This 3D thing isn't really quantifiable though.
A lot of the Pentaxforums people like to call it the "slide-like" feel. Incidentally, Velvia isn't known for high DR or moderate saturation...
Green cast on K5 photos
- Thread starter Anthony Lee
- Start date
- Status
This 3D thing isn't really quantifiable though.
A lot of the Pentaxforums people like to call it the "slide-like" feel. Incidentally, Velvia isn't known for high DR or moderate saturation...
Do you have examples from the K-5?
This is just lighting and DOF... Hope you don't mind me commenting, because I do cat photography as well, beyond the DOF play, a portrait should be about communication, feel, mood. My personal view is that the photo lacks most of these so it really doesn't appeal to me no matter how much 3D you make it out to have.
I don't get all this 3D talk, everytime I see people discussing 3D or not it's a simple explanation to me: lighting, contrast and depth. That's how you ensure that the eye captures relative distance and relays that idea to the brain. So to me it's just directional lighting, ensuring that your DOF control is good, and really, it's not about camera model (though yes, lens plays a part).
If you are ending up shooting in a lot more low light situations than before, then perhaps you're just keeping more of flat lighting situations (which happens when there is low, even lighting).
Some recent cat portraits with the K-r and 50mm f/1.4 (I call it my cat lens).
I can't disagree with you, now if only we had those colors and detail on the current line-up while retaining the stellar high ISO performance.
In fact, the day Pentax releases a firmware correction to remove that stupid long exposure noise reduction on the K20D, I'll just grab one for the pathetic price it's going for these days and embrace it all over again... The DR's useful, but it's... well, different. I had to modify my workflow somewhat after using the K-r, i.e. to bring out more contrast, rather than "saving back" details that are required. Then again, maybe it's just habit!
Last edited:
I call this presence, especially a landscape photo. I must feel that I was there. There has to be depth in terms of shade and color tones, micro and global contrast. and the color rendition must be closest to what my eyes see. The easiest is to see photos taken with either a Zeiss or Leica lens on either the 5d2 or D700 or even the old Kodak SLRc/n.
I have seen your cat photos and these are nice. I have 2 cats, Tomi and Tami, both are totally white except for a few black and ginger spots and they are more difficult to meter. I just shot this one with the K5 using an M200f4. This was shot outdoor. See the green cast?
My 2 cents worth.
Have you tried changing the K-5's custom image profile to bright or even vibrant? That will produce results closer to Canon's. The thing I don't like about high contrast photos is that it produces clippings - highlights are burned out and shadows are just black. If you don't mind, I have taken your Pentax photo and increased the saturation and contrast. Now it looks more like the Canon's (Tell me you object and I will delete it).
Have you tried changing the K-5's custom image profile to bright or even vibrant? That will produce results closer to Canon's. The thing I don't like about high contrast photos is that it produces clippings - highlights are burned out and shadows are just black. If you don't mind, I have taken your Pentax photo and increased the saturation and contrast. Now it looks more like the Canon's (Tell me you object and I will delete it).
I have seen your cat photos and these are nice. I have 2 cats, Tomi and Tami, both are totally white except for a few black and ginger spots and they are more difficult to meter. I just shot this one with the K5 using an M200f4. This was shot outdoor. See the green cast?
White cats boh pian, have to underexpose and recover shadows, else you will burn them....
Yes, but it's a very light light cast in the midtones, highlights look fine to me. Maybe I'm just a bit less picky when it comes to casts....
That's your cat? Very cute face!
Oh... I'm still not sure what this micro/global contrast is, I know Luminous Landscape has mentioned it before. I read it, and I don't understand it, up till now I still don't get it.
As for color rendition, if you use ND/GND on all your landscape photos... After a while you get used to tweaking color based on memory.... Mix and match ND/GND from different brands... Can wait long long if you want to have an accurate color rendition out of camera... I bet even if you use Leica or Zeiss also the same.. :sweat:
You know I am addressing Anthony right? :bsmilie:
The 'highest' I even go is bright. Then if I need higher contrast/saturation, I would do in in Photoshop. Call me kiasi/kiasu - I am so afraid of burning out the highlights. :sweat:
My 2 cents worth.
