Picture No. 8 was taken at Livraria Lello, a famous bookstore in Porto, Portugal - which happens to be the town where I was born and still live.I've been a keen enthusiast of this style ever since I became familiar with German photographer Karl-Hugo Schmölz's body of work. (Google it: you won't be wasting your time.) Some of the pictures shown here are simply brilliant. It's all too easy to get everything wrong with these subjects, making them too rigid and downright cold, but these pictures avoid such pitfalls: they're quite dynamic and communicative. Congrats, Luís! :)
RichyjV: Quite a lot of WB/colour shifting of those tones, lots of blue in the shadows of some of them. Looks like the photographer trying to set the emotion rather than just documenting what the scene looked like. In this case I'd prefer it were not done, we shouldn't need to be told by the photographer how to feel about these shots.
No, this has nothing to do with scanning or setting a mode. It's the effect of the film's colour balance. Use a daylight-balanced film in dim light, and shadows will have a blue hue to them; conversely, if you shoot a shadow-balanced film in daylight, colours will be too saturated.
J A C S: Reminds me of why I stopped shooting in the film era.
Why did you stop shooting film, and why do these pictures remind you of that? Were you getting too many a-hole politicians with film?
It appears regular users won't get unlimited storage anymore. And they'll get ads. Which is a cunning way of getting people into subscribing Pro accounts. Oh well.On the other hand, subscribers who had Pro accounts before Flickr gave unlimited storage were basically paying to get the same as those who had free accounts, which was not right. As the old saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.The benefits of being a Pro user are now: 1) unlimited storage; 2) highly fastidious stats (irrelevant); 3) free shipping on Flickr photo merchandising (US only: can't be bothered); 4) ad-free viewing (which is good: ads can be annoying); 5) 20% discount on Adobe CC (meh!); and 6) the subscription fee will remain unchanged for two years (I assume it will double after that period). Better start thinking about a website; chances are it'll be less expensive...
briantrying: Sensors are made in Chelmsford, England by E2V limited.Brian
Who cares, they're CCD sensors. That's so 2005.
Daniel4: How does Capture One compare to DxO, in general and the noise reduction in particular?
Right. "Prime", not "premium". Sorry for the typo.
Pretty much equivalent, but DxO tends to give the images a HDR-esque look, whereas Capture One is more "neutral". Noise reduction is fractionally better in Capture One, but more recent versions of DxO have a "premium" NR that might be worth investigating.In terms of value for money, though, DxO wins.
I trialled Capture One two years ago and, although I didn't feel the need to substitute it for the DxO 8 I was using back then, I found it to be very good, albeit a bit more expensive than it ought to be. I'd even go as far as to say it's the best Raw converter I've tried - even if by a relatively narrow margin. If its price were in the thereabouts of €150, I'd have bought it - especially for its colour balance capabilities.About black and white conversion: I use Photoshop CS6 too, as for some reason DxO won't even open scans of black and white negatives - let alone process them. I found no fiddling with dedicated slide bars, either on C1 or DxO (or Lightroom, which I also sampled), can replicate the effect of converting to black and white in CS6: Image--> Mode --> Grayscale. It's all there is to do for a perfect black and white conversion. Then it's just a matter of fine tuning brightness, contrast, shadows and highlights to taste.
Photato: Almost certain the GX8 uses the Sony IMX269 sensor.
So Mamiya Leaf, Nikon, Panasonic, and Olympus are all wrong. They should wait until someone comes up with something better than Sony has to offer. Am I following you?Unfortunately the market doesn't work that way and, at the pace things evolve, the notion of 'best' becomes relative. Sony is the best now. It will eventually no longer be so at some point in time, but that isn't really foreseeable, is it?
You should care. Sony's at the top of the game right now. This could mean Olympus will no longer have the edge in terms of image quality.
With Sony's sheet in sight, I'd say it's correct to assume this sensor is from Sony.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Why do people think they need such an unusable maximum aperture? I have an f/1.4 lens and seldom use it wide open: colours fade, contrasts disapeear and sharpness is compromised. What's the use, then?This lens is clearly aimed for people with more money than sense.
imsabbel: «stupid comment»?We're people who need to respect each other - even if we don't agree with their viewpoints.So do me a favour and try not to be rude next time. There are limits.
jon404: What if you took the photo and then ran it through a Photoshop-type 'pen and ink' or 'cartoon' filter?
Did you even read the article's title?
fedway: I see your point, but it's not like you can only make artistic photographs using blurry subjects. Sharpness doesn't have to do with just numbers.I like sharpness: what I want to express in at least part of my pictures relies heavily on sharpness. It's all very well saying sharpness isn't the ultimate goal in photography (it isn't, of course), but one thing is deliberately making an out of focus picture for the sake of artistic intention, another thing is getting "unsharp" images because the equipment is flawed. Androole: please don't scorn film. If you scan reversal film or medium format negatives, you could be in for a big surprise. And, as a bonus, you can post-process them in Lightroom!
fmian: [sarcasm]I was really hoping for an ultrawide angle lens to take photos of bricks walls at f/0.95 in the dark hand held. Ideally I want the brick faces in focus but the bonding cement in between the bricks out of focus. This is a real requirement I have and is part of the essence of photography for me. I also need the lens to quickly be able to focus on black cats in case they jump in front of the brick walls at night. This lens is simply not sharp or autofocusy enough for my needs.Thanks for nothing Voigtlander, I'll take my pocket money elsewhere.[/sarcasm]
Iarek, you've been replying to almost every comment on this article - and always in a rather derogatory way. What do expect people to think about you?Don't try to play the victim. I've given myself the trouble to read some of your replies and found your attitude to be provocative and derogatory, albeit with a tone that you must think it's sarcastic. Commenting "ad hominem" in order to provoke negative reactions from other commenters has a name - trolling.How's it going to be from now on? Will you keep trolling or evolve to a more positive attitude?
Iarek, are you applying for a job as official DPR Troll? Given your effort to impress, the pay must be worthwhile...
Iarek: Thanx for this very valuable reply. I hope you feel better now.
Why do people think they need such an unusable maximum aperture? I have an f/1.4 lens and seldom use it wide open: colours fade, contrasts disapeear and sharpness is compromised. What's the use, then?This lens is clearly aimed for people with more money than sense.
Tsk, tsk... photographing black cats jumping in front of brick walls is so cliché. Photographing grizzly bears running in the Black Forest at night: now that's original, and a technical challenge to boot. If it weren't for the lack of autofocus, I'd buy this lens in a heartbeat. Of course it wouldn't retain that much detail wide open: the bears' furs could appear a bit softer than desirable, with less than perfect discrimination of the hairs, but life is made of tradeoffs. You can't have it all.
Picture No. 1 reminds me of Karl Hugo Schmölz - which is not a bad thing. Not at all.And No. 9 is simply splendid.