[DogLover]

"Pixie dust" is what we make it to be. It's not necessarily nor exclusively from a Pentax lens...

Hate to be a negative Nellie here, but I don't see anything remotely resembling pixie dust in any of these images.

[Ash]

I have to FIND a pixie dust lens FIRST. Is there an official list?

It's been tried before, and I'm not all that convinced...
Here: The Official Pentax Forums "Pixie Dust" Lens List - PentaxForums.com

[Todd Adamson]

Sorry, but that completely ruined the image. The original is much more pleasant to look at. This is what happens when you rely too much on a histogram instead of trusting your eyes.

I'd have to agree. Also, you can't just look at the ends of the histo amd whether or not it runs off. In the edit, the red looks completely posterized, devoid of the subtle detail it had. I'm guessing that would have been evident in the histo, but maybe not.

[jsherman999]

I'd have to agree. Also, you can't just look at the ends of the histo amd whether or not it runs off. In the edit, the red looks completely posterized, devoid of the subtle detail it had. I'm guessing that would have been evident in the histo, but maybe not.

Agreed, I think Steve's original was nice, exposed very well for that red. Reds are hard.

.

[jsherman999]

.


This is turning into a fun workshop! Here's one I just took a couple hours ago - dusted, or no?


.






(I'll give my opinion in a bit, want to see what others think first.)



.

[jstevewhite]

Agreed, I think Steve's original was nice, exposed very well for that red. Reds are hard.

.

Thanks, Jay... here's the wide shot; I like the way that middle rose stands out, but the composition is problematic:

[jstevewhite]

.


This is turning into a fun workshop! Here's one I just took a couple hours ago - dusted, or no?

(I'll give my opinion in a bit, want to see what others think first.)

.

I like that bokeh; if we're using the definition we agreed on, I'd say from this end it looks dusted Is that the FA31?

[jsherman999]

I like that bokeh; if we're using the definition we agreed on, I'd say from this end it looks dusted Is that the FA31?

I like the bokeh too, in fact I think it adds to the shot and works well with the PP - it's an action shot, in a sense, an image about movement and a busy little life.

But... It's not dusted to me. The B&W treatment is very cool and a shot like that looks fabulous printed, but dust can be washed away by PP sometimes. The bokeh, although it works for me, lacks something. If it were simply super-smooth, the shot would look good, but would be a different shot, a soft portrait-wannabe, so I'm not expecting something butter-smooth... Just something more delicate.

I don't know. I like the shot, am mildly proud of it, but the lens itself was just good here, not great, IMO.

(It's Sigma 100-300 f4 at f/4 - I sold the 31 a couple years ago.)



.

[Todd Adamson]

.


This is turning into a fun workshop! Here's one I just took a couple hours ago - dusted, or no?


.






(I'll give my opinion in a bit, want to see what others think first.)



.

I say yes. Not in the overt, bokeh-rendering way that I see so easily with the FA77, but in a more subtle, 3D sense, like what I see from my Zeiss lenses, and occasionally from the DA15. It's definitely special.

[v5planet]

I see... well, the modified one looks ok, but it doesn't look like the scene I photographed. The rose isn't that color, nor are the leaves; they're much too light in the new image. And, seein' as how I really like the darker images with richer color - that's part of what drew me to the roses to begin with... If it had looked like your rendition, I wouldn't have stopped to photograph it.

Thanks for takin' the time to explain!

I'm right there with you. I like the richness of colors that is preserved in images that are slightly underexposed and it was entirely appropriate here to capture the rose's true colors and subtleties.

[jstevewhite]

(It's Sigma 100-300 f4 at f/4 - I sold the 31 a couple years ago.)


.

Woah did I miss, eh? Off by *at least* 69mm ROFL

Yeah, I love the way she's leaving the frame. It's a great shot, and I think it would look even better printed and hung.

[jsherman999]

Thanks, Jay... here's the wide shot; I like the way that middle rose stands out, but the composition is problematic:

Although the composition is worse, the sweet light you caught on the central rose stands out more with this wider view. It's like.. the worse composition is mitigated by the more powerful effect of the light in the center of the frame. I get a more 3-d feeling from the wider shot, and probably like it more.

[jstevewhite]

I'm right there with you. I like the richness of colors that is preserved in images that are slightly underexposed and it was entirely appropriate here to capture the rose's true colors and subtleties.

Thanks. I love the red of those things, and shoot pictures of them every year. This is probably my favorite image of them:




But there obviously can't be any dust on that lens - there's no bokeh!

Meanwhile, I wish I had more stuff to test these lenses on than flowers and pets

[Ash]

Jay, your image is nicely rendered with beautiful bokeh and 3D-textured subject. It's good for me too.

Perhaps another nature example?

single diffused light source, unsharpened and simple PP measures (contrast, brightness, exposure)

[jstevewhite]

Jay, your image is nicely rendered with beautiful bokeh and 3D-textured subject. It's good for me too.

Perhaps another nature example?

single diffused light source, unsharpened and simple PP measures (contrast, brightness, exposure)

Ooh, nice reds! I like the way the green at the base looks like it was cut out with scissors