Re: Nikon D200 Pictures: Rather sexy . . .

Don't know why I'm replying to someone who takes back her posts after a
few days, but a couple of points:

>> So you can't see burnt highlights (much of her top), and dead blacks
>> (many areas, eg her jeans) here?:
>
>Okay, after you pointed out exactly where they are located I do see them.
>The question is are they *really* objectionable or would anyone in the real
>world other than a person intentionally looking for faults really care?

So they *are* there, but you question whether they are objectionable.
But *I'm* backpedalling...? I gave my opinion - to me they may not be
'objectionable', but I don't like them, and they don't suit the image.
That's *my* opinion. I feel entitled to it...

>> If it's a concious choice, why does the shot need to be so 'harsh'?
>.....
>I'm not defending the photographer, but this picture might very well be
>perfect for its intended audience. We both don't know his intentions and
>are assuming?

I just go by the image. Seems the logical thing to do. It's an
attractive woman, in a cityscape. She isn't dressed 'punk' or gothic.
It seems to be simply a camera test. In which case.... well, I'm not
going to repeat the obvious.

>I did play with this image in Photoshop for a minute and there is still a
>lot to work with and it can be corrected for one's personal taste.

WOAH! Why play with it if it was OK? And I'm sorry, but you CAN'T
(that is spelled C A N ' T) bring back blown highlights or lost blacks.
That was my point. No backpedal..

>As for over processing or a poor choice of contrast that is purely speculation
>on your part.

Yes, speculation and *observation* based on a simple set of facts that
I laid out before - namely that blown highlights and lost blacks are a
*bad thing* unless they are there for a reason. I don't see any reason
here. I may be wrong, but with no further facts, and viewing the
images as they stand, then I'm sticking to my original opinion.

>If this were a RAW file we can get a better idea of what is
>going on and what the camera is capable of doing for this one shot.

There are SEVERAL shots just like it. The Raw fileS may indeed be fine
(and you are speculating - isn't that a no-no?), but then it just shows
s/he can't process for the web to save him/herself...

>I'm more interested in what the D200 is capable of producing than
>the photographer's choice of contrast settings or post processing skills.

And dynamic range is an important issue to me. So is bokeh, if I was
interested in portraiture for that camera. Perhaps not you, and that's
fine. But these images give a bad impression on that score. Maybe the
contrast thing is deliberate, and maybe it's not. I mean, he could
have posted them with the entire image off-colour or out of focus -
would you then say 'yes, but he might have meant to...'?

>Do you know his intended purpose?

Do you?

> I don't feel you can base your assumptions as fact without knowing
>this photographer's intended purpose.

Nor can you, and yet you feel your assumptions are more worthwhile.
That's OK.

>As for the lenses he used it is clearly stated on the bottom of page.
>He claims to be using "Ai AF 35mm F2D, 50mm F1.4D".

I apologise profusely - I did not read the page carefully (it being
mostly Japanese..) But this just backs me up - I don't know these
lenses, but they sure sound like primes, and I don't like the look of
the 'donutted' backgrounds... I have a dirt cheap 400mm mirror lens you
might like to buy if you like *that* 'look'...

>I don't know why you are assuming he used a "kit" lens?
I didn't *assume*, I said that IF it was a kit lens that bokeh might be
expected. If it was a better quality lens, then I would expect better
performance. Like I said, I didn't see the text. I was wrong on that
point. I can admit it.. But, errrm, how does that support your case
again?

>And if your current camera of whatever brand produces the images you want
>for *YOUR* intended purpose than you have a winner. I don't understand
>where or why you get this idea of, "it *doesn't* pretend to be a
>professional tool for portrait photography" and can type with a straight
>face, "I just made an observation, without any form of brand mania" and not
>claim you aren't brand biased? It's simply too hypocritical.

That's an astonishing set of leaps in logic.

YOU brought up the brand bias issue, in your "Would you have the same
*observations* if these pictures were taken with a Canon?" remark.
Read it back to yourself and think about it. That cannot possibly be
construed as anything but an accusation of bias. Thanks.

I said, and still maintain, that *if* those images were taken with a
kit lens, that might excuse the poor bokeh. But it would be very odd
for a pro to post such images, full-size, and not expect some flak. I
certainly would expect criticism. But then *you* now point out they
were taken with prime lenses - which would suggest one of two things:

- that you think I don't know good bokeh if it slapped me in the face
- or, if you agree that it is crappy bokeh, then those lenses aren't
very good in that area

Which is it? What do *you* think of the bokeh? Look here at the effect
in the out of focus gravel, and the 'hard' edges of the rails:

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/static/2005/12/02/vol1_04.jpg

Now either you think that is good bokeh, or at least one of those prime
lenses you point out has poor bokeh.

>And you trying to covertly backpedal say a lot more! I just call it like I
>see it.

"Covertly backpedal"? Where was that again? I just re-inforced what I
said, with reasons. But if you feel like you won, well, enjoy the
'victory'. And at least I leave my posts for longer than a few days...

PS - you might like to check the other posts here - general
disinterest, criticism, and another poster who questioned the dyamic
range issue. But like I said, I'm sure *you* are right!

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Want to see how bad P&Ss really are?
    ... Sharpening haloes are a case in point. ... eye in normal viewing and printing than images without haloes. ... Another example is BOKEH. ... Those lenses with great bokeh characteristics ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Film vs Digital pictures
    ... between the bokeh of various lenses at the rangefinderforum. ... In addition to discussing the bokeh of different lenses and many other gear topics, you'll find the manner of discussion to be refreshingly civil compared with some in this group. ... Your posts here are almost exclusively expletive-laden, ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)
  • Re: My Journeys In the woods..
    ... It was a delight making the journey with you. ... I know some folks here think being a critic is only being negative, so don't let it get you down. ... Most of us are not Ansell Adams, I know I'm not, but I have a lot of fun with my camera, and getting my own world into images. ... After glancing through your posts in this and other forums for a few weeks I am sure that there are many, many things that you have no knowledge of. ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: Screen Burn-in Or Something Else?
    ... This morning I noticed an odd problem that I can't seem to fix. ... see vague images of rows and columns and even some words. ... Send responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, ... Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
  • Re: When loyalty to a camera system = absolute blindness
    ... posts about a magenta cast in the highlights in images of the Olympus ... the images SHOW a magenta cast!!! ... Look to the image posts from Ben Herrmann about halfway down the ... Because the forum is moderated, and because the threads are linear making it harder for an idiot poster to be flamed in a way that would happen on usenet, idiots proliferate. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
Loading