Pixie Dust

**Ash** · 05-31-2011, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

I don't quite understand why they went in the totally opposite direction with the FA 50, but it's clear to be which of these two is sharper, and which one has the better bokeh

Not in my experience. FA 43 has outdone the 50/1.4 in all facets of portraiture IMO.
The FA 77 also outdoes any lens at that focal length I've put it up against. What rivals it are the DA 70 and perhaps FA* 85 in nearby focal lengths.

paperbag846 · 05-31-2011, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Ash

Not in my experience. FA 43 has outdone the 50/1.4 in all facets of portraiture IMO.

I dunno... sometimes the OOF areas can get pretty ugly with the FA 43. Of course, the 50 is never as sharp. Depends on your priorities.

jsherman999 · 05-31-2011, 05:41 PM

.

In the lens 'user reviews' section on dpreview, the one 77ltd review there cites "Pixie Dust".

By the way, I stacked a bunch of Raynox's on my Dine, took a shot of the surface of my 77ltd, and look what I found!!!

!!!!!!!!

DogLover · 05-31-2011, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

.

In the lens 'user reviews' section on dpreview, the one 77ltd review there cites "Pixie Dust".

By the way, I stacked a bunch of Raynox's on my Dine, took a shot of the surface of my 77ltd, and look what I found!!!

!!!!!!!!

AHA! There it is in it's molecular form. I knew it was real!

jstevewhite · 05-31-2011, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

.

In the lens 'user reviews' section on dpreview, the one 77ltd review there cites "Pixie Dust".

By the way, I stacked a bunch of Raynox's on my Dine, took a shot of the surface of my 77ltd, and look what I found!!!

I didn't realize you could construct a SEM from Raynox + Dine! Someone alert NASA!

They sure don't polish the surface very well, eh? It looks like asphalt.

ROFL

jstevewhite · 05-31-2011, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by DogLover

AHA! There it is in it's molecular form. I knew it was real!

I think it's an element. Pixium. 101.5 on the periodic table. No, wait, that's a classic rock channel in KC... Sorry.

v5planet · 05-31-2011, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by jstevewhite

I think it's an element. Pixium. 101.5 on the periodic table. No, wait, that's a classic rock channel in KC... Sorry.

If we want to put it on the periodic table of elements, I recommend some multiple of i, to keep the imaginary theme going

dgaies · 05-31-2011, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by v5planet

If we want to put it on the periodic table of elements, I recommend some multiple of i, to keep the imaginary theme going

Perhaps a complex number would be more appropriate as it has both a real and imaginary part

Maybe that will keep everyone "happy"

jsherman999 · 05-31-2011, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by jstevewhite

I didn't realize you could construct a SEM from Raynox + Dine! Someone alert NASA!

They sure don't polish the surface very well, eh? It looks like asphalt.

ROFL

At that level of magnification the surface would probably look like the Andes, so I'd say it was polished pretty well if it looked like that!

(Actually I was imagining something more pollen-sized.)

.

RioRico · 05-31-2011, 07:49 PM

On another thread here, I expounded the percentages of the components of a good photograph:

90% photographer, 9% subject, 0.9% light, 0.09% lens, 0.009% camera.

And the remainder is pixie dust.
_________________________________________________

BTW, this is now the 370th post. Shooting for 1000, are we?

**rparmar** · 05-31-2011, 08:00 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by asdf

If "pixie dust" is synonymous with less than stellar optical qualities, then at least we've got it pinned down somehow.

Yes, how horrible to take a picture so obviously rubbish.

Originally posted by RioRico

On another thread here, I expounded the percentages of the components of a good photograph:

90% photographer, 9% subject, 0.9% light, 0.09% lens, 0.009% camera.

And the remainder is pixie dust.

Even if this was not one of the biggest fallacies about photography, it would still be rather useless information. When taking a given picture you are unable to change the largest factor (unless you want someone else to take the picture) and so must work on controlling those factors you are able to change. Choosing the right lens is an important part of this.

Originally posted by RioRico

BTW, this is now the 370th post. Shooting for 1000, are we?

And your contribution helps!

