Re: Pentax DA21/3.2 Limited lens - sharpness

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

I think you'll like it.

I was not particularly enamored of the DA21's ultra-compact lens  
shade ... I use an Olympus lens shade for a 28mm f/3.5 OM system  
lens, which helps me keep my fingers off the lens a lot better.

Godfrey


On Oct 3, 2006, at 3:43 AM, Michael Abbott wrote:

> Thanks guys.
>
> I just bought one (well, ordered) from B&H, excited. K100D + 21/3.2.
> It's perhaps a good thing that both the 43mm and 50mm are out of
> stock, as I might have been tempted, with rebates and all.
>
> The first new camera I've ever bought, now that I think about it, as
> well as my first non-Nikon. Will let y'alls know how it goes...
>
> Michael
>
>
> On 02/10/06, DagT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> My A20 is noticeably worse than the 21mm.
>>
>> DagT
>>
> On 02/10/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think the simpler line of the curb in this one will give you a
>> better idea of how much barrel distortion the DA21 has..
>>
>>http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/26.htm
>>
>> I only had an FA20/2.8 for testing for a short while, and that was
>> over a year ago. When I get home I can dredge up some exposures, if I
>> saved them. But I don't recall it as being as good as the DA14.
>>
>> Godfrey
>>
>> On Oct 2, 2006, at 7:44 PM, Michael Abbott wrote:
>>
>>> Godfrey,
>>>
>>> I had some horizontal keystoning dialed in as well as the barrel
>>> distortion. Looking at just the top line of bricks, I thought I saw
>>> some moustache distortion after removing 2.6 )I think!) of barrel.
>>> (This is in CS2). But you're right, it could just be a slightly  
>>> wonky
>>> wall.
>>>
>>> Do you have any idea how the 20/2.8 does? Bigger but not huge,  
>>> and the
>>> same price.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Pentax DA21/3.2 Limited lens - sharpness

[Adam Maas]

As another Nikon guy, I suspect you'll be happy. I'm quite fond of my 
K100D (And am drooling over the 21). I definitely prefer the Pentax 
DSLR's to the equivalent Nikon models, while I got great results with 
the D50, it was never the joy to use that the *istD and K100D are (even 
if I did trip over the *istD's buffer on occasion).

-Adam


Michael Abbott wrote:
> Thanks guys.
> 
> I just bought one (well, ordered) from B&H, excited. K100D + 21/3.2.
> It's perhaps a good thing that both the 43mm and 50mm are out of
> stock, as I might have been tempted, with rebates and all.
> 
> The first new camera I've ever bought, now that I think about it, as
> well as my first non-Nikon. Will let y'alls know how it goes...
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> On 02/10/06, DagT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> My A20 is noticeably worse than the 21mm.
>>
>> DagT
>>
> On 02/10/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think the simpler line of the curb in this one will give you a
>> better idea of how much barrel distortion the DA21 has..
>>
>>http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/26.htm
>>
>> I only had an FA20/2.8 for testing for a short while, and that was
>> over a year ago. When I get home I can dredge up some exposures, if I
>> saved them. But I don't recall it as being as good as the DA14.
>>
>> Godfrey
>>
>> On Oct 2, 2006, at 7:44 PM, Michael Abbott wrote:
>>
>>> Godfrey,
>>>
>>> I had some horizontal keystoning dialed in as well as the barrel
>>> distortion. Looking at just the top line of bricks, I thought I saw
>>> some moustache distortion after removing 2.6 )I think!) of barrel.
>>> (This is in CS2). But you're right, it could just be a slightly wonky
>>> wall.
>>>
>>> Do you have any idea how the 20/2.8 does? Bigger but not huge, and the
>>> same price.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Pentax DA21/3.2 Limited lens - sharpness

[Michael Abbott]

Thanks guys.

I just bought one (well, ordered) from B&H, excited. K100D + 21/3.2.
It's perhaps a good thing that both the 43mm and 50mm are out of
stock, as I might have been tempted, with rebates and all.

The first new camera I've ever bought, now that I think about it, as
well as my first non-Nikon. Will let y'alls know how it goes...

Michael


On 02/10/06, DagT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My A20 is noticeably worse than the 21mm.
>
> DagT
>
On 02/10/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the simpler line of the curb in this one will give you a
> better idea of how much barrel distortion the DA21 has..
>
>http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/26.htm
>
> I only had an FA20/2.8 for testing for a short while, and that was
> over a year ago. When I get home I can dredge up some exposures, if I
> saved them. But I don't recall it as being as good as the DA14.
>
> Godfrey
>
> On Oct 2, 2006, at 7:44 PM, Michael Abbott wrote:
>
> > Godfrey,
> >
> > I had some horizontal keystoning dialed in as well as the barrel
> > distortion. Looking at just the top line of bricks, I thought I saw
> > some moustache distortion after removing 2.6 )I think!) of barrel.
> > (This is in CS2). But you're right, it could just be a slightly wonky
> > wall.
> >
> > Do you have any idea how the 20/2.8 does? Bigger but not huge, and the
> > same price.
> >
> > Michael
>
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Pentax DA21/3.2 Limited lens - sharpness

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

I think the simpler line of the curb in this one will give you a  
better idea of how much barrel distortion the DA21 has..

   http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/26.htm

I only had an FA20/2.8 for testing for a short while, and that was  
over a year ago. When I get home I can dredge up some exposures, if I  
saved them. But I don't recall it as being as good as the DA14.

Godfrey

On Oct 2, 2006, at 7:44 PM, Michael Abbott wrote:

> Godfrey,
>
> I had some horizontal keystoning dialed in as well as the barrel
> distortion. Looking at just the top line of bricks, I thought I saw
> some moustache distortion after removing 2.6 )I think!) of barrel.
> (This is in CS2). But you're right, it could just be a slightly wonky
> wall.
>
> Do you have any idea how the 20/2.8 does? Bigger but not huge, and the
> same price.
>
> Michael


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Pentax DA21/3.2 Limited lens - sharpness

[DagT]

My A20 is noticeably worse than the 21mm.