Have you tried changing the K-5's custom image profile to bright or even vibrant? That will produce results closer to Canon's. The thing I don't like about high contrast photos is that it produces clippings - highlights are burned out and shadows are just black. If you don't mind, I have taken your Pentax photo and increased the saturation and contrast. Now it looks more like the Canon's (Tell me you object and I will delete it).
Hi Marcus,
It's still look different, like the colors are so one dimensional. The OM/Canon photo has more color dimension. Some of my old Zeiss/Canon or Leica/Canon photos can illustrate better. The key is, I shoot basically with the naked lens, no filter, and do very little PP. I don't even know how to use ND filters and I hate CPL as they change the color scheme to something unreal. Just call this my personal prejudice as sometimes, I just can't explain. My personal friend thinks I am crazy but that's what I see and I believe there is no right or wrong. I was an artist in school and loved to do portraits and and still objects, especially in black and white. I used to win cinema tickets by submitting photos to be printed in magazines like movienews in the 60s. One can draw an apple and make it look very 2 dimensional and one call also draw it very 3D through various shading methods to make the apple stand out. That's what I like to see in my photos.
I have seen your cat photos and these are nice. I have 2 cats, Tomi and Tami, both are totally white except for a few black and ginger spots and they are more difficult to meter. I just shot this one with the K5 using an M200f4. This was shot outdoor. See the green cast?
Could be lens chomatic aberretion.See cat's left whiskers and top left of body.
Anthony,
You have to really, really give natural lighting more credit than you have been giving... Just because you stick the lens and camera out of the window everyday doesn't mean the lighting is the same... You can have better days, you can have not so good days, you can have horrible days.
From what I see, the shadows are still different.
This was taken a long time ago (in 2007) on a beautiful, beautiful day at the right time, with a K100D and a lowly non-Zeiss, non-Leica kit lens, with CPL used.
At that time, I wasn't even using Photoshop... I think I just stuck it into the free program given with the K100D or my older Sony H2 and just did Auto Levels, Auto Color.
Last edited:
Yes, I know cause it's an old M lens. I do get some also with the FA 31 which is surprising. I used to own some good old Olympus OM lenses and never noticed such problems, but silly of me, I sold them all for Pentax.
Anthony,
Of course it still looks different. Different lighting, different lens, different sensor, etc...The only way to really compare is to shoot in a studio with quality strobe.
At the end of the day, it is still down to individual's preference. For myself, I have always preferred medium contrast, slightly warm photos that sometimes prompt my friends to question my 'white-balancing' skill. :embrass:
But I am lousy in identifying results from different makes and lenses. When I look at those beautiful photos in the CS photo gallery, I don't even know what equipment was used.
Of course it still looks different. Different lighting, different lens, different sensor, etc...The only way to really compare is to shoot in a studio with quality strobe.
At the end of the day, it is still down to individual's preference. For myself, I have always preferred medium contrast, slightly warm photos that sometimes prompt my friends to question my 'white-balancing' skill. :embrass:
But I am lousy in identifying results from different makes and lenses. When I look at those beautiful photos in the CS photo gallery, I don't even know what equipment was used.
this one?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/lens-contrast.shtml
marcus? otc? sbc? :bsmilie:
Anthony,
You have to really, really give natural lighting more credit than you have been giving... Just because you stick the lens and camera out of the window everyday doesn't mean the lighting is the same... You can have better days, you can have not so good days, you can have horrible days.
From what I see, the shadows are still different.
This was taken a long time ago (in 2007) on a beautiful, beautiful day at the right time, with a K100D and a lowly non-Zeiss, non-Leica kit lens, with CPL used.
At that time, I wasn't even using Photoshop... I think I just stuck it into the free program given with the K100D or my older Sony H2 and just did Auto Levels, Auto Color.
Ha, everyday I look out thru my balcony and when I see what I want to see, I will click away, maybe 100 shots with different lenses. Overall I just prefer some lenses to others and when I owned my OM collection, I actually sold some of my Zeiss and Leica. I love a particular OM manual zoom 35-70f3.6 that continuously give me the "painterly" look and feel. I will search for those photos and put them up later and you will understand what I mean. Very natural lighting, no highlights and dark shadows, very even, nice color rendition across the whole color gamut, nothing too strong that may dominate.
Sorry I don't like this photo of yours, the blue is too blue and the colours are too strong.
- Status