**Ash** · 05-31-2011, 08:15 PM

Rio, as much as this is poetic, conjuring up a rule of 9s of sorts, I'm certain lighting has more than a measly 0.9% contribution to a good photograph, seeing as though photography is the 'recording of light'... have to agree with Robin.

jsherman999 · 05-31-2011, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by Ash

Rio, as much as this is poetic, conjuring up a rule of 9s of sorts, I'm certain lighting has more than a measly 0.9% contribution to a good photograph, seeing as though photography is the 'recording of light'... have to agree with Robin.

Ash & Robin++

Here are my Nines (and a 6)

29% Photographer
19% Subject
19% Light
9% Camera
9% Lens
9% PP
6% Pixie Dust

.

Todd Adamson · 05-31-2011, 09:13 PM - **1 Like**

I'll not bother to get specific with my own breakdown, but I've slowly come round to the opinion that in the recipe for a good photo, the photographer is maybe third down on the list of ingredients, behind light and lens. I'm certain no one would agree with this bit of sacrilege.

And it's complicated by the fact of the photographer's direct influence on both light and lens. But I have many photos the impact of which would have been reduced by 95% or so had the light been different. Certainly, even if we reduce the photographer's contribution down to something as low as 10%, it's a critical 10%. For example, let's say chocolate chips make up 10% of a great cookie. We cannot simply replace them with rabbit turds and expect to get a result that doesn't leave one with the aftertaste of rabbit turds.

RioRico · 05-31-2011, 09:14 PM - **2 Likes**

1) Y'all took me too seriously. The percentages are rough, but that's the right order.
2) Does 'better' gear make one a better shooter? Do PD lenses take 'better' photos?

I just saw a superb exhibition on the intersection of photography and painting since 1890 at the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum here in Santa Fe NM (alas, I leave tomorrow). Included were major works by Steiglitz, Steichen, Hockney, Warhol, various others. They reinforce my view that some of the most significant photos ever made are blurry and blobby, yet manage to CONVEY, to have IMPACT. None required pixie-dusted lenses. All required vision.

05-31-2011, 07:22 PM	#368
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by v5planet If we want to put it on the periodic table of elements, I recommend some multiple of i, to keep the imaginary theme going Perhaps a complex number would be more appropriate as it has both a real and imaginary part Maybe that will keep everyone "happy" Last edited by dgaies; 05-31-2011 at 07:28 PM.

05-31-2011, 08:15 PM	#372
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Rio, as much as this is poetic, conjuring up a rule of 9s of sorts, I'm certain lighting has more than a measly 0.9% contribution to a good photograph, seeing as though photography is the 'recording of light'... have to agree with Robin. Last edited by Ash; 05-31-2011 at 08:25 PM.

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

05-31-2011, 05:12 PM	#361
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by paperbag846 I don't quite understand why they went in the totally opposite direction with the FA 50, but it's clear to be which of these two is sharper, and which one has the better bokeh Not in my experience. FA 43 has outdone the 50/1.4 in all facets of portraiture IMO. The FA 77 also outdoes any lens at that focal length I've put it up against. What rivals it are the DA 70 and perhaps FA* 85 in nearby focal lengths.

05-31-2011, 05:24 PM	#362
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by Ash Not in my experience. FA 43 has outdone the 50/1.4 in all facets of portraiture IMO. I dunno... sometimes the OOF areas can get pretty ugly with the FA 43. Of course, the 50 is never as sharp. Depends on your priorities.

05-31-2011, 05:41 PM	#363
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	. In the lens 'user reviews' section on dpreview, the one 77ltd review there cites "Pixie Dust". By the way, I stacked a bunch of Raynox's on my Dine, took a shot of the surface of my 77ltd, and *look what I found!!!* !!!!!!!!

05-31-2011, 05:44 PM	#364
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by jsherman999 . In the lens 'user reviews' section on dpreview, the one 77ltd review there cites "Pixie Dust". By the way, I stacked a bunch of Raynox's on my Dine, took a shot of the surface of my 77ltd, and *look what I found!!!* !!!!!!!! AHA! There it is in it's molecular form. I knew it was real!

