The M Club!

mikeSF · 05-04-2010, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by axl

Mike that's gorgeous picture!

Originally posted by ducdao

I always miss my tripod when I have the opportunity to capture these nice landscapes!

thanks...my first time trying slow shutter effect using f/22 on the M50 and it worked! More shots are in the Bay Area Meetup thread here:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/gatherings-photo-trips-groups/99403-sf-ba...-seashore.html

yeatzee · 05-05-2010, 05:22 PM

i use my M 50mm exclusively for family shots at resturaunts...

yeatzee · 05-06-2010, 01:51 PM

"i see you....."

(M 50mm..)

fvalduga · 05-06-2010, 03:30 PM

Hey everyone,

Here is a couple of shots with M 50mm F1.7 set at 2.0

She's my wife by the way, she's expecting our first child. :-)

And here is one with 28mm F2.8 wide open

Cheers,
Felipe

MikeW · 05-06-2010, 03:38 PM

Congratulations, Felipe! You are a lucky guy.

Bramela · 05-06-2010, 03:54 PM

I just thought I would add these for those who may be interested in the capabilities of M lenses

SMC Pentax-M 200mm F4

SMC Pentax-M 135mm 3.5

**Canada_Rockies** · 05-06-2010, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by fvalduga

Hey everyone,

Here is a couple of shots with M 50mm F1.7 set at 2.0

She's my wife by the way, she's expecting our first child. :-)

Felipe, that second shot with the knitted booties is absolutely fantastic. I love it! Are you sure the booties are the right colour? (Pink?)

fvalduga · 05-06-2010, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by MikeW

Congratulations, Felipe! You are a lucky guy.

Thanks Mike!

fvalduga · 05-06-2010, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Canada_Rockies

Felipe, that second shot with the knitted booties is absolutely fantastic. I love it! Are you sure the booties are the right colour? (Pink?)

Wow, that's very kind of you, thanks! Yes, I'm pretty sure about the color lol! It's a girl and her name is Helena!
Thanks again.

Marc Sabatella · 05-06-2010, 06:33 PM

M28/2.8 at around f/5.6:

Marc Sabatella · 05-08-2010, 02:55 PM

M135/3.5 at around f/5.6:

M135/3.5 at f/3.5:

[IMGTALL]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4007/4590040868_d1ca25a899_b.jpg[/IMGTALL]

jsherman999 · 05-08-2010, 08:57 PM

Marc, are you doing something different in PP with sharpness now, or downsizing method? Those last three shots and the shot of that cat you took with the DA 70 in the other thread just have perfect sharpness. And the color in that M 28 shot is also perfect (on my monitor at least).

Marc Sabatella · 05-09-2010, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

Marc, are you doing something different in PP with sharpness now, or downsizing method? Those last three shots and the shot of that cat you took with the DA 70 in the other thread just have perfect sharpness. And the color in that M 28 shot is also perfect (on my monitor at least).

Interesting you should ask that!

I haven't actually changed anything about my sharpening settings - all of the aforementioned shots just use the defaults that ACDSee comes up with when camera sharpness is turned up a notch. But I *have* recently been experimenting with color and contrast. Not that I haven't always played around with those, but starting with that batch of shots, I've been trying out a new method.

I've always noticed ACDSee's default conversion of a RAW image is contrastier than the camera-embedded preview (using Natural mode and all other settings except sharpness at default; not sure how it would look with Bright, or with any of the options you normally suggest). On many images - I like ACDSee version better (more "pop"). On others, it's a toss-up. But for some - particularly sunlit scenes - the contrast in ACDSee's conversion would tend to make shadows go too dark. And ACDSee tends to render "landscape greens" a bit unnaturally (too cool and too intense) by default as well. So I'd play with contrast, curves, WB, saturation, hue, and/or vibrance on an ad hoc basis on images where this bugged me.

What I just did for the first time a couple of days ago is to create a set of customized pre-processing curves for ACDSee to use in place of its standard (camera-specific) versions. ACDSee doesn't actually let you change the "default" conversion, but it does allow you to "manually" select your own pre-processing curves. I created a preset on the RGB channel that bumps the shadow levels slightly, then in the individual color channels, pushes R a little but pulls back G and B slightly. So for images taken under sunny conditions, I am now applying this preset rather than starting my custom PP from the default conversion. Realistically, most images taken in sunny conditions weren't getting any PP at all (although perhaps most of the ones I've actually posted got at least a little shadow lightening), so even if my old methods would have been *capable* of rendering images similarly to what my preset does, I wasn't really doing this.

