Graham Line
Well-known
Backgrounds are beyond wierd, with that double-line effect. Saves me $600. Looked at Tom A.'s pictures but he's shooting b&w and in a different style -- it isn't apparent there.
Last edited:
Take a look at the photo up in the thread of the signpost with a high-rise building in the background. The foreground is very pleasantly rendered; the background looks like the camera moved. These are simply characteristics of the lens, they are neither wrong nor right. This photo is an extreme case, of a normal daylight shutter speed and a very wide opening. If you look at Tom A's set on Flickr, these things don't appear because his style of shooting is different.Tuolumne said:What is the "double-line" bokeh people are referring to? I can see the out of focus areas are kind of jarring, but I don't see any "double lines".
/T
NB23 said:From super smooth Boke lenses, I've come to like all kinds of Boke. Harsh Boke sometimes can add great impact and feel to an image. Harsh Boke isn't necessarily bad.
Think outside of the box.
Hates_ said:I've posted my samples here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=763876&postcount=559
Hahaha! Yes 😀wintoid said:Is that my old Bessa R2a? 😀
Joe Brugger said:Take a look at the photo up in the thread of the signpost with a high-rise building in the background. The foreground is very pleasantly rendered; the background looks like the camera moved. These are simply characteristics of the lens, they are neither wrong nor right. This photo is an extreme case, of a normal daylight shutter speed and a very wide opening. If you look at Tom A's set on Flickr, these things don't appear because his style of shooting is different.
back alley said:i'm confused...if they are 'simply characteristics of the lens', how could they be affected by 'his style of shooting is different'?
joe