My Noctilux Diary

the photo of the girl in red is stunning.

not for nothing, but I dont think it was shot at full aperature. You dont need a noctilux to make photos like that. You can do very similar with a summilux and burn your edges in photoshop for monitor display and save a few thousand. Thats an amazing photo though, total breath of fresh air from the usually blurry pictures people qoute from that lens (although there has been some really nice stuff posted in this thread so far).
 
@ maddoc - You got a great beginning of 2009! Great shot.

@ Riccis - Love you work too. Be it taken with a Noc or not.

@ Jamie - I can't agree with you more.

I'm a 6PM~6AM guy, and most of the time I AM "shooting in a coal mine", trying to get something out of nothing (luminously speaking). Very often, it was not until I saw the photos that I realized what had been there when I took those shots.

That, however, is very hard to tell from the photos we posted here, anytime after "that moment". It could be taken with a Noctilux under almost no light at all, or a 50/2 under a brighter moon with some far but big artificial light source.

------

I'm a hobbyist that never had a chance to shoot in a studio. I just walk the street with my camera and take shots of scenes that draw my attention.

I could try "all that", but my profession is music and records, not photography. Therefore, I'm sorry that I cannot be that kind of photographer, or deliver that kind of photos, that some of you expect from a Noc user, or even just a photographer. I got very little time, so I'd be luckily enough if I could ever become the kind of photographer "I" want to be, in this lifetime.

I love Tommy Oshima's work (not just his Nocti-shots) and review them from time to time. You could do that too, but please don't hold your breath til I'm as good as he is.

------

On the other hand, I shouldn't even be called a photographer; not yet. I'm just a guy that loves carrying his camera all the time.

This is not being humble. I might not be able to deliver outstanding photos most of the time, but I AM able to tell when I see one. And I know how far away I still am from the standard.

Then again, since I AM working on my skill, slowly though, to become a much better photographer, I don't intend to hide forever behind that "Hobbyist Only" sign on the back of my car...eh camera. So all the comments are very welcome here.

------

Last but not least, Noctilux to me, is a lens that I can carry all the time, taking 95% of the photos that I could have taken with some other lens, but also able to deliver 5% of the photos that need f1 or the Noctilux's signature.

------

I'm shooting with the Dallmeyer Super-Six 45/1.9 lens these days, so I don't have any Nocti-shots so far. I'll post more when I got some. Hopefully better than in 2008.
 
Last edited:
ferider said:
Here is a cool Noctilux shot I found in the same gallery as the portrait above:

barack_obama_by_rinze_1.jpg


(Ritze van Brug, http://www.dutchhouseofphotography.com)

Cheers,

Roland.
Click to expand...

Noctilux ?? It seems to be no Leica photo at all ... 150mm f/2.8 on a Canon EOS-1Ds Mk II + Flash according to the Exif data.
 
@ deepwhite: Thank you ! 🙂 ... and please continue to use this lens soon again !

About Tommy Oshima's work ... I also like it a lot because it is more than just " goofy B-O-K-E-H" photography (😉). He uses a lot of different and sometimes very simple cameras (e.g. Ricohflex) to create his photos.
 
Noctilux ?? It seems to be no Leica photo at all ... 150mm f/2.8 on a Canon EOS-1Ds Mk II + Flash according to the Exif data.

🙂
 
About Tommy Oshima's work ... I also like it a lot because it is more than just " goofy B-O-K-E-H" photography
Click to expand...

If you say so. I don't know all he shoots, but the stuff I see linked to represent his 'amazing' Noctilux work seems less-than-amazing.

This looks like goofy b-o-k-e-h to me:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tommyoshima/151771264/in/set-1384389/

Check out the comments section under the pic; I can't figure out what the heck they're talking about.
 
Last edited:
thanks, I dont have any software to read it.

am I reading correctly that it doesnt say what aperature was used, just what the max aperature of the mounted lens was?
 
kevin m said:
If you say so. I don't know all he shoots, but the stuff I see linked to represent his 'amazing' Noctilux work seems less-than-amazing.

This looks like goofy b-o-k-e-h to me:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tommyoshima/151771264/in/set-1384389/

Check out the comments section under the pic; I can't figure out what the heck they're talking about.
Click to expand...

The picture is beautiful. Not to your taste, seriously, what can we do about that?
One of my favorite
I love this one but also this one and.. i don't know a lot of pictures
 
I might suggest that you review the images in his most favorite set again? Lots of them are beautiful and have nothing to do with goofy bokeh.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. There are some nice shots there, in particular this one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tommyoshima/1421572597/in/set-1384389/

It doesn't rely on the trick of ultra-shallow DOF, though, which spoils many of the images there.

Is there anything positive to come from debating such an entirely subjective thing?
Click to expand...

Not if you feel it's "entirely subjective."
 
Okay, the OP would like this thread to be his presentation (his diary, if you will) about his experiences with a new lens. Why don't we just let him do it?

I for one, will refrain from any comments pro or con to this particular lens. I would just like to see how the OP's experience goes and where it takes him.
 
kevin m said:
Personal taste, sure. But art? If art is nothing more than personal taste, then Thomas Kinkade (Painter of Light!) and Vermeer are equals?
Click to expand...

kevin -- read dave's post. start another thread to trash the lens if you'd like, but leave this one alone! i enjoy seeing the photos posted here, and the progress with the lens. it's a chance to observe and ask questions from those of us that give a ****. and i'm saying this with all due respect (from someone that enjoys your Canon shots as well.)

thank you.

dave lackey said:
Okay, the OP would like this thread to be his presentation (his diary, if you will) about his experiences with a new lens. Why don't we just let him do it?

I for one, will refrain from any comments pro or con to this particular lens. I would just like to see how the OP's experience goes and where it takes him.
Click to expand...
 
Cam, I'm not "trashing" anything, but this is a public forum and the original poster doesn't get to control all the comments that follow. For that, we have "blogs." 😀 If you go out in public with mediocre pix and say you took them with a 'magic' lens, then don't be surprised if you encounter disagreement.

You're right about the "art" argument, though, that needs its own thread. 🙂
 
kevin m said:
If you say so. I don't know all he shoots, but the stuff I see linked to represent his 'amazing' Noctilux work seems less-than-amazing.

This looks like goofy b-o-k-e-h to me:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tommyoshima/151771264/in/set-1384389/

Check out the comments section under the pic; I can't figure out what the heck they're talking about.
Click to expand...

I agree with you about this one (the photo of the link you provided) but what for example about this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tommyoshima/111309058/in/set-1384389/

or this one taken with a Bronica:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tommyoshima/531817670/in/set-1384389/

Sure, one can argue for hours about bokeh (or the expression I prefer "shallow DoF") but there will be never a conclusion, IMHO. Either one likes it or dislikes it.

Anyhow, what I like about Tommy Oshima's work is that he uses a lot of different cameras (as I already mentioned) with pretty amazing results.

Cheers,

Gabor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom