W/R Marina
Nov 15, 2013 08:52:18 #
First test shot from my rear courtyard trying out a new (old) 135mm. It has an interesting way of rendering you just don't see any more. The pink tinge is due to the fading sunset.
Nov 15, 2013 10:57:31 #
winterrose wrote:
First test shot from my rear courtyard trying out a new (old) 135mm. It has an interesting way of rendering you just don't see any more. The pink tinge is due to the fading sunset.
There's a theory of composition I recall that says angles, intersecting lines, and triangles all conspire to positively impact... impact! Their collective effect here is further enhanced by the lens' compression of perspective...and I'm underwhelmed. I'm not sure...no..I'm quite sure I don't understand what is "...the way of rendering you just don't see any more." that you previsualized for this rendering (...or "rendition"...your choice)
Help me out here, Rob.
Dave
Nov 15, 2013 11:15:12 #
winterrose wrote:
First test shot from my rear courtyard trying out a new (old) 135mm. It has an interesting way of rendering you just don't see any more. The pink tinge is due to the fading sunset.
Hello Rob, which 135mm is this?, I use a Nikkor 135mm f/3.5 and like it a lot. The f/2.3 is supposed to be better but my f/3.5 does a good job.
Graham
Nov 15, 2013 20:56:18 #
Uuglypher wrote:
There's a theory of composition I recall that says... (show quote)
I posted this photograph not for the purpose of critique regarding my photographic or photo editing skills (if any). The shot was a preliminary test of a newly acquired lens, that is all so the subject and composition was of little importance to me for that purpose. What I meant by my reference to the "rendering" of this 40 year old lens is, I have a number of high quality modern lenses and I have made countless photographs from this vantage point for convenience but even though the images that those lenses produced were of a perceived higher IQ, in comparison they appear to produce a much more "clinical" result. Much like the comparison between vinyl vs CD. Does that make sense? NB. Please note that apart from some N/R, no other PP was applied. Rob.
Nov 15, 2013 22:00:00 #
winterrose wrote:
I posted this photograph not for the purpose of cr... (show quote)
My apologies, Rob, I obviously wasn't clear about the realm of response desired here. your reference to vinyl vs. digital got me, I think, on the required wavelength. For grins...and perhaps some objective comparison of IQ rendered by the oldie-but-goodie and a comparable modern marvel could we have a side-by-side ( or top-to-bottom) comparison?
thanks,
Dave
Nov 15, 2013 22:12:10 #
Uuglypher wrote:
My apologies, Rob, I obviously wasn't clear about the realm of response desired here. your reference to vinyl vs. digital got me, I think, on the required wavelength. For grins...and perhaps some objective comparison of IQ rendered by the oldie-but-goodie and a comparable modern marvel could we have a side-by-side ( or top-to-bottom) comparison?
thanks,
Dave
thanks,
Dave
Hi Dave, that was the best analogy that I could conjure. I will shoot a comparison when the rain and wind eases. cheers, Rob.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.