rdeleskie
Well-known
Gee, what's with the hostility behind some of these comments? The OP is enthusiastic about the results he's getting with his film gear, like 99% of the other film shooters on this board. When did that become a crime here?
40oz
...
Not all lenses are the same. One reason a lot of people rave about particular lenses is the images they take simply look better for some non-specific reason. You can have the opinion that all lenses take the same pictures, but that is quite obviously not true. And just because you cannot or have not seen a difference doesn't make it any less real.
Post-processing cannot change the way the original image was captured. All it can do is manipulate what has been captured.
One can see a difference in the images from different lenses via the internet, but it isn't always the best way to see subtle differences. And captures on a digital sensor are not going to show the same degree of subtly as a film image, simply because of the nature of pixels, Bayer filters, color gamut, etc.
alexnotalex
Well-known
Calm down folks, this is not a film vs digital post and let's not try to solve that one... just trying to find out what "glow" is and how to describe what I find pleasing and surprising in my pics.
Nobody could interpret Jamie123's contribution as constructive or interesting so far... sounded a tad bitter and sad, disappointing compared to the rest of the contributions... i'd like to hear what he has to say about post processing. If I can make my D40 pics look like the Summar or HC then i'd be overjoyed... but I don't think I can.
best,
Alex
DNG
Film Friendly
I'd say just the opposite...
Seems like the lens records very accurate colors and contrast.
And has good sharpness for web use.
IF, no, or little post was done.
I have a Zeiss ZM 50mm f/1.5 C-Sonnar that needs 3 things for out of camera post from a raw file...
1) Tweak Exposure, (Slight Adj)
2) Tweak Contrast (Slight Adj)
3) Sharpening (as all Digital needs, even if it is just a little).
The Out of camera colors are "Spot-On"
I like this image very much...as is posted.
alexnotalex
Well-known
Thanks DNG for your comments. The daisies one is a jpg straight from the D40, no PP not even a crop, an image i'm happy with but not hung on the wall... Looks fine on our Macs at home. Colours set to enhanced IIIa if I remember rightly. It's fascinating to see how the results differ with the old glass, and interesting to debate how we describe the differences.
The swing (NikkorHC) and tree (Summar) pics both on Fuji ISO200 were scanned by the lab then slightly cropped before posting, nothing else.
best,
alex
peterm1
Veteran
While on the subject of "glow" I thought some members might like to see an example of pseudo glow applied courtesy of Nik software - a plug-in named "Glamor Glow" which is a part of their Color Efex suite. I applied this effect very quickly - had I taken more time I could have been more selective and considered, and maybe, gotten a better result - certainly a different one.
Overall I think I should have masked the eyes as they should be sharp - here the effect is quite strong so the image is softened somewhat.
But overall I quite like the effect which can when applied correctly go a considerable way towards mimicking a real lens glow effect and is a bit different to some diffusion effects. It does tend to slightly darken the areas to which it is applied which is counter intuitive.
The difference it makes to the image is apparent from this comparison.
MODIFIED
ORIGINAL
Overall I think I should have masked the eyes as they should be sharp - here the effect is quite strong so the image is softened somewhat.
But overall I quite like the effect which can when applied correctly go a considerable way towards mimicking a real lens glow effect and is a bit different to some diffusion effects. It does tend to slightly darken the areas to which it is applied which is counter intuitive.
The difference it makes to the image is apparent from this comparison.
MODIFIED
ORIGINAL
Last edited:
Ranchu
Veteran
Well hell, I'll throw in my 2c. I don't think either of your examples really exhibits what I think of as 'glow'. My definition of it is a low contrast look, combined with highlights that start to 'run'. Flare causes the detail to be lost, it seems to me that higher contrast lenses keep control of this better and then lose control suddenly, whereas with glowy lenses the loss of control starts earlier in the highlights and then increases more (visually) gently. That's where the magic happens...I'm no expert on it, but that's my understanding.
If you scan your negs yourself, you'll notice they have a ton of DR when scanned with no modification, most place's machines add contrast to get them the way people like them. This accounts for the main differences seen between your D40 and film shots, the films can have contrast added to the midtones without blowing the highlights or burying the shadows, where the D40 you can't really do this with the more limited DR. So you have a more linear, flatter contrast from highlight to shadow.
If you scan your negs yourself, you'll notice they have a ton of DR when scanned with no modification, most place's machines add contrast to get them the way people like them. This accounts for the main differences seen between your D40 and film shots, the films can have contrast added to the midtones without blowing the highlights or burying the shadows, where the D40 you can't really do this with the more limited DR. So you have a more linear, flatter contrast from highlight to shadow.
Last edited:
Jamie123
Veteran
I didn't mean to be hostile in my comment but it was really late and I was tired so I made it quick which might've come over as sounding a bit rude. Why that would sound either bitter or sad I don't know. What do I have to be bitter or sad about exactly???
What I meant with ''lack of postprocessing'' is exactly that. A lack. I didn't say crappy or any other negative adjective. If you want to compare the two lenses you have to at least eliminate all of the other factors first. The film you used has quite different greens, reds and skin tones than your digital image. I'd first start off by removing the heavy yellow cast from the digital image and then mess with the hue of the greens in ACR.
Anyways, I'm not claiming that the lens has no influence. I'm sure the HC or Summar are great lenses and that D40 lens is probably no match. However, when you ask me 'why does this digital image look nothing like that film image' I say it's mostly because it hasn't bee processed adequately to do so.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
There's beautiful separation -- the 3D or plastic effect -- but I don't see any glow either. Then again, to me, 'glow' is often more apparent in B+W, usually with slight over-exposure...
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
lawrence
Veteran
Roger Hicks
Veteran
alexnotalex
Well-known
Hey i got some real Glow... I think!
Nikkor-H-C with lots of cleaning marks on the coating on the front element... mix this with much window
Hooray for glow!
Nikkor-H-C with lots of cleaning marks on the coating on the front element... mix this with much window
Hooray for glow!
blacvios
Member
Here's some natural lens GLOW
,,,
,,,