[morpho]

Since i think you're all so serious, i'll post a picture which isn't very good, but it's kinda fun, especially when it describes pretty well why i never play with sticks with my dog:

EDIT: Uploaded the picture...erhm.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by morpho; 04-12-2012 at 11:45 AM.

[lightbulb]

And my own version of the model, still I like more the version of prosto, which thank you for shared with us this wonderful photo ...
Sorry for my english...

It reminds me of the image quality of the movie Violet where Mikovich the super lady model was in it. I like it!

[Prosto]

wow...thank you all guys for your tries and opinions. and steliost: thank you, too. your treatment seems the most interesting to me. I don't know how but suddenly reminded me "The Mullholland Drive" mood. I hope this girl doesn't read pentaxforum since they all hate being exposed unprocessed...and thanks for watching.

[bossa]

I deleted my feeble PP attempt off of Flickr and will delete my posts here to as they should now show no images. I hope I didn't offend anyone.

With all of these great Prosto shots using the 85 F1.4 I dug out my iPhone DOF calculator and came up with this:

55mm @ 2meters from subject @ F.1.4 DOF = 74.93
85mm @ 3.09 meters from subject @ F/1.4 DOF = 74.87 (85/55=1.54 and 2x1.54=3.09)

My question is:
If you took the same shot with both lenses at those distances the subject should be the same size in the shot although the background would be different. Is there any real difference in the result? I know that's an ignorant question but as I don't have an 85mm lens I haven't tied it. I will try it with my zoom though at F2.8 and compare the different backgrounds tomorrow.

Earlier today I set up my Sigma 50 and DA55 so that the camera was 1.1x further from the subject for the 55. I found that the Bokeh of the DA55 @ F/2.5 was pretty much identical to the 50 @ F/1.8. An interesting scenario because it means you can stop down the Pentax a bit to sharpen up the image. I assume a 85mm F/1.4 lens would be even better for this.

Any comments would be appreciated?

PS: I think I'll try it with my FA77 @1.8. Sorry for the BS guys but I'm still learning and trying to figure things out as fast as I can.. lol

[Prosto]

...........

My question is:
If you took the same shot with both lenses at those distances the subject should be the same size in the shot although the background would be different. Is there any real difference in the result?
..............

well...all I know that you should take into the consideration the censor density or the print size also. I don't have any of the 50/1.4 right now (hesitating about the legacy 55/1.4 or sigma 50/1.4) to give you a straight comparison. But many people assume bokeh to be the same as DOF. Extremely thin DOF doesn't exactly mean pleasant bokeh and vise versa. I used to own Olympus 35-100/2.0 and 150/2.0. It's equiv.to 70-200/4.0 and 300/4.0 (focal length and DOF wise), and I can tell for sure that none either of my customers or friends (canon users) could even apriximately guess the DOF eqiuv.on a FF looking at the pictures. But there was no way the pictures were simiar to canon 70-200/4.0. I mean it's all very relative assuming the distortions are corrected if present. There are so many other characteristics besides DOF which affect the look of the background.

As for the Samyang 85/1.4 lense...it can be very soft wide open and give you very dirty colors depending on the lighting conditions - which I dislike. And..can be reasonably sharp at 1.4 and excessively sharp at 2.0 for portraits with good light. It took me sometime to adjust my prosessing accordingly to manage it's character. But any 85/1.4 has something special - it's weaknesses and strong sides. It's just this kind of lense. But it's certainly a must have for portraiture since you have some space behind to step away from the model. 50mm even on a crop doesn't always give you that special look. It makes faces bigger, etc.

I'm not really fond of technical part of the shooting. I mean I have to learn my minimum to get the idea and somewhat predict the result. But I enjoy shooting much more. One of the reasons I left russian forum. Many people are whining there that they need this or that camera or lense to fullfill their needs. And Pentax is the only brand that has to do it... Etc.

So..I dunno if I've answered your question...If not - it's not becuase I didn't want to, but becuase I don't know myself; if yes - well, it's still unintended

Two more files with this lens on K-5 just to compare with the other shot:

http://www.filedropper.com/ost0920 - f 1.4

http://www.filedropper.com/ost0938 - f 2.0

[steliost]

It reminds me of the image quality of the movie Violet where Mikovich the super lady model was in it. I like it!

Thank you!

wow...thank you all guys for your tries and opinions. and steliost: thank you, too. your treatment seems the most interesting to me. I don't know how but suddenly reminded me "The Mullholland Drive" mood. I hope this girl doesn't read pentaxforum since they all hate being exposed unprocessed...and thanks for watching.

