85L in the middle of the street
I am not saying this is the case, but the picture looks very fake to me. It looks like you have done some PS work to increase the blur.
What an outstanding shot! The performance of this lens wide open is simply uncredible. A friend of mine borrowed me his 85L and, although I was quite happy with the 85 1.8, since then I had a single idea: getting a 85L!
This week I received it!
I can't resist to post here some snapshots (also wide open):
Dadme un mundo sin contornos,
Un espacio feliz que ignore los perfiles.
Concededme, sí, la dicha redonda
De flotar sin conciencia en el fondo
Desenfocado de mis fotografías.
Give me a world with no edges,
A happy space knowing nothing about outlines.
Grant me, please, the round joy
Of thoughtlessly floating on the blurred
Background of my photographs.
This is the best 3D or so call Pop I have seen. Most excellent.
shot just after a rainfall...wide open-- hide signature --
that's what the 5D does to this lens ... wide open
that is what it is ......supposed to do.....
this shot should be in the instruction booklet
looks like a dream sequence
The ground near his foot should be in focus, but it is not.. or perhaps partially. I have seen the effect from this lens before, but cannot explain it. Anyone?
Following picture shows how it should look (AFAIAC)
In the beginning there was nothing, and then even that exploded.
If you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
There is definate pattern repeat and cloning in the bottom left to centre tarmac....a "straight out of camera shot"....not!!!!
Also there's an odd clone shadow around the boys arm to the right, something doesn't look correct.
Add the blatant bodge and burn in the tarmac...I suspect that some one is trying to fool us.
'Science is what we dream of, technology is what we are stuck with' Douglas Adams
There is definate pattern repeat and cloning in the bottom left to
centre tarmac....a "straight out of camera shot"....not!!!!
Also there's an odd clone shadow around the boys arm to the right,
something doesn't look correct.
Add the blatant bodge and burn in the tarmac...I suspect that some
one is trying to fool us.
'Science is what we dream of, technology is what we are stuck with'
Well if you had read his post from 3 months ago you would have seen
The only processing I did here was some levels and burned the edges where the street was dark. I did sharpen for web (150, 0.2, 0).
Personally I believe him.
Now lets see you post a picture that is as good or better and we will be waiting but we will not be holding our breath,.
The ground near his foot should be in focus, but it is not.. or
perhaps partially. I have seen the effect from this lens before, but
cannot explain it. Anyone?
Following picture shows how it should look (AFAIAC)
I agree. The other shot looks much more natural. To me, this one looks like it was two images combined. I'm not saying it is, it just looks that way.
Wow! You're quick to defend him and hostile too....tetchy tetchy.
If you want to peruse my gallery, it's a free web:
I wasn't saying that it's a poor image, it's stunning but it looks as real as a modern day Elvis. The light on the boy is coming from a slightly different direction to the light in the background and there's obvious and blatant evidence of cloning.
I agree it looks photoshopped, but that alone isn't a crime. If it was altered, just say so. That wouldn't take anything away from it being a great photo.
The image is very interesting and the child just seems to be floating on water. The subject is emotionally engaging and this is ultimately the only thing that matters in a great photo.
Regardless, due to the nature of the post and the very nature of this "lens" forum, it would be nice to see a RAW file to verify if the poster insists it was not altered.
I also have this lens and love it, but it's plane of focus is linear. The street doesn't seem to have anything in focus which I have yet to see in my own similarly composed photos. This is occasionally possible with tiltshift lenses, but the background would look very different if tilting was used.
Partner / Multimedia Director
WOW! Much to my surprise, this must have been bumped up after 3 months! I guess thats kinda cool!
I am VERY VERY flattered by the many kind words here.
To those out there who doubt the validity of this photo, I am flattered! But I can assure you this photo is the real deal.
I reread my original post about the processing done on this image. I stated that I did some levels, and some burning and some sharpening for the web. After looking in my own Pbase gallery, I also remember that I used the sponge tool on his sneakers to make them more blue.
In addition, those questioning light sources, additional blurring, and clone marks are just wrong. Sorry. Please check out the rest of my pbase galleries and you will quickly find that I do VERY little post work on my images (except for some of the black and whites). Mainly curves, levels, dodging/burning.
Once again, I sincerely appreciate all of the comments here!
Have a good day.
- Fujifilm X-T223.6%
- Nikon D50025.4%
- Nikon AF-S 105mm F1.4E8.2%
- Olympus M.Zuiko 12-100mm F47.5%
- Panasonic Lumix DMC-G857.2%
- Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art6.7%
- Sigma 50-100mm F1.8 Art5.1%
- Sony a63006.4%
- Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III3.7%
- Sony Cyber-shot RX100 V6.3%
|Lighthouse, Bottom of the World by CelticOdyssey|
from An A to Z of Subjects- Week 12, L
|Dundrum by Rik Powdrill|