Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-30-2011, 08:30 PM   #286
Veteran Member
vinceloc's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Philippines
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 367
QuoteOriginally posted by DogLover Quote
Really just couldn't disagree with you more.

Vinceloc, I'm not saying your images are bad, quite the contrary, but they are so completely "dustless" that I have to think that you are seeing something completely different in the generally agreed upon "dusted"samples posted here.

Perhaps it is your method of posting that is causing the dust-busting.
I'd love to see your photographs, Doglover

Do you have a PPG at least?

05-30-2011, 08:44 PM   #287
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,054
QuoteOriginally posted by vinceloc Quote
I'd love to see your photographs, Doglover

Do you have a PPG at least?
'K. Go to post #250 of this thread and follow the link. Post #10 of that thread contains a couple of mine. I do have a PPG gallery, but I don't link to it because doing so would reveal my real name, which I have a rule about on internet forums.

You obviously feel insulted and are looking for ammo to insult me back, so fire away if it will make you feel better.
05-30-2011, 08:49 PM   #288
Veteran Member
Todd Adamson's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Iowa
Posts: 722
Here is an image that I consider very 3D. It comes, IMO, not from the simple DOF isolation, but from the fact that there are elements in between the focal point and the very out of focus stuff...a gradation of focus. I don't think this is required, but it helps. Sometimes when a subject is thoroughly isolated focally, it can look a bit like a cardboard cut-out. In those cases the image can have what some would call 3D, because there is an obvious indication of the depth. But to me, they often look like three dimensional separation of a two-dimensional subject, if that makes any sense. It's more likely to happen with longer focal lengths, due to compression. One can still get 3D with a fully isolated subject, and I think Simon's images argue for that. But I think generally, that can only happen with a wider lens. Just my thoughts. I've seen the most impressive 3D from the Zeiss 35/2 Distagon, on full-frame cameras. I have the lens, but only in K-mount. This shot is from the Zeiss 100 Makro-Planar:

05-30-2011, 08:52 PM   #289
Veteran Member
vinceloc's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Philippines
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 367
What would make me feel better is if we learn to respect each other's opinions, rather than dictate to others one's opinions or beliefs. There are no set standards for what can be imbibed as "pixie dust". It is what one sees as magical, and each one has his/her own perception on what they consider magical.

If you do not consider my photographs to have what you believe to be "pixie dust", then that is alright with me. And for that reason I did not respond to your first response to my earlier post as I respect your opinion. But you have to admit that there are no set standards on what constitutes an image touched with "pixie dust". And if such is the case, then once you begin dictating to others what your specific standards are, well then that's where I draw the line. There is a word for that and I prefer not to use it in this Forum.

05-30-2011, 09:03 PM   #290
Veteran Member
Todd Adamson's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Iowa
Posts: 722
Vince, I think you've taken umbrage where perhaps you shouldn't have.

QuoteOriginally posted by vinceloc Quote
But you have to admit that there are no set standards on what constitutes an image touched with "pixie dust".
I think everyone has agreed with this at some point in this thread, in so many words, and I don't think anyone is trying to dictate anything. Just offering opinions, and it's cool to disagree, right? Steve and I, for example, are finding a whole lot on which to disagree, but it's all cordial.
05-30-2011, 09:06 PM   #291
Ash
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,920
QuoteOriginally posted by DogLover Quote
You obviously feel insulted and are looking for ammo to insult me back, so fire away if it will make you feel better
You might be trying to read between the lines or there is a communication barrier here as I don't see any such notion. I think Vincent genuinely wants to see images that have the X-factor/pixie dust/special qualities not seen from other lenses.

Last edited by Ash; 05-30-2011 at 09:25 PM.
05-30-2011, 09:09 PM   #292
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,054
QuoteOriginally posted by vinceloc Quote
What would make me feel better is if we learn to respect each other's opinions, rather than dictate to others one's opinions or beliefs. There are no set standards for what can be imbibed as "pixie dust". It is what one sees as magical, and each one has his/her own perception on what they consider magical.