Ha, ha... Thanks prosto, certainly not in my mind this movie when I was editing the photo, "The Mullholland Drive"


I wanted to give a warm atmosphere and I think somehow I managed ... As I said above, your version is the best as well as your knowledge and your experience in image processing is very professional...

Thanks again for your wonderful portraits that you share with us ...

ps. Ιf you want to erase my post, just tell!

[bossa]

well...all I know that you should take into the consideration the censor density or the print size also. I don't have any of the 50/1.4 right now (hesitating about the legacy 55/1.4 or sigma 50/1.4) to give you a straight comparison. But many people assume bokeh to be the same as DOF. Extremely thin DOF doesn't exactly mean pleasant bokeh and vise versa. I used to own Olympus 35-100/2.0 and 150/2.0. It's equiv.to 70-200/4.0 and 300/4.0 (focal length and DOF wise), and I can tell for sure that none either of my customers or friends (canon users) could even apriximately guess the DOF eqiuv.on a FF looking at the pictures. But there was no way the pictures were simiar to canon 70-200/4.0. I mean it's all very relative assuming the distortions are corrected if present. There are so many other characteristics besides DOF which affect the look of the background.

As for the Samyang 85/1.4 lense...it can be very soft wide open and give you very dirty colors depending on the lighting conditions - which I dislike. And..can be reasonably sharp at 1.4 and excessively sharp at 2.0 for portraits with good light. It took me sometime to adjust my prosessing accordingly to manage it's character. But any 85/1.4 has something special - it's weaknesses and strong sides. It's just this kind of lense. But it's certainly a must have for portraiture since you have some space behind to step away from the model. 50mm even on a crop doesn't always give you that special look. It makes faces bigger, etc.

I'm not really fond of technical part of the shooting. I mean I have to learn my minimum to get the idea and somewhat predict the result. But I enjoy shooting much more. One of the reasons I left russian forum. Many people are whining there that they need this or that camera or lense to fullfill their needs. And Pentax is the only brand that has to do it... Etc.

So..I dunno if I've answered your question...If not - it's not becuase I didn't want to, but becuase I don't know myself; if yes - well, it's still unintended

Two more files with this lens on K-5 just to compare with the other shot:

http://www.filedropper.com/ost0920 - f 1.4

http://www.filedropper.com/ost0938 - f 2.0

Thanks for the response. I am not confusing DOF and Bokeh though. My idea was to discount DOF by showing that they were in fact the same for both lenses where the subject was the same size in the image and thus try to get a better idea of what was happening in the Bokeh alone. Obviously the background would be bigger with the longer focal length lens. I'll do some tests with my 77 and 55 to see it for myself and if they're worth reporting I will create a new thread.

Cheers

PS: I can't download those pictures. I think I am supposed to download an application and I already have enough of those. Thanks for trying.

[Prosto]

Thanks for the response. I am not confusing DOF and Bokeh though. My idea was to discount DOF by showing that they were in fact the same for both lenses where the subject was the same size in the image and thus try to get a better idea of what was happening in the Bokeh alone. Obviously the background would be bigger with the longer focal length lens. I'll do some tests with my 77 and 55 to see it for myself and if they're worth reporting I will create a new thread.

Cheers

PS: I can't download those pictures. I think I am supposed to download an application and I already have enough of those. Thanks for trying.

Oh- I see now. The perspective. It obvoisly should be different. More space behind the model - the more obvious the effect is. The longer focal length you use - the more compressed background you get. Objects on the long distances don't appear to be smaller. I'm not sure if it's that drastic if 50mm compared to 85. But the effect is certainly there.

[Prosto]

A little bit of love story here. Thanks for watching.

[joe.penn]

Awesome set @Prosto

[trublubiker]

Not quite the same as the previous models, but still posed for me.

Taken with the K5, Sigma 105, ISO100, f8, 1/180s and an AF500FTZ with diffuser, (in manual mode) and additional diffusion through a piece of milk container, flash bounced from the leaves above the frog.

[cbope]

And my own version of the model, still I like more the version of prosto, which thank you for shared with us this wonderful photo ...
Sorry for my english...

Very nice treatment, though a bit too warm for my taste. I think Prosto's original is also very good, but I agree with others that maybe the PP is pushed just a bit too far especially on the face. I like to see a little "character" in the models, and not the fake-ness that comes from a bit too much PP.

In any case, all of these portraits are better than what I can do...

[Vorture]

Another few mediocre shots:

[jimH]

Another few mediocre shots:

Very nice!

[Prosto]

.....