I suppose it's possible that some of these changes would have an effect on perceived sharpness, but again, none of these are actually processed any different in that respect. So it's possible that it's complete coincidence that you noticed a change right when I changed something. But it sure makes me go "hmmm".

BTW, I suspect I actually went too far with my preprocessing curves, as some images I apply them too look *too* warm and have their contrast pulled back *too* far for my tastes. However, if I can assume your comments are anything but coincidence, I'm probably on the right track :-)

jsherman999 · 05-09-2010, 11:03 PM

I don't think it's coincidence, I definitely see some sort of improvement in these shots and the last shots you posted in the DA Limited thread. My brain was saying 'sharpness, maybe color,' but better contrast is often perceived as better sharpness, so that's probably it.

Anyway, you've achieved a pleasing bump without overcooking it, which is hard to do, and the results speak for themselves - nice job. (and I'm still marveling at the subtle yellow color gradient and 'perfect' pinks in that M 28 shot...)

Marc Sabatella · 05-10-2010, 11:07 AM

Thanks again! Remember, though, that's what's different is that my pre-processing curve has *less* contrast than the default conversion I might have otherwise started from. At least, the shadows are less dark - there might be more contrast in the upper midtone range.

On the shot of the petals in the birdbath, though, I did darken the lower midtones to add that contrast back. And on that shot, I also pulled back the saturation of the yellow only to bring out more detail, and pushed the saturation of the red/magenta only. The original colors were rather more washed out in comparison. The ability to affect saturation (as well as hue and brightness) on a per-color basis is another nice feature of ACDSee Pro 3 that I almost never use. But this is the only shot of the ones you mentioned where I did any of that.

05-06-2010, 03:30 PM	#1579
fvalduga Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Porto Alegre - RS Photos: Gallery Posts: 25	Manual lenses rocks! Hey everyone, Here is a couple of shots with M 50mm F1.7 set at 2.0 She's my wife by the way, she's expecting our first child. :-) And here is one with 28mm F2.8 wide open Cheers, Felipe

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
D-FA WR Club	Rico	Lens Clubs	672	1 Day Ago 07:37 PM
The A Club	jake.astig	Lens Clubs	4000	3 Days Ago 12:40 PM
The F Club!	jsherman999	Lens Clubs	1237	04-12-2024 04:04 PM
Ltd club, here I come	axl	Lens Clubs	21	12-12-2010 03:06 AM
In the club again	metroeloise	Post Your Photos!	4	10-20-2008 08:59 AM

05-04-2010, 10:03 AM	#1576
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,622	Originally posted by axl Mike that's gorgeous picture! Originally posted by ducdao I always miss my tripod when I have the opportunity to capture these nice landscapes! thanks...my first time trying slow shutter effect using f/22 on the M50 and it worked! More shots are in the Bay Area Meetup thread here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/gatherings-photo-trips-groups/99403-sf-ba...-seashore.html

05-05-2010, 05:22 PM	#1577
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	i use my M 50mm exclusively for family shots at resturaunts...

05-06-2010, 01:51 PM	#1578
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	"i see you....." (M 50mm..)

05-06-2010, 03:38 PM	#1580
MikeW Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Indiana Photos: Gallery Posts: 437	Congratulations, Felipe! You are a lucky guy.

05-06-2010, 03:54 PM	#1581
Bramela Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Newcastle Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,284	I just thought I would add these for those who may be interested in the capabilities of M lenses SMC Pentax-M 200mm F4 SMC Pentax-M 135mm 3.5

05-06-2010, 04:19 PM	#1582
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by fvalduga Hey everyone, Here is a couple of shots with M 50mm F1.7 set at 2.0 She's my wife by the way, she's expecting our first child. :-) Felipe, that second shot with the knitted booties is absolutely fantastic. I love it! Are you sure the booties are the right colour? (Pink?)

05-06-2010, 04:36 PM	#1583
fvalduga Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Porto Alegre - RS Photos: Gallery Posts: 25	Originally posted by MikeW Congratulations, Felipe! You are a lucky guy. Thanks Mike!

