Are you that ignorant?

Are you that ignorant?

  • Total voters
    74
  • Poll closed .
Athos6 said:
However, that is a great baby, did it come with a commemorative box?
Click to expand...

Thanks!

It came wrapped in a towel. I then deposited it in a box for a few hours... Not a commemorative one, unfortunately. Is the baby still worth something?
 
Ummm what focal length is a Noctilux? I'll bet it's one of those. If it isn't it should be. Personally I'd have taken this with a CV 12mm. BTW that film .. yikes! Get some Portra NC
 
NB23 said:
Thanks!

It came wrapped in a towel. I then deposited it in a box for a few hours... Not a commemorative one, unfortunately. Is the baby still worth something?
Click to expand...

Hmmm, calculating the emotion value along with future earning potential minus 18+ years of upkeep and I think it was a favorable investment, even without the box :)
 
in the description you mentioned the Summilux pre asph 35, but there is no possibility to vote for this lens.
In combination with the M8 I would choose this possibility wide open.
Nice pic.
Regards
 
Hell, I often can't remember (and don't especially care) which lens I used for a given picture, so I can't see why I'd want to agonize over a picture someone else took. Anyone who is that worried about looking for minute clues as to which lens was used is indeed ignorant -- ignorant of what photography is about, which is taking pictures, not getting obsessive or precious about gear.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Last edited:
72 dpi and tiny. Nowhere near enough detail to comment on sharpness.Comparisons might reveal differences in some of the lenses you mention, but with one stand alone image and a zillion variables this kinda leaves us stranded. Also fairly pointless, because nobody every suggested that any of the lenses stated would be incapable of taking a pleaaseing shot.
 
These threads are so funny! I wonder what the next one will be.

I guess I am not eligible for voting because I've bought none of these lenses new. :D
 
The problem with the OP's photo is that the baby is not as good-looking and handsome as this one, below.

Mine is an excellent, and first class baby, as these photos attest incontrovertibly.

You need to return your baby to where he came from and get a better one, such as the one I have.

Epson R-D1, some crummy $8 Russian lens:



Canon 5D and 1970 Spiratone 135mm f1.8 wide open:

 
My feeling was the 35mm Summilux pre-asph. That being said this is only from my very limited knowledge that I have mainly gleaned from this forum.

Shame I can't vote for it...
 
sorry, but I disagree

sorry, but I disagree

Anupam Basu said:
Mutual distrust and lack of admiration is a great thing. Far better than mutual fawning and back scratching.
Click to expand...

I'm very sorry but I strongly disagree with you. The world turns around on backscratching, at least in my bath.

And while fawning on people is quite despicable, being fawned upon is to be encouraged.

I am very sorry about that.
 
Last edited:
NB23 said:
There is enough information in there to acknowledge it is sharp
Click to expand...

This argument is getting old, but anyway...

There is enough information to acknowledge that the image is sharp enough for web viewing, but who knows how sharp it would appear at 12x8? Perception of sharpness has everything to do with magnification/enlargement. I do accept that you can make valid judgments about overall rendering from web images (up to a point), but when it comes to sharpness it only makes sense to say "sharp enough for a given size".

By the way, a lot of people are talking dpi. That is completely meaningless when talking about web images. The wikipedia article puts it more succinctly than I would:

DPI refers to the physical size of an image when it is reproduced as a real physical entity, for example printed onto paper, or displayed on a monitor. A digitally stored image has no inherent physical dimensions, measured in inches or centimetres. Some digital file formats record a DPI value, which is to be used when printing the image.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch

Matthew
 
Matthew Allen said:
This argument is getting old, but anyway...

There is enough information to acknowledge that the image is sharp enough for web viewing, but who knows how sharp it would appear at 12x8? Perception of sharpness has everything to do with magnification/enlargement. I do accept that you can make valid judgments about overall rendering from web images (up to a point), but when it comes to sharpness it only makes sense to say "sharp enough for a given size".

By the way, a lot of people are talking dpi. That is completely meaningless when talking about web images. The wikipedia article puts it more succinctly than I would:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch

Matthew
Click to expand...

... but a holga image often looks sharp on the web. In response, no the resolution of the posted image is not sufficient for the stated purpose (trying to guess the lens from a crop of lenses capable of great results far in excess of what could be seen at 72dpi and 4 inches or so).

I do not see how DPI is meaningless with web images. The wikepedia article specifically mentions monitors.... A monitor has a max resolution and physical size so there are clear constraints here which are FAR below the capabilties of most low end compact cameras. If the screen had a resolution of 300dpi we would see more detail would we not?
 
If dpi is not appropriate, what is the proper unit to use to describe the resolving capability of a computer monitor as it relates to photographs? The point is simply that computer monitor resolution is too low to properly assess fine technical characteristics of an image.

A while ago I shot the same scene with 9 different 50mm LTM and M-mount lenses that I own, developed the negs and scanned them. All shots were at f4. This was the fastest common f-stop of all the lenses, and I only wanted to do this boring activity once, not multiple times at various f-stops. I was amazed at the lack of variation seen in these scans on my computer screen. I will eventually print the negs in my darkroom and hope to see differing lens characteristics more clearly. Lenses I tested were: J8, FED50f3.5, Elmar, Summar, Summitar, Summarit, col. Summicron, 1969-79 Summicron, and CV50f2.5
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom