canon digital cameras to make focusing surer. The 28-85 will now become my mid-range zoom for Canon digital work including weddings.
Here's a detail crop of the bottom right corner of the stairway shot.
albert4321
Well-Known Member
Great s&le, I am convinced!
D
djg
Well, I found a 35-70/3.3 and (!!) a 25/2.8 Contax MM lenses in Central Camera, and they're on their way! I also have a Brightscreen microprism fs on the way. Yum.
I'm keeping the 24-70/2.8 for fast snapshooting, and the Contax glass for the serious stuff (whatever that could be in my case).
I'm keeping the 24-70/2.8 for fast snapshooting, and the Contax glass for the serious stuff (whatever that could be in my case).