DagT

Den 2. okt. 2006 kl. 20.44 skrev Michael Abbott:

> Godfrey,
>
> I had some horizontal keystoning dialed in as well as the barrel
> distortion. Looking at just the top line of bricks, I thought I saw
> some moustache distortion after removing 2.6 )I think!) of barrel.
> (This is in CS2). But you're right, it could just be a slightly wonky
> wall.
>
> Do you have any idea how the 20/2.8 does? Bigger but not huge, and the
> same price.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> On 02/10/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You're welcome.
>>
>> I couldn't shoot straight on to the wall as I was getting my
>> reflection in the center window, so the distortion you're seeing is a
>> combination of barrel distortion and keystoning from the angle I was
>> shooting at. There's also probably a bit of off-axis tilt as well, it
>> is a hand held shot. I've done a pass at correcting it by a sequence
>> of changes...
>>
>> Of course, the old church is such that there are hardly any truly
>> square lines anyway. I wouldn't panic based on this brick wall!
>>
>> But yes, the DA21 has a bit of barrel distortion. More than the DA14,
>> but then the DA14 is intended, I think, as an ultrawide rectilinear
>> for architectural work and *should* be nearly distortion free. The
>> DA21 is more of a general purpose wide-angle lens ... I find the
>> barrel distortion is only an annoyance on occasion.
>>
>> Godfrey
>>
>> On Oct 2, 2006, at 1:55 PM, Michael Abbott wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the test! Sharpness looks good, although I was really
>>> hoping
>>> there would be less distortion. I had a quick go at removing it  
>>> in PS,
>>> and worse, it seems not to be the simple kind PS's lens distortion
>>> slider can fix - is this true?
>>>
 (dpreview http://tinyurl.com/rz89h linking to http://tinyurl.com/ 
 s3g2u )


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Pentax DA21/3.2 Limited lens - sharpness

[Michael Abbott]

Godfrey,

I had some horizontal keystoning dialed in as well as the barrel
distortion. Looking at just the top line of bricks, I thought I saw
some moustache distortion after removing 2.6 )I think!) of barrel.
(This is in CS2). But you're right, it could just be a slightly wonky
wall.

Do you have any idea how the 20/2.8 does? Bigger but not huge, and the
same price.

Michael



On 02/10/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're welcome.
>
> I couldn't shoot straight on to the wall as I was getting my
> reflection in the center window, so the distortion you're seeing is a
> combination of barrel distortion and keystoning from the angle I was
> shooting at. There's also probably a bit of off-axis tilt as well, it
> is a hand held shot. I've done a pass at correcting it by a sequence
> of changes...
>
> Of course, the old church is such that there are hardly any truly
> square lines anyway. I wouldn't panic based on this brick wall!
>
> But yes, the DA21 has a bit of barrel distortion. More than the DA14,
> but then the DA14 is intended, I think, as an ultrawide rectilinear
> for architectural work and *should* be nearly distortion free. The
> DA21 is more of a general purpose wide-angle lens ... I find the
> barrel distortion is only an annoyance on occasion.
>
> Godfrey
>
> On Oct 2, 2006, at 1:55 PM, Michael Abbott wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the test! Sharpness looks good, although I was really
> > hoping
> > there would be less distortion. I had a quick go at removing it in PS,
> > and worse, it seems not to be the simple kind PS's lens distortion
> > slider can fix - is this true?
> >
> >> (dpreview http://tinyurl.com/rz89h linking to http://tinyurl.com/s3g2u )
>
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Pentax DA21/3.2 Limited lens - sharpness

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

You're welcome.

I couldn't shoot straight on to the wall as I was getting my  
reflection in the center window, so the distortion you're seeing is a  
combination of barrel distortion and keystoning from the angle I was  
shooting at. There's also probably a bit of off-axis tilt as well, it  
is a hand held shot. I've done a pass at correcting it by a sequence  
of changes...

Of course, the old church is such that there are hardly any truly  
square lines anyway. I wouldn't panic based on this brick wall!

But yes, the DA21 has a bit of barrel distortion. More than the DA14,  
but then the DA14 is intended, I think, as an ultrawide rectilinear  
for architectural work and *should* be nearly distortion free. The  
DA21 is more of a general purpose wide-angle lens ... I find the  
barrel distortion is only an annoyance on occasion.

Godfrey

On Oct 2, 2006, at 1:55 PM, Michael Abbott wrote:

> Thanks for the test! Sharpness looks good, although I was really  
> hoping
> there would be less distortion. I had a quick go at removing it in PS,
> and worse, it seems not to be the simple kind PS's lens distortion
> slider can fix - is this true?
>
>> (dpreview http://tinyurl.com/rz89h linking to http://tinyurl.com/ 
>> s3g2u )


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Pentax DA21/3.2 Limited lens - sharpness

[Michael Abbott]

Hi Godfrey,

Thanks for the test! Sharpness looks good, althogh I was really hoping
there would be less distortion. I had a quick go at removing it in PS,
and worse, it seems not to be the simple kind PS's lens distortion
slider can fix - is this true?

And by the way, hi everyone! Have been lurking here for a while, and
tried to order a k100d with this lens this weekend, but B&H were
closed.

Michael


(dpreview http://tinyurl.com/rz89h linking to http://tinyurl.com/s3g2u )

On 02/10/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought folks on these lists might be interested in some of my
> informal testing with the DA21. I've posted to DPReview.com's Pentax
> SLR Forum:
>
>   
>
> Godfrey
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Pentax DA21/3.2 Limited lens - sharpness

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

I thought folks on these lists might be interested in some of my  
informal testing with the DA21. I've posted to DPReview.com's Pentax  
SLR Forum:

  

Godfrey

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[Leonard Paris]

No, Paul, a sharper lens will not partially compensate for camera shake. A 
faster lens partially compensates for camera shake by allowing the use of 
higher shutter speeds.  The limiting factor is the amount of camera shake.  
The best you can do is whatever the lens is capable of with no camera shake.

Len
---


_
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[Dr E D F Williams]

First of all it was dead calm. Even the tiniest movement would have caused
the snow to come down. That's the biggest problem. One night we have a heavy
snowfall. I look out in the morning. "Oh Boy its like fairyland!" I say,
getting  out the cameras. But by the time the sun is a diameter above the
horizon - 10:45 - the wind has come up. The snow is blown from the thin
branches and that's that. The pines and spruce are a little better than
birch, they have dense clumps of needles that hold the snow a bit longer.
And second ... the exposures were 1/250 and 1/500. I couldn't go faster
because I didn't have any fast film and since I was testing lenses adding
grain would not have made it easier to analyse the results. An external
shutter would eliminate the mirror and shutter contributions, but requires
absolutely static conditions and a lot of care and attention;  and
patience; and much insulation about the body too because when it still, its
pretty cold. Perhaps I have to test this lens in the house, or wait for the
summer.