05-06-2010, 04:40 PM	#1584
fvalduga Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Porto Alegre - RS Photos: Gallery Posts: 25	Originally posted by Canada_Rockies Felipe, that second shot with the knitted booties is absolutely fantastic. I love it! Are you sure the booties are the right colour? (Pink?) Wow, that's very kind of you, thanks! Yes, I'm pretty sure about the color lol! It's a girl and her name is Helena! Thanks again.

05-06-2010, 06:33 PM	#1585
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	M28/2.8 at around f/5.6:

05-08-2010, 02:55 PM	#1586
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	M135/3.5 at around f/5.6: M135/3.5 at f/3.5: [IMGTALL]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4007/4590040868_d1ca25a899_b.jpg[/IMGTALL]

05-08-2010, 08:57 PM	#1587
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237 Original Poster	Marc, are you doing something different in PP with sharpness now, or downsizing method? Those last three shots and the shot of that cat you took with the DA 70 in the other thread just have perfect sharpness. And the color in that M 28 shot is also perfect (on my monitor at least).

05-09-2010, 12:14 PM	#1588
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by jsherman999 Marc, are you doing something different in PP with sharpness now, or downsizing method? Those last three shots and the shot of that cat you took with the DA 70 in the other thread just have perfect sharpness. And the color in that M 28 shot is also perfect (on my monitor at least). Interesting you should ask that! I haven't actually changed anything about my sharpening settings - all of the aforementioned shots just use the defaults that ACDSee comes up with when camera sharpness is turned up a notch. But I have recently been experimenting with color and contrast. Not that I haven't always played around with those, but starting with that batch of shots, I've been trying out a new method. I've always noticed ACDSee's default conversion of a RAW image is contrastier than the camera-embedded preview (using Natural mode and all other settings except sharpness at default; not sure how it would look with Bright, or with any of the options you normally suggest). On many images - I like ACDSee version better (more "pop"). On others, it's a toss-up. But for some - particularly sunlit scenes - the contrast in ACDSee's conversion would tend to make shadows go too dark. And ACDSee tends to render "landscape greens" a bit unnaturally (too cool and too intense) by default as well. So I'd play with contrast, curves, WB, saturation, hue, and/or vibrance on an ad hoc basis on images where this bugged me. What I just did for the first time a couple of days ago is to create a set of customized pre-processing curves for ACDSee to use in place of its standard (camera-specific) versions. ACDSee doesn't actually let you change the "default" conversion, but it does allow you to "manually" select your own pre-processing curves. I created a preset on the RGB channel that bumps the shadow levels slightly, then in the individual color channels, pushes R a little but pulls back G and B slightly. So for images taken under sunny conditions, I am now applying this preset rather than starting my custom PP from the default conversion. Realistically, most images taken in sunny conditions weren't getting any PP at all (although perhaps most of the ones I've actually posted got at least a little shadow lightening), so even if my old methods would have been capable of rendering images similarly to what my preset does, I wasn't really doing this. I suppose it's possible that some of these changes would have an effect on perceived sharpness, but again, none of these are actually processed any different in that respect. So it's possible that it's complete coincidence that you noticed a change right when I changed something. But it sure makes me go "hmmm". BTW, I suspect I actually went too far with my preprocessing curves, as some images I apply them too look too warm and have their contrast pulled back too far for my tastes. However, if I can assume your comments are anything but coincidence, I'm probably on the right track :-)

05-09-2010, 11:03 PM	#1589
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237 Original Poster	I don't think it's coincidence, I definitely see some sort of improvement in these shots and the last shots you posted in the DA Limited thread. My brain was saying 'sharpness, maybe color,' but better contrast is often perceived as better sharpness, so that's probably it. Anyway, you've achieved a pleasing bump without overcooking it, which is hard to do, and the results speak for themselves - nice job. (and I'm still marveling at the subtle yellow color gradient and 'perfect' pinks in that M 28 shot...)

05-10-2010, 11:07 AM	#1590
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Thanks again! Remember, though, that's what's different is that my pre-processing curve has less contrast than the default conversion I might have otherwise started from. At least, the shadows are less dark - there might be more contrast in the upper midtone range. On the shot of the petals in the birdbath, though, I did darken the lower midtones to add that contrast back. And on that shot, I also pulled back the saturation of the yellow only to bring out more detail, and pushed the saturation of the red/magenta only. The original colors were rather more washed out in comparison. The ability to affect saturation (as well as hue and brightness) on a per-color basis is another nice feature of ACDSee Pro 3 that I almost never use. But this is the only shot of the ones you mentioned where I did any of that.