Johnmcd
Well-known
mani said:
What lenses are you using, Mani? My 40mm Nokton is razor sharp and so are the images.
John
mani
Well-known
Johnmcd said:
Well admittedly I'm mostly using the Noctilux
but even with the Elmarit 21/2,8 or the Summilux 35 I feel the images lack 'bite' - but only when zoomed-in 100% that is (I hasten to add).
I'm not sure that this just comes from being used to film scans(?)
mani
Well-known
Okay I did my own test - straight comparison of an ordinary test shot processed with no alteration through Lightroom and Epson Raw (which I never even bothered trying before), then exported as 16bit tiffs into Photoshop.
Below is a screenshot of a small (random) section of the files side-by-side at 100% - and I'm TOTALLY amazed at the difference - not just color, but the Epson version preserves so much more detail.
I'm really disappointed, as I love LR, and the Epson processor feels clunky and dated.
Oh and the B&W conversion looked great in the Epson processor too!
Obviously a lot of that lovely detail is lost with jpeg compression for upload here - you'll just have to take my word for it!
PS: and no this apple wasn't the focus object in the shot - but it just happened to be where I cropped the screen grab.
Below is a screenshot of a small (random) section of the files side-by-side at 100% - and I'm TOTALLY amazed at the difference - not just color, but the Epson version preserves so much more detail.
I'm really disappointed, as I love LR, and the Epson processor feels clunky and dated.
Oh and the B&W conversion looked great in the Epson processor too!
Obviously a lot of that lovely detail is lost with jpeg compression for upload here - you'll just have to take my word for it!
PS: and no this apple wasn't the focus object in the shot - but it just happened to be where I cropped the screen grab.
Attachments
Last edited:
Russ
Well-known
pfoto said:Great stuff xtian!
No, Jeff, hasn't abandoned his rangefinders. When he was burning film (I spoke to him) he was using Leica's and Fuji Neopan 400CN. He still burns film, but yes, he has migrated over to digital for much of his work.
Russ
Attachments
Riccis
Well-known
Very nice images... I love the one of the bride arriving and your fave as well. Your post-processing is also very nice.
As far as number of images shot per wedding, I average about 1,000 and do very tight edits to deliver about 300 total... This is just my style whether using the M8 (current tool of choice) or back in the day when I had the Canons.
Thanks for sharing,
Riccis
As far as number of images shot per wedding, I average about 1,000 and do very tight edits to deliver about 300 total... This is just my style whether using the M8 (current tool of choice) or back in the day when I had the Canons.
Thanks for sharing,
Riccis
Baldadash
#2
Disposable cameras
Disposable cameras
Nice photos, especially with your first attempt with that camera.
My wife and I shoot anywhere from 1200-2000 RAW photos for a full day delivering about 3/4s of them on CDs. I do the photojournalistic stuff so I edit mine down at the camera if there is a minute or two of down time. My wife waits for Bridge and Lightroom to cut down her numbers. She's a clicker and loves to shoot sequences of action along with the formal stuff. I carry two D200's, one with a 17-55/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8. Plus a 50/1.4 in my bag. My wife carries one D300 with the same lens plus an 85/ 1.4 in her bag. I guess my point was with the advent of digital photography used for weddings, DSLR camera bodies are almost becoming disposable. When you shoot 40-50 weddings a year with that many photos & with a life cycle of 100,000-150,000, these cameras are not going to last that long. My wife started out shooting weddings on a Hassleblad 503cm. She usually delivered 300+/-. Now she tells our clients they will get 300-600, then we deliver 1000-1500. That usually goes over well. Enough rambling... I'm thinking about bringing my r4m with 21 & 35 and a couple rolls of tri-x and leaving one D200 in the car. I don't really think that is practical, but the best creativity doesn't usually come from being practical.
Disposable cameras
Nice photos, especially with your first attempt with that camera.
My wife and I shoot anywhere from 1200-2000 RAW photos for a full day delivering about 3/4s of them on CDs. I do the photojournalistic stuff so I edit mine down at the camera if there is a minute or two of down time. My wife waits for Bridge and Lightroom to cut down her numbers. She's a clicker and loves to shoot sequences of action along with the formal stuff. I carry two D200's, one with a 17-55/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8. Plus a 50/1.4 in my bag. My wife carries one D300 with the same lens plus an 85/ 1.4 in her bag. I guess my point was with the advent of digital photography used for weddings, DSLR camera bodies are almost becoming disposable. When you shoot 40-50 weddings a year with that many photos & with a life cycle of 100,000-150,000, these cameras are not going to last that long. My wife started out shooting weddings on a Hassleblad 503cm. She usually delivered 300+/-. Now she tells our clients they will get 300-600, then we deliver 1000-1500. That usually goes over well. Enough rambling... I'm thinking about bringing my r4m with 21 & 35 and a couple rolls of tri-x and leaving one D200 in the car. I don't really think that is practical, but the best creativity doesn't usually come from being practical.
sirius
Well-known
Do you give your clients everything? I find it hard.
Part of me just wants give the photos that I like, especially avoiding all the ones with technical problems. However, I know that people will choose photos for different reasons and who am I to limit their choices.
What you you advise?
Part of me just wants give the photos that I like, especially avoiding all the ones with technical problems. However, I know that people will choose photos for different reasons and who am I to limit their choices.
What you you advise?
Baldadash
#2
sirius said:
With film you had to give them everything. Now we only give them what we think is good. We spend alot on advertising & marketing, but we get much more business from word of mouth. Mediocre images will not help your business. But we do leave some less than average images in if they are of someone we don't have anything else for. "Didn't you photograph my aunt so & so, she flew in from..." You could have a dozen award winning photos and the client will remember what you missed when talking about you.
xtian
Member
mani said:Okay I did my own test - straight comparison of an ordinary test shot processed with no alteration through Lightroom and Epson Raw (which I never even bothered trying before), then exported as 16bit tiffs into Photoshop.
Below is a screenshot of a small (random) section of the files side-by-side at 100% - and I'm TOTALLY amazed at the difference - not just color, but the Epson version preserves so much more detail.
I'm really disappointed, as I love LR, and the Epson processor feels clunky and dated.
Oh and the B&W conversion looked great in the Epson processor too!
Obviously a lot of that lovely detail is lost with jpeg compression for upload here - you'll just have to take my word for it!
PS: and no this apple wasn't the focus object in the shot - but it just happened to be where I cropped the screen grab.
yeah, you should post this on the other thread that is going on regarding "EPR > Lightroom". I got busy editing other images from the wedding and didn't get time to do it at the moment, but as you have seen there is a difference.
But I think that any RAW software from the manufacturer of the CAMERA will be better than "insert name of RAW converter". I had tested Lightroom against DPP with my Canon RAW and was disappointed in Lightroom. Same with the EPR vs. Lightroom, there is a difference... BUT, Lightroom does make life WAY easier. I think I'll use EPR for straight off the camera shots (no post processing of colors/contrast etc.) but when I want a little more creativity in colors I'll probably use Lightroom.
jjcha
Established
Thanks for sharing. Had a lot of fun viewing the photos -- can only guess how much more fun it was taking them, or being in them!
Best,
-Jason
Best,
-Jason