If you do not consider my photographs to have what you believe to be "pixie dust", then that is alright with me. And for that reason I did not respond to your first response to my earlier post as I respect your opinion. But you have to admit that there are no set standards on what constitutes an image touched with "pixie dust". And if such is the case, then once you begin dictating to others what your specific standards are, well then that's where I draw the line. There is a word for that and I prefer not to use it in this Forum.
Sorry dude. But in my defense, you voluntarily posted your photos as examples of photos that you thought had pixie dust. I simply gave my opinion on both of your posts. If you don't want opinions, don't post photos. But you're right, I shouldn't have singled you out, I guess.

05-30-2011, 09:11 PM   #293
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,054
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
You might be trying to read between the lines or there is a communication barrier here as I don't see any such notion. I think Vincent is genuinely interested in seeing what images you consider have the X-factor/pixie dust/special qualities not seen from other lenses.
Come on, Ash, you're a smart guy.
05-30-2011, 09:17 PM   #294
Ash
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,920
QuoteOriginally posted by DogLover Quote
Come on, Ash, you're a smart guy
I do get it mate, just giving the benefit of the doubt and trying to keep the peace.
Too much subjectivity letting emotions getting in the way...
We might do better keeping pride out of the picture.

How about another image:

Last edited by Ash; 05-30-2011 at 09:27 PM.
05-30-2011, 09:22 PM   #295
Veteran Member
vinceloc's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Philippines
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 367
No problem. For me, "pixie dust" is an abstract notion. I have a photographer friend that takes magical portraits using old pentax 135's. He purchased a FA77Ltd., but so far I have yet to see a portrait he has taken with the 77ltd. which is magically at par with what his 135 took.

I post photos 'coz, in essence, that is what this Forum is all about - learning to take the best photographs. I respect those that share their photographs and claim theirs have a touch of "pixie dust". I don't tell them otherwise since, for them and possibly many others out there, their photographs do have that magical tinge to it. Who am I to say otherwise? I asked for Todd's opinions on photos of mine where I see that magical tinge. If he doesn't see it, then so be it. At least he tries to justify why he believes so, and follows it up by posting his photographs which he believes has the "pixie dust". I, in turn, try to understand his reasons and compare notes with his standards. Whether I end up agreeing with his definition or not, I keep to myself.

"Do unto others...
05-30-2011, 09:24 PM - 1 Like   #296
Veteran Member
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,806
I'm done with this thread. It's mostly a bunch of BS anyway.
05-30-2011, 09:28 PM   #297
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,395
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
I'm done with this thread. It's mostly a bunch of BS anyway.
+1
05-30-2011, 09:31 PM   #298
Ash
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,920
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
I'm done with this thread. It's mostly a bunch of BS anyway
That's fine Dan, but your opinion does not negate the tangible optical qualities of some lenses, such as the limiteds, that produce uniquely aesthetic images. It's only that these qualities are just about impossible to define and therefore quantify.
05-30-2011, 09:50 PM   #299
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,263
The next post will be #300 on this thread.
300 posts, and no agreement as to whether p.d. even exists, let alone its origin and character.
This sounds to me to be like theology. What deities exist, and why, and how can we tell?

My dad had a pixie-dust combo: an Argoflex-E TLR with 75/4.5 lens shooting Verichrome Pan.
Blazingly sharp, great bokeh and dimensionality, good DOF at the right distance, etc.
Dad knew light and composition, used the same combo for decades, and made good photos.
And he later moved up to an even better Minolta Autocord TLR with 75/3.5 lens, same film.
P.D. was not a term used for lenses then. Especially not slow fixed TLR lenses. They were just sharp.

So let's forget about p.d. and just concentrate on making good photos, eh?
05-30-2011, 09:54 PM   #300
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
The next post will be #300 on this thread.
300 posts, and no agreement as to whether p.d. even exists, let alone its origin and character.
And I'll willing to bet another 300 posts won't help resolve the "issue" either.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
dust, k-mount, pentax lens, picture, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Official Pentax Forums "Pixie Dust" Lens List Winnie Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 40 10-24-2016 03:52 AM
Pentax K-7 Dust Alert and Dust Removal Functions brosen Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 02-09-2016 04:43 AM
HowTo: Replace the first lens group in the 31 with that of the 77! Double pixie dust! feilb Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 1 04-01-2011 10:31 AM
Rendering and Pixie Dust GlennG Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 65 02-06-2011 02:21 PM
dust on sensor or dust on lens 41ants Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 10 10-08-2009 10:28 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:41 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top