05-31-2011, 06:47 PM	#365
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by jsherman999 . In the lens 'user reviews' section on dpreview, the one 77ltd review there cites "Pixie Dust". By the way, I stacked a bunch of Raynox's on my Dine, took a shot of the surface of my 77ltd, and *look what I found!!!* I didn't realize you could construct a SEM from Raynox + Dine! Someone alert NASA! They sure don't polish the surface very well, eh? It looks like asphalt. ROFL

05-31-2011, 06:59 PM	#366
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by DogLover AHA! There it is in it's molecular form. I knew it was real! I think it's an element. Pixium. 101.5 on the periodic table. No, wait, that's a classic rock channel in KC... Sorry.

05-31-2011, 07:13 PM	#367
v5planet Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Seattle Photos: Albums Posts: 1,915	Originally posted by jstevewhite I think it's an element. Pixium. 101.5 on the periodic table. No, wait, that's a classic rock channel in KC... Sorry. If we want to put it on the periodic table of elements, I recommend some multiple of i, to keep the imaginary theme going

05-31-2011, 07:48 PM	#369
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by jstevewhite I didn't realize you could construct a SEM from Raynox + Dine! Someone alert NASA! They sure don't polish the surface very well, eh? It looks like asphalt. ROFL At that level of magnification the surface would probably look like the Andes, so I'd say it was polished pretty well if it looked like that! (Actually I was imagining something more pollen-sized.) .

05-31-2011, 07:49 PM	#370
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	On another thread here, I expounded the percentages of the components of a good photograph: 90% photographer, 9% subject, 0.9% light, 0.09% lens, 0.009% camera. And the remainder is pixie dust. _________________________________________________ BTW, this is now the 370th post. Shooting for 1000, are we?

05-31-2011, 08:00 PM - 1 Like	#371
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Originally posted by asdf If "pixie dust" is synonymous with less than stellar optical qualities, then at least we've got it pinned down somehow. Yes, how horrible to take a picture so obviously rubbish. Originally posted by RioRico On another thread here, I expounded the percentages of the components of a good photograph: 90% photographer, 9% subject, 0.9% light, 0.09% lens, 0.009% camera. And the remainder is pixie dust. Even if this was not one of the biggest fallacies about photography, it would still be rather useless information. When taking a given picture you are unable to change the largest factor (unless you want someone else to take the picture) and so must work on controlling those factors you are able to change. Choosing the right lens is an important part of this. Originally posted by RioRico BTW, this is now the 370th post. Shooting for 1000, are we? And your contribution helps!

05-31-2011, 08:46 PM	#373
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by Ash Rio, as much as this is poetic, conjuring up a rule of 9s of sorts, I'm certain lighting has more than a measly 0.9% contribution to a good photograph, seeing as though photography is the 'recording of light'... have to agree with Robin. Ash & Robin++ Here are my Nines (and a 6) 29% Photographer 19% Subject 19% Light 9% Camera 9% Lens 9% PP 6% Pixie Dust .

05-31-2011, 09:13 PM - 1 Like	#374
Todd Adamson Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Iowa Posts: 722	I'll not bother to get specific with my own breakdown, but I've slowly come round to the opinion that in the recipe for a good photo, the photographer is maybe third down on the list of ingredients, behind light and lens. I'm certain no one would agree with this bit of sacrilege. And it's complicated by the fact of the photographer's direct influence on both light and lens. But I have many photos the impact of which would have been reduced by 95% or so had the light been different. Certainly, even if we reduce the photographer's contribution down to something as low as 10%, it's a critical 10%. For example, let's say chocolate chips make up 10% of a great cookie. We cannot simply replace them with rabbit turds and expect to get a result that doesn't leave one with the aftertaste of rabbit turds.

05-31-2011, 09:14 PM - 2 Likes	#375
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	1) Y'all took me too seriously. The percentages are rough, but that's the right order. 2) Does 'better' gear make one a better shooter? Do PD lenses take 'better' photos? I just saw a superb exhibition on the intersection of photography and painting since 1890 at the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum here in Santa Fe NM (alas, I leave tomorrow). Included were major works by Steiglitz, Steichen, Hockney, Warhol, various others. They reinforce my view that some of the most significant photos ever made are blurry and blobby, yet manage to CONVEY, to have IMPACT. None required pixie-dusted lenses. All required vision.