[jsherman999]

..

This is one with the DA *55 which to me feels like the background is really smoothed, not distracting, which is what I want.

Nice & fairly smooth on that one - the one with your son sitting on the chest earlier in the thread looks quite a bit busier, more distracting. The 55 is an interesting lens.

[jsherman999]

I do shoot with the RB67 and 6x6 TLRs.
To me, its not so straightforward an argument as one would think (not on the Mamiya RB67 system anyway)
The 'normal' is the 90mm f3.5 and the portrait lens is the 180mm f4.5
On my 135 format, I can go 50/1.2; 85/1.4, 100/2 and/or 135/2.5 (or 135/2)
The faster lens options effectively closes the gap to this shallow DOF for same FOV argument between the two formats.
Or course there actual FL is different, bringing with it their usual characteristics (eg. distortion)

Then again, shooting 180mm on 67 is at the working distance of about a 85mm on 135 format, is kind of 'nice', more personal/engaging and need to step back less especially if there is a wall behind to make it impossible.

There are other 67 system with faster lenses, (eg. P67+105/2.5) so there is no prefect argument to this imo.

I suspect that's because 67 wasn't used for low-light shootng without flash very much, and it was used for landscapes a lot. The demand for super-fast lenses wasn't as great. (but 105 2.5 *is* very fast on 67 format.)

[jsherman999]

I think the composition is universally excellent in these photos, and I like the use of shallow DoF, but they're post-processed to well beyond the point where they look real.

I doubt 'looking real' is the main goal there. There are one billion kid shots on flickr that 'look real', I think she was trying to do something different, and used the strengths of the format to succeed. (which was the point of the thread! )

My guess is that she's dropping her children into a story, so she can capture their usual expressions and interactions in an idealized, wonder-filled setting. In some of the other shots it's more 'real', where she ust uses some of the same techniques, just turned down a notch. It's very effective, very well done.

[pinholecam]

I suspect that's because 67 wasn't used for low-light shootng without flash very much, and it was used for landscapes a lot. The demand for super-fast lenses wasn't as great. (but 105 2.5 *is* very fast on 67 format.)

Could be....
It was also a studio workhorse used mostly stopped down.
The leaf shutters allowed fast flash sync speeds, but also limited lens speeds (IIRC)

Maybe the P67, Hassy with their faster lenses, but I've never explored those options.

[tuco]

I suspect that's because 67 wasn't used for low-light shootng without flash very much, and it was used for landscapes a lot. The demand for super-fast lenses wasn't as great. (but 105 2.5 *is* very fast on 67 format.)

It is f2.4 on that 105mm, btw. A person can extrapolate with their experience shooting APS-C by standing the distance they would normally with a 35mm on APS-C to take a shot of a person but use a 100mm instead at f2.5 and you'll get a feel for how narrow the DOF would be on a 6x7 format.

[pinholecam]

It is f2.4 on that 105mm, btw. A person can extrapolate with their experience shooting APS-C by standing the distance they would normally with a 35mm on APS-C to take a shot of a person but use a 100mm instead at f2.5 and you'll get a feel for how narrow the DOF would be on a 6x7 format.

About 4 stitched shots with a D700+AIS105/2.5 in 2x2 would be close?

[Rondec]

^^ Rondec, your stuff is great but for me, even with the 50/1.2 and the 77, it's just so much hard work getting there with crop sensors from any manufacturer.

I went through Albert Einstein's definition of madness with lenses, kept buying lenses expecting a different result each time (i.e., that full frame look). The cost has added up to much more than the few FF lenses on a FF body I now realise I'd need to achieve, easily, what I want and have more keepers.

Present keeper rate is about 20%, with low light <10%.

I'm not very good mind and only do this for a bit of fun.

Well, maybe full frame is for you. I could shoot 95 percent of my photos with three lenses on APS-C -- DA 15 limited, DA *55 and FA 77 limited. The last two are quite capable of narrow depth of field. If your keeper rate isn't good, maybe the issue is more auto focus than lens? There are plenty of reasons to want full frame, so good luck if that will help you achieve your vision.

[Parry]

Well, maybe full frame is for you. I could shoot 95 percent of my photos with three lenses on APS-C -- DA 15 limited, DA *55 and FA 77 limited. The last two are quite capable of narrow depth of field. If your keeper rate isn't good, maybe the issue is more auto focus than lens? There are plenty of reasons to want full frame, so good luck if that will help you achieve your vision.

AF, I tried all that fine tuning . . . I can't make the thing work. Can't be bothered anymore.

It's more to with being bone idle and wanting the machine thing to do most of it.

[bibz]

I know f/64 doesnt mean thats all they used, I was trying to make a joke to lighten things up. I guess I should have said f/32 group?

PP wise just start sectioning off elements of the image. The plane of focus, the background, the foreground. Add lighting and colour toning to get the main subjects to stand out even more. Just don't get lazy like on the jetty pic. You can see the sharpening on the ground between the boy and dog on the image in the op, and where the mask feathers it off. Really draws the eye. Additional blur or dreamy quality to the back/foreground to varying degrees and knock the colour palette to beautifully contrasting but realistic colours. Creates a lovely fantasy feel that works great with the dog and kid. Endless adventure etc. Not easy to replicate and really hard to innovate. It's funny how far photography has come in such a short time. From copying the painting aesthetic, to being totally against it. Chasing sharpness, noise supression. Now in digital its very much starting to fuse again.

The 67 with the 105 2.4 is amazing. It's just as much that particular lens as the system itself, that makes such a nice pop. I wonder what it would look like on a d800.... I'm enjoying film a lot more then digital of late. The developing and printing process doesn't seem like such a hassle after I seen how many hours can go into digital pro shoots and the inevitable photoshop processing. Maximum respect to those who robot that stuff for a living!

[RyanW]

Just don't get lazy like on the jetty pic. You can see the sharpening on the ground between the boy and dog on the image in the op, and where the mask feathers it off. Really draws the eye.

Agreed, to those technical enough spot it, which does not include me. For the masses on Facebook, not an issue. She's probably sold several 5d's and 135's to people that will wonder why their photos don't look like the ones that got them to buy the camera.

[RyanW]

It's rather funny in one sense that people say what amazing photography when in reality, it's amazing photoshopery.

[jsherman999]

It's rather funny in one sense that people say what amazing photography when in reality, it's amazing photoshopery.

It's both - but in this case, it's mostly very good technical photography. The majority of the effect you're seeing comes from the optical chain involved - the PP puts the icing on the cake.

It's interesting how some folks fly in formation on this topic, though.



One wonders if the aesthetics would be called into question so much if it were an aps-c shot.

[jogiba]

It's rather funny in one sense that people say what amazing photography when in reality, it's amazing photoshopery.

Wow, it did not take long for people to trash her work.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/75571860@N06/with/11874722676/

[wildman]

It's rather funny in one sense that people say what amazing photography when in reality, it's amazing photoshopery.

A rose by any other name etc etc.

I find it interesting that many people can't seem to get beyond process
and see the final image free from assumptions about what is and is not
proper process and genre. Hell - even a velvet painting of Elvis can be
done well or poorly.

The final image either works or not. Process is irrelevant.

In photography the end justifies the means.

[Sinister]

The final image either works or not. Process is irrelevant.

Exactly. Just would like to add: Equipment as part of the process is irrelevant for the final viewer.