Don

Dr E D F Williams

http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
Updated: March 30, 2002


- Original Message -
From: "Robert Soames Wetmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 8:51 PM
Subject: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake


> I'm not trying to be a wise guy here, but aren't the tree tops moving a
fair
> bit even on still days?  What were your shutter speeds?  (And sorry if
> you've already addressed this point - I'm a bit behind on reading the
> digests.)
>
> >
> >[...]
> >Getting sharp images with long lenses is an exacting task, much more
> >difficult than meets the eye. Forgive the weak pun. I've been taking
>shots
> >of tree tops recently with a Sigma Apo 400/5.6. They are not
>particularly
> >sharp although I used the highest shutter speed I could. >Its hard to
> >decide if the images are fuzzy because: the lens is not so >good wide
open,
> >the shutter and mirror vibrated the camera on the >tripod, the lens is
not
> >so good anyway, or the camera was not properly >focussed.
> >[...]
> >Don Williams
> >
>
>
> _
> MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 3 months FREE*.
>
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&S
U=
>
http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_eliminatevi
ruses_3mf
>

Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[Bruce Rubenstein]

Nope. On just about every used camera that I get I change the mirror foam to
a home made custom one that slows down the mirror more gently.
Neither my subjects or my style usually lend themselves to tripods so "hand
holdability" is important to me.

BR


From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Is there a possibility that the foam mirror bumper/light shield needs
replacement in your Super Programs/ Super A's? Has it frayed away or gotten
hard?

Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[William Robb]

- Original Message -
From: Piss Face
Subject: Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake


> Is there a possibility that the foam mirror bumper/light
shield needs
> replacement in your Super Programs/ Super A's? Has it frayed
away or gotten
> hard?

There have been a lot of comments about the bounciness of the
Super Program from a lot of people. Both of mine were bouncy
enough that I decided to sell them. The Program Plus that I kept
is far smoother than the Super Programs were, though they are
from the same era. My ME-Supers are also pretty smooth.
I realize this doesn't answer your question, the best I can say
is that I sold the things when they were new on the market, and
I think they were pretty bouncy then too.

Commandant Willie.

Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[Robert Soames Wetmore]

I'm not trying to be a wise guy here, but aren't the tree tops moving a fair 
bit even on still days?  What were your shutter speeds?  (And sorry if 
you've already addressed this point - I'm a bit behind on reading the 
digests.)


[...]
Getting sharp images with long lenses is an exacting task, much more
difficult than meets the eye. Forgive the weak pun. I've been taking >shots 
of tree tops recently with a Sigma Apo 400/5.6. They are not >particularly 
sharp although I used the highest shutter speed I could. >Its hard to 
decide if the images are fuzzy because: the lens is not so >good wide open, 
the shutter and mirror vibrated the camera on the >tripod, the lens is not 
so good anyway, or the camera was not properly >focussed.
[...]
Don Williams



_
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 3 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= 
http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_eliminateviruses_3mf

Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[Bob Blakely]

Is there a possibility that the foam mirror bumper/light shield needs
replacement in your Super Programs/ Super A's? Has it frayed away or gotten
hard?

Regards,
Piss Face

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!"
   - Benjamin Franklin

From: "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> Absolutely. I had a Super Program and it looked good, felt good and had
nice
> features. The problem was is that I got as much blur shooting it at 1/60
sec
> (with a 50mm lens) as I did the Program Plus at 1/15 sec. For what they go
> for on ebay they are probably the best value of the MF Pentaxes.
>
> BR
>
> From: Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I didn't realise that, my understanding was that they differed only in
TTL,
> Tv and LCD illumination with the Super Program. In respect to
"holdability"
> would you say the (cheaper) Program Plus is better than the Super Program?

RE: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[Bruce Rubenstein]

Absolutely. I had a Super Program and it looked good, felt good and had nice
features. The problem was is that I got as much blur shooting it at 1/60 sec
(with a 50mm lens) as I did the Program Plus at 1/15 sec. For what they go
for on ebay they are probably the best value of the MF Pentaxes.

BR

From: Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I didn't realise that, my understanding was that they differed only in TTL,
Tv and LCD illumination with the Super Program. In respect to "holdability"
would you say the (cheaper) Program Plus is better than the Super Program?

Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[William Robb]

- Original Message -
From: Bruce Rubenstein
Subject: RE: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake


> They are not the same shutters. I still have a pair of Program
Pluses and
> one of their strong points is their hand "holdability".

There was also the studio flash to factor in.

William Robb

RE: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[Simon King]

Bruce wrote;
>They are not the same shutters. I still have a pair of Program Pluses
>and one of their strong points is their hand "holdability".

I didn't realise that, my understanding was that they differed only in TTL,
Tv and LCD illumination with the Super Program. In respect to "holdability"
would you say the (cheaper) Program Plus is better than the Super Program?

Simon (a Program A owner)

-Original Message-
From: Bruce Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Sunday, 22 December 2002 11:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake


They are not the same shutters. I still have a pair of Program Pluses and
one of their strong points is their hand "holdability".

BR

From: Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

You seemed to get a sharp one here http://pug.komkon.org/01nov/2Rotties.html
with a Program Plus (same shutter config. as Super Program) - ...

RE: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[Bruce Rubenstein]

They are not the same shutters. I still have a pair of Program Pluses and
one of their strong points is their hand "holdability".

BR

From: Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

You seemed to get a sharp one here http://pug.komkon.org/01nov/2Rotties.html
with a Program Plus (same shutter config. as Super Program) - ...

Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[William Robb]

- Original Message -
From: Dr E D F Williams
Subject: Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake


>Considering these things I am amazed at how sharp
> some of the pictures people take through long lenses at motor
races, hockey
> matches etcetera actually look.

I actually discovered that I could handhold the 400mm lens with
my elbows braced on the hood of my truck steadier than the
tripod could do the same thing.
Mirror lock and finding some way to dampen shutter induced
vibrations (even holding the tripod yoke with your hand will
help) is pretty much the only way to do it.
Shooting at 1/8 second or longer is often practical, but you
need to be dealing with static subjects. With large format, 1/8
second is considered a very fast shutter speed, several seconds
is more the norm, so it can be done in the right situation.
A monopod is a pretty good device, as the camera still needs to
be held. This dampens a lot of the vibration, and can help.
Note, the 1/shutter speed rule applies to long lenses and
monopods, as far as I am concerned.

Regarding your Sigma 400mm, do you have a filter on it?
I recall a couple of years a go, Shel was testing one of
Pentaxes long lenses, and he was having sharpness problems.
After ruling out everything else, he pulled the UV filter, and
that seemed to solve the problem.

William Robb

Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[Dr E D F Williams]

I once performed an experiment to see how much the operation of the shutter
of an Alpa Reflex vibrated the camera and how much it would interfere with
sharpness when used with high magnification optics. I put a Questar 3.5"
barrel on a stand on the optical bench. I attached an Alpa body to one of
the other fixing screws. So that the camera was beside the telescope, not
optically lined up, just sitting there. I focussed the telescope through an
open window on a telegraph pole some 200 yards away. While looking through
the eyepiece I fired the camera shutter with a cable release. The image
jumped about as much as it did when the stand was tapped with a fingertip. I
repeated the experiment with other cameras and there was not one in the lab
that didn't shake the telescope. We tried taking pictures too, of course,
and it was difficult. Long exposures, external shutters, and controlling the
exposure with the light are ways of solving this problem. All of them
impractical in the field with ordinary subjects.

I can't remember which eyepiece I used for that test, but it was probably
the 16 mm one. When used for photography one needs a Barlow lens which
effectively lengthens the focal length - making things much worse of course.
Even with telephoto lenses of moderate focal length - 500 mm or so - the
mirror clacking up and the shutter's sudden acceleration and stop will tend
to blur the image to some extent - but of course this only matters if shake
is the limiting factor. Considering these things I am amazed at how sharp
some of the pictures people take through long lenses at motor races, hockey
matches etcetera actually look.

D

Don Williams

http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
Updated: March 30, 2002


- Original Message -
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake


>
> - Original Message -
> From: Dr E D F Williams
> Subject: Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake
>
>
> > Getting sharp images with long lenses is an exacting task,
> much more
> > difficult than meets the eye. Forgive the weak pun. I've been
> taking shots
> > of tree tops recently with a Sigma Apo 400/5.6. They are not
> particularly
> > sharp although I used the highest shutter speed I could. Its
> hard to decide
> > if the images are fuzzy because: the lens is not so good wide
> open, the
> > shutter and mirror vibrated the camera on the tripod, the lens
> is not so
> > good anyway, or the camera was not properly focussed. The
> pictures are on my
> > website if anyone wants to look at them and tell me what they
> think. They
> > are acceptable for the web, but 10 mbyte files on my monitor
> seem a little
> > soft. I usually focus by the 'rangefinder' method.
>
> I like your test subjects. My own experience with trying to get
> something critically sharp out of a longish lens was that metal
> tripods were a bad method of holding a camera. They "ring", and
> this vibration will pretty much ruin sharpness.
> Also, a fast shutter speed is almost counterproductive, as the
> shutter is still only giving you its flash sync speed, in
> reality, and this speed is often right in the range to show
> vibration.
> When I ran my tripod tests with the Super Program, I found that
> 1/8 second or longer showed the least vibration, having the
> camera vertical showed the most vibration, and that a heavy wood
> tripod was better than an equally heavy metal tripod.
> I have an untested theory that wrapping a bungee cord around all
> three legs of the tripod might settle the ringing down.
>
> William Robb
>
>

Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[William Robb]

- Original Message -
From: Dr E D F Williams
Subject: Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake


> Getting sharp images with long lenses is an exacting task,
much more
> difficult than meets the eye. Forgive the weak pun. I've been
taking shots
> of tree tops recently with a Sigma Apo 400/5.6. They are not
particularly
> sharp although I used the highest shutter speed I could. Its
hard to decide
> if the images are fuzzy because: the lens is not so good wide
open, the
> shutter and mirror vibrated the camera on the tripod, the lens
is not so
> good anyway, or the camera was not properly focussed. The
pictures are on my
> website if anyone wants to look at them and tell me what they
think. They
> are acceptable for the web, but 10 mbyte files on my monitor
seem a little
> soft. I usually focus by the 'rangefinder' method.

I like your test subjects. My own experience with trying to get
something critically sharp out of a longish lens was that metal
tripods were a bad method of holding a camera. They "ring", and
this vibration will pretty much ruin sharpness.
Also, a fast shutter speed is almost counterproductive, as the
shutter is still only giving you its flash sync speed, in
reality, and this speed is often right in the range to show
vibration.
When I ran my tripod tests with the Super Program, I found that
1/8 second or longer showed the least vibration, having the
camera vertical showed the most vibration, and that a heavy wood
tripod was better than an equally heavy metal tripod.
I have an untested theory that wrapping a bungee cord around all
three legs of the tripod might settle the ringing down.

William Robb

Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[Dr E D F Williams]

The rangefinder was not coupled and went into the accessory shoe. The dial
was black. And note, this was a new camera that had been forgotten on the
shelf in a small dusty shop in the middle of nowhere. I had similar luck in
the Cape, in a Wine Merchant called E K Green, in Mowbray. I bought several
hundred bottles of Port and Sherry the manager thought "would have gone off
by now" for R1 per bottle. It was all imported wine - I'm not talking about
South African imitation Sherry and Port. The Port alone would have been
worth fifty pounds a bottle in London.

D

Don Williams

http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
Updated: March 30, 2002


- Original Message -
From: "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 1:50 PM
Subject: Vs: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake


> OK, but if I´m not mistaken the correct designation must be 1f - with two
accessory shoes. In the American system there was indeed model F - model III
everywhere else - and it is equipped with viewfinder and separate
rangefinder, coupled, of course. BTW in my old Leica price guide a 1F Black
Dial is listed at 1.200 USD and Red Dial at 525 USD.
> All the best!
> Raimo
> Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
>
> -Alkuperäinen viesti-
> Lähettäjä: Dr E D F Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Päivä: 21. joulukuuta 2002 11:16
> Aihe: Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake
>
>
> >Incredibly simple camera. No viewfinder inside. The viewfinder went into
the
> >accessory shoe. The lens was that collapsible 50/3.5 Elmar I think it
was.
> >It was new when I got it - absolutely mint. I'd found it in a camera shop
in
> >the original box in Bulawayo in 1953. I thought the shutter speeds were a
> >bit off, so I sent it to the agents in Johannesburg.  It never came back.
It
> >was stolen by someone who probably knew its worth - I certainly didn't. I
> >complained like hell and they gave me a new M3. I sold that after a
couple
> >of years because I was already into Alpa reflex - what an idiot. I used
the
> >money for Alpa lenses and beer.
> >
> >D
> >
> >Don Williams
> >
> >http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
> >Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
> >Updated: March 30, 2002
> >
> >
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 12:39 PM
> >Subject: Vs: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake
> >
> >
> >> Leica F1? What is that?
> >> All the best!
> >> Raimo
> >> Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
> >>
> >> -Alkuperäinen viesti-
> >> Lähettäjä: Dr E D F Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Päivä: 21. joulukuuta 2002 9:19
> >> Aihe: Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake
> >>
> >>
> >> >As a student I used to shoot in the 'Pig and Whistle', near the
> >University,
> >> >with a Leica F1. I usually perched it on a beer tankard (empty) and
> >operated
> >> >it with a longish cable release. Hardly anyone noticed the camera. The
> >> >pictures were great. I had an album full of them - lost now. There's a
> >long
> >> >long road awinding ... argh!
> >> 
> >> >
> >> >Don
> >> >
> >> >Don Williams
> >> >
> >> >http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
> >> >Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
> >> >Updated: March 30, 2002
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

Vs: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[Raimo Korhonen]

OK, but if I´m not mistaken the correct designation must be 1f - with two accessory 
shoes. In the American system there was indeed model F - model III everywhere else - 
and it is equipped with viewfinder and separate rangefinder, coupled, of course. BTW 
in my old Leica price guide a 1F Black Dial is listed at 1.200 USD and Red Dial at 525 
USD.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho

-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Dr E D F Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 21. joulukuuta 2002 11:16
Aihe: Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake


>Incredibly simple camera. No viewfinder inside. The viewfinder went into the
>accessory shoe. The lens was that collapsible 50/3.5 Elmar I think it was.
>It was new when I got it - absolutely mint. I'd found it in a camera shop in
>the original box in Bulawayo in 1953. I thought the shutter speeds were a
>bit off, so I sent it to the agents in Johannesburg.  It never came back. It
>was stolen by someone who probably knew its worth - I certainly didn't. I
>complained like hell and they gave me a new M3. I sold that after a couple
>of years because I was already into Alpa reflex - what an idiot. I used the
>money for Alpa lenses and beer.
>
>D
>
>Don Williams
>
>http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
>Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
>Updated: March 30, 2002
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 12:39 PM
>Subject: Vs: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake
>
>
>> Leica F1? What is that?
>> All the best!
>> Raimo
>> Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
>>
>> -Alkuperäinen viesti-----
>> Lähettäjä: Dr E D F Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Päivä: 21. joulukuuta 2002 9:19
>> Aihe: Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake
>>
>>
>> >As a student I used to shoot in the 'Pig and Whistle', near the
>University,
>> >with a Leica F1. I usually perched it on a beer tankard (empty) and
>operated
>> >it with a longish cable release. Hardly anyone noticed the camera. The
>> >pictures were great. I had an album full of them - lost now. There's a
>long
>> >long road awinding ... argh!
>> 
>> >
>> >Don
>> >
>> >Don Williams
>> >
>> >http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
>> >Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
>> >Updated: March 30, 2002
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[Dr E D F Williams]

Incredibly simple camera. No viewfinder inside. The viewfinder went into the
accessory shoe. The lens was that collapsible 50/3.5 Elmar I think it was.
It was new when I got it - absolutely mint. I'd found it in a camera shop in
the original box in Bulawayo in 1953. I thought the shutter speeds were a
bit off, so I sent it to the agents in Johannesburg.  It never came back. It
was stolen by someone who probably knew its worth - I certainly didn't. I
complained like hell and they gave me a new M3. I sold that after a couple
of years because I was already into Alpa reflex - what an idiot. I used the
money for Alpa lenses and beer.

D

Don Williams

http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
Updated: March 30, 2002


- Original Message -
From: "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 12:39 PM
Subject: Vs: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake


> Leica F1? What is that?
> All the best!
> Raimo
> Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
>
> -Alkuperäinen viesti-
> Lähettäjä: Dr E D F Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Päivä: 21. joulukuuta 2002 9:19
> Aihe: Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake
>
>
> >As a student I used to shoot in the 'Pig and Whistle', near the
University,
> >with a Leica F1. I usually perched it on a beer tankard (empty) and
operated
> >it with a longish cable release. Hardly anyone noticed the camera. The
> >pictures were great. I had an album full of them - lost now. There's a
long
> >long road awinding ... argh!
> 
> >
> >Don
> >
> >Don Williams
> >
> >http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
> >Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
> >Updated: March 30, 2002
> >
>
>

Vs: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[Raimo Korhonen]

Leica F1? What is that?
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho

-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Dr E D F Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 21. joulukuuta 2002 9:19
Aihe: Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake


>As a student I used to shoot in the 'Pig and Whistle', near the University,
>with a Leica F1. I usually perched it on a beer tankard (empty) and operated
>it with a longish cable release. Hardly anyone noticed the camera. The
>pictures were great. I had an album full of them - lost now. There's a long
>long road awinding ... argh!

>
>Don
>
>Don Williams
>
>http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
>Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
>Updated: March 30, 2002
>

Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[Dr E D F Williams]

As a student I used to shoot in the 'Pig and Whistle', near the University,
with a Leica F1. I usually perched it on a beer tankard (empty) and operated
it with a longish cable release. Hardly anyone noticed the camera. The
pictures were great. I had an album full of them - lost now. There's a long
long road awinding ... argh!

Getting sharp images with long lenses is an exacting task, much more
difficult than meets the eye. Forgive the weak pun. I've been taking shots
of tree tops recently with a Sigma Apo 400/5.6. They are not particularly
sharp although I used the highest shutter speed I could. Its hard to decide
if the images are fuzzy because: the lens is not so good wide open, the
shutter and mirror vibrated the camera on the tripod, the lens is not so
good anyway, or the camera was not properly focussed. The pictures are on my
website if anyone wants to look at them and tell me what they think. They
are acceptable for the web, but 10 mbyte files on my monitor seem a little
soft. I usually focus by the 'rangefinder' method.

http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/hold/index.htm

Its easy to see which ones I mean - I think.

Don

Don Williams

http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
Updated: March 30, 2002


- Original Message -
From: "Paul Franklin Stregevsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Pentax-Discuss'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 3:15 AM
Subject: Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake


>
> "Bob Blakely" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "Bracing myself with my left elbow
in,
> hand under the lens barrel, inhaling deeply, letting about 1/2 the air out
> of my lungs, holding and shooting between heart beats makes my photos
> better. A tripod makes my photos even better yet."
>
>
> First, let me thank the first three who replied to my thread-starting
> question. You clarified the matter exactly as I had hoped.
>
> Back in the 1970s and 1980s, Modern Photography's Eleanor Stecker wrote
> frequently on camera shake, offering creative tips for holding the camera
> steady when a tripod or monopod wasn't at hand. She urged readers to look
> around them for stabilizing aids. For example, when shooting around food,
> try setting the camera atop a drinking glass!
>
> I wish I would have remembered her advice to "look around" at
Thanksgiving.
> My sister and I were taking a brisk walk. At her local park, I stopped to
> shoot a couple frames of a sign that detailed the town's history. My film
> speed was 100, my lens 50mm, and on that overcast day, as I recall, I had
to
> settle for an exposure of 1/60 second at f/2.8. The results were less than
> satisfying.
>
> I remembered later that I could have rested the camera on my 5-foot
sister's
> shoulder!
>
> By the way, I agree (sadly) with the comments about the Super Program.
(I've
> owned three.) These days, I try to use it principally with flash (1/125
> second) or at twice the "minimal recommended" (1-over-focal-length)
shutter
> speed.
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>

Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[Paul Franklin Stregevsky]

"Bob Blakely" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "Bracing myself with my left elbow in,
hand under the lens barrel, inhaling deeply, letting about 1/2 the air out
of my lungs, holding and shooting between heart beats makes my photos
better. A tripod makes my photos even better yet."


First, let me thank the first three who replied to my thread-starting
question. You clarified the matter exactly as I had hoped. 

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, Modern Photography's Eleanor Stecker wrote
frequently on camera shake, offering creative tips for holding the camera
steady when a tripod or monopod wasn't at hand. She urged readers to look
around them for stabilizing aids. For example, when shooting around food,
try setting the camera atop a drinking glass!

I wish I would have remembered her advice to "look around" at Thanksgiving.
My sister and I were taking a brisk walk. At her local park, I stopped to
shoot a couple frames of a sign that detailed the town's history. My film
speed was 100, my lens 50mm, and on that overcast day, as I recall, I had to
settle for an exposure of 1/60 second at f/2.8. The results were less than
satisfying. 

I remembered later that I could have rested the camera on my 5-foot sister's
shoulder!

By the way, I agree (sadly) with the comments about the Super Program. (I've
owned three.) These days, I try to use it principally with flash (1/125
second) or at twice the "minimal recommended" (1-over-focal-length) shutter
speed.


[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[Timothy Sherburne]

Amazing. It's tough to look at those 1/30 sec frames.

On 12/20/02 10:01 AM, William Robb wrote:

> Look at this:
> http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/SuperProgram/
> Its a sizable page, I think about 850kb.

Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[Alan Chan]

Ah yes. I still have the tripod follies on my hard drive
somewhere. The Super Program shakes like a wet dog.


It is a shame indeed because it is a very fine camera otherwise.

regards,
Alan Chan

_
MSN 8 limited-time offer: Join now and get 3 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= 
http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_newmsn8ishere_3mf

Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[eactivist]

In a message dated 12/20/2002 12:40:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, MAILER-DAEMON writes:

> In a message dated 12/20/2002 6:45:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>writes:
> 
> > Take a picture with the shutter speed at double and quadruple
> > the focal length ( with a 50mm lens, 1/30 and 1/15 of a second).
> > Do it handheld, and don't take any precautions about the 
> > slow
> > speed.
> > You'll see for yourself what camera shake looks like.
> > 
> > William Robb
 
Good point. Hehehe. Usually I try to prevent camera shake, of course.
 
Someone suggested I do a test back when I was saying I thought my pictures weren't as 
clear as a Canon shooter in the class that I took. Have her shoot handheld and with 
tripod and me shoot handheld and with tripod -- same subject. No longer in class, but 
I did mean to try that and see if I could tell a difference between my Albinar zoom 
and Pentax 50mm (that I bought since class).

I will try that on my next roll and also see if I can see camera shake in my normal 
photos.

Later, Doe aka Marnie  OTOH, maybe I am too nearsighted to see it in normal photos, so 
I will try deliberate camera 
shake as well.

Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: 
Subject: Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake


> 
> Aha. Thanks. I will look for point light sources.

Look at this:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/SuperProgram/
Its a sizable page, I think about 850kb.

William Robb

Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[eactivist]

In a message dated 12/20/2002 9:39:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> Camera shake can (usually) be identified by examining a point light source
> in your photograph under a loupe. Instead of being a point as it should be,
> it will show a movement "track". A point light source can be anything from a
> street light far away to the glint of the sun off a shiny surface like a car
> or wave. In the absence of a point light source in the picture, a difference
> in sharpness from edges depending on their orientation also 
> indicates shake.

Aha. Thanks. I will look for point light sources.

Doe aka Marnie

Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[Bob Blakely]

Camera shake can (usually) be identified by examining a point light source
in your photograph under a loupe. Instead of being a point as it should be,
it will show a movement "track". A point light source can be anything from a
street light far away to the glint of the sun off a shiny surface like a car
or wave. In the absence of a point light source in the picture, a difference
in sharpness from edges depending on their orientation also indicates shake.

Bracing myself with my left elbow in, hand under the lens barrel, inhaling
deeply, letting about 1/2 the air out of my lungs, holding and shooting
between heart beats makes my photos better. A tripod makes my photos even
better yet.

Regards,
Bob

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!"
   - Benjamin Franklin

From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> In a message dated 12/20/2002 12:28:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > Coming from a slightly different perspective, I find blur from camera
> > shake to be far more disturbing than blur from an unsharp lens.  The
> > camera shake blurring tends to be of greater magnitude in
> > one axis.
>
> Hmmm, reading this thread, I realized I am not totally positive what the
blur from camera shake looks like. Do you mean the blur from a bad lens
might just be around the edges or something? But the blur from camera shake
tends to go in one direction all across the picture?
>
> Do you have any examples? And I mean examples where it isn't really,
really obvious (where everything is really blurred)?
>
> Just curious. I haven't been able to tell with most of my photos that I
see camera shake blur, though just about everything I've shot so far has
been handheld.

Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[William Robb]

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Subject: Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake


>
> Hmmm, reading this thread, I realized I am not totally
positive what the blur from camera shake looks like. Do you mean
the blur from a bad lens might just be around the edges or
something? But the blur from camera shake tends to go in one
direction all across the picture?
>
> Do you have any examples? And I mean examples where it isn't
really, really obvious (where everything is really blurred)?
>
> Just curious. I haven't been able to tell with most of my
photos that I see camera shake blur, though just about
everything I've shot so far has been handheld.

Take a picture with the shutter speed at double and quadruple
the focal length ( with a 50mm lens, 1/30 and 1/15 of a second).
Do it handheld, and don't take any precautions about the slow
speed.
You'll see for yourself what camera shake looks like.

William Robb

Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[eactivist]

In a message dated 12/20/2002 12:28:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> Coming from a slightly different perspective, I find blur from camera 
> shake to be far more disturbing than blur from an unsharp lens.  The 
> camera shake blurring tends to be of greater magnitude in 
> one axis.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> - Dave

Hmmm, reading this thread, I realized I am not totally positive what the blur from 
camera shake looks like. Do you mean the blur from a bad lens might just be around the 
edges or something? But the blur from camera shake tends to go in one direction all 
across the picture?

Do you have any examples? And I mean examples where it isn't really, really obvious 
(where everything is really blurred)?

Just curious. I haven't been able to tell with most of my photos that I see camera 
shake blur, though just about everything I've shot so far has been handheld.

Doe aka Marnie

Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[David A. Mann]

Paul Franklin Stregevsky wrote:

> Or does blurring work as an equalizer, permitting, in this case, say, no
> more than, say, 30 lpm, no matter how sharp a lens is used?

In the case of camera shake it probably would, for a given focal length.

Coming from a slightly different perspective, I find blur from camera 
shake to be far more disturbing than blur from an unsharp lens.  The 
camera shake blurring tends to be of greater magnitude in one axis.

Cheers,

- Dave

http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/

Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[Paul Franklin Stregevsky]

It's been said many times on PDML that there's little advantage in using an
extra-sharp lens unless you fix the camera to a tripod. I'm having
difficulty following the math. Won't a sharper lens partially compensate for
camera shake?

Here's what I mean: Suppose you have two lenses. Lens A resolves 100 lines
per millimeter; lens B resolves 60 lpm.

Now suppose that you shoot a series of 1/30-second handheld exposures with
each lens. Your pictures are noticeably less sharp than they would have been
if you had used a tripod.

But aren't you still better off for having used a sharper lens? When your
hand moves, isn't sharpness reduced by a fixed percentage--say, by 50% If
so, 50 lpm (100/2) still beats 30 lpm (60/2). The sharper lens wins.

Or does blurring work as an equalizer, permitting, in this case, say, no
more than, say, 30 lpm, no matter how sharp a lens is used?

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

Re[2]: Lens Sharpness?

[Bruce Dayton]

I get the feeling that he only truly gushes when it is Minolta gear as
that seems to be what he uses these days.  But I do generally agree
with your assessment.


Bruce Dayton



Monday, June 24, 2002, 6:10:29 AM, you wrote:

RBMB> That was also a long time ago when Keppler was using Olympus gear. Yes, every so 
often he complains about some features that have been dropped from SLRs, but now he 
mostly gushes over every
RBMB> feature laden, fly weight entry level SLR. If you look at Photo Industry 
Reporter (http://www.photoreporter.com/2002/06-17/index.html) you'll see  Keppler 
working the industry side of the
RBMB> street. He may sell to the consumers, but I think that he views himself as part 
of the industry that he tries to help as much as possible.


RBMB> From: Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RBMB> Bruce, I cannot argue with your statement for nowadays (since I
RBMB> don't buy too many photo mags anymore), but, back in the 1970's and
RBMB> through much of the 1980's, in the late-but-great Modern Photo
RBMB> magazine, Keppler's column could almost always be relied upon for
RBMB> good, solid photo information, including an interest in quality
RBMB> photo gear and a general (although not universal) disdain for every
RBMB> whiz-bang gadget to come down the photo 'pike.

RBMB> Gee, that was a long sentence...

RBMB> Fred
RBMB> -
RBMB> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
RBMB> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
RBMB> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

National Geographic (was: Re[2]: Lens Sharpness?)

[Paul F. Stregevsky]

Frantisek wrote:
PFS>> We compare our photos to those in National Geographic.
FV> Which doesn't tell you ANYTHING about sharpness or lens qualities :)

and Alin Flaider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  replied:
As unexpected as it may seem, it was a touch of humour from Paul's
part. ;o)

Actutally, Franticek correctly inferred that by not including a smiley :) I 
was being serious.  I guess I'm remembering the National Geographic of old, 
because the sharpness of its photos "blew me away" (impressed me greatly).

I would also strip the smiley off the end of the remark, by another PDMLer, 
that he knows whether a lens is sharp enough by reading it on the Internet. 
What is so  absurd about that? If several PDMLers have used the same two 
lenses and draw the same conclusions--"the one wasn't all that sharp, the 
other is"--doesn't that tell you something? If it doesn't we're all wasting 
a lot of time reading everyone's remarks.

If I told you where there was an 85/1.4 PKA* for sale for $250 in EX+ 
condition but could never resell it, wouldn't you buy it? Most of use 
would...based chiefly on what we've read on this list. (I added "but could 
never resell it" strictly to discourage the reply, "I'd buy it for $250 and 
resell it for $1000.")

Heck, I'd hock my wedding ring to buy it. --Wait, Honey, I was only 
kidding! Ouch! Hey, that hurts!...


Paul Franklin Stregevsky
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Lens Sharpness?

[Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce)]

That was also a long time ago when Keppler was using Olympus gear. Yes, every so often 
he complains about some features that have been dropped from SLRs, but now he mostly 
gushes over every feature laden, fly weight entry level SLR. If you look at Photo 
Industry Reporter (http://www.photoreporter.com/2002/06-17/index.html) you'll see  
Keppler working the industry side of the street. He may sell to the consumers, but I 
think that he views himself as part of the industry that he tries to help as much as 
possible.


From: Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bruce, I cannot argue with your statement for nowadays (since I
don't buy too many photo mags anymore), but, back in the 1970's and
through much of the 1980's, in the late-but-great Modern Photo
magazine, Keppler's column could almost always be relied upon for
good, solid photo information, including an interest in quality
photo gear and a general (although not universal) disdain for every
whiz-bang gadget to come down the photo 'pike.

Gee, that was a long sentence...

Fred
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Lens Sharpness?

[David A. Mann]

William Robb wrote:

> How do you know if your lens is sharp enough if you haven't
> compared it to a known really sharp lens?

I read it on the internet... 

Cheers,


- Dave

http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ (out of date)
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Lens Sharpness?

[Rob Studdert]

On 23 Jun 2002 at 21:08, Bruce Rubenstein wrote:

> One of the hardest things was
> getting something with enough magnification to see what was really on the film.
> I recently got a solution to that problem. They were throwing out a Lietz 10-30x
> stereo inspection microscope. It was way too big and heavy to walk out the door
> with, but I did retrieve the head. I kludged up a base, and now I can really see
> what I have.

I too went down that path, I have an old 20/40x stereo microscope which I 
purchased to inspect my films. My 5x4" cabin light table sits neatly under the 
objective and at full resolution you can see far more detail than my old 
4000dpi scanner could retrieve. I can also do formal resolution tests with 
ease.

Cheers,

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Lens Sharpness?

[Fred]

> Keppler is always pushing the latest, greatest, wide range, light
> weight, wonder zoom lens.

Bruce, I cannot argue with your statement for nowadays (since I
don't buy too many photo mags anymore), but, back in the 1970's and
through much of the 1980's, in the late-but-great Modern Photo
magazine, Keppler's column could almost always be relied upon for
good, solid photo information, including an interest in quality
photo gear and a general (although not universal) disdain for every
whiz-bang gadget to come down the photo 'pike.

Gee, that was a long sentence...

Fred
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Lens Sharpness?

[Bruce Rubenstein]

For me, I am interested in relative lens tests: How far down do I have to
stop a lens before it hits a point of diminishing sharpness return? At what
f stop does this zoom come close to that prime? Is lens A better than lens
B? That sort of stuff. I never bother testing lenses stopped down past f8.
After a while, and looking at film from many lenses you get a feel for the
good and not so good lenses.
Keppler is always pushing the latest, greatest, wide range, light weight,
wonder zoom lens. Then go test it at f22 with 400 film. See, it gives pro
results! Like you're really going to see any difference between lenses with
a floppy tripod, at f22 with 400 film.
One of the hardest things was getting something with enough magnification to
see what was really on the film. I recently got a solution to that problem.
They were throwing out a Lietz 10-30x stereo inspection microscope. It was
way too big and heavy to walk out the door with, but I did retrieve the
head. I kludged up a base, and now I can really see what I have.

From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This begs the question:
How many people are satisfied with their lens because they
haven't seen a sharper one?
How do you know if your lens is sharp enough if you haven't
compared it to a known really sharp lens?

William Robb
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Lens Sharpness?

[Paul F. Stregevsky]

We compare our photos to those in National Geographic.

William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

This begs the question:
How many people are satisfied with their lens because they haven't seen a 
sharper one?
How do you know if your lens is sharp enough if you haven't compared it to 
a known really sharp lens?


Paul Franklin Stregevsky
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Lens Sharpness?

[Pentxuser]

Well said Paul:
I go further. I was flipping through some old magazines just before throwing 
them out and I noticed an interesting article by Keppler. I believe it was 
titled, How sharp a lens do you need. It was very down-to-earth, and 
invormative even now 20 years later
Vic


In a message dated 6/22/02 8:15:13 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Lens Sharpness?

[Paul F. Stregevsky]

Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

The man is a 75 year old fool, pandering to novices and a shill for the
camera companies selling entry level dreck.

Bruce,

I don't think Keppler missed the mark in his advice on testing for lens 
sharpness. I think he meant, "Resolution, shmezolution; see if it's sharp 
enough for you." He is well aware that most users--even Pop readers--don't 
blow up their prints past 4x6. At that size, neither the limitations of 
400-speed film nor the diffraction effects of f/22 will be seen.

I have saved a couple dozen Keppler columns since the 1970s. The man is a 
gifted writer blessed with uncommon sense and insight. Consider his 
heterodox advice about tripod stability: When walking around, settle for a 
featherweight, less-than-ideal tripod rather than none at all. No matter 
what facet of photography he is writing about, he sees angles that few 
others see. He is an iconoclast whose unconventional wisdom has upset a 
number of accepted beliefs. No one who has read his many critiques of the 
limitations of autofocus can doubt this.

Nor do I agree that he is "a shill for the camera companies selling entry 
level dreck." Keppler has written any number of columns bemoaning the 
absence of important features in many entry-level--and midrange--cameras. 
He has even written that we need truth-in-advertising laws that require 
camera makers to list the features that a camera doesn't have, so the 
bedazzled buyer won't overlook their absence. As for promoting entry-level 
dreck on behalf of the camera makers, can you explain how it would be in 
their interest to have Keppler encourage consumers to spend less, rather 
than more?


Paul Franklin Stregevsky
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

RE: Re[2]: Lens Sharpness?

[David Chang-Sang]

I hate you guys :-)
I'll find the quote and post it (sometime) :-)

Cheers,
Dave


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mishka
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 7:43 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re[2]: Lens Sharpness? 


LMAO!

> From: Bob Walkden 
> Subject: Re[2]: Lens Sharpness? 
> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 15:55:51 -0700 
> 
> > Unfortunately, it doesn't say much for how well the lens works
> > for what you photograph (unless you photograph newspapers).
> 
> some of my best friends are newspaper photographers .
> 
> ---
> 
>  Bob  
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

RE: Lens Sharpness?

[David A. Mann]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I remember reading in a book (I believe it was one of those Ansel
> Adams books..) that the best way to test for Lens sharpness/resolution
> was to take a photo of a newspaper stuck to a brick wall at a
> reasonable distance and then check the neg/print afterwards to
> determine how well the lens holds up. 

I can't be bothered with brick walls and newspapers and USAF 
resolution charts (I have a .pdf of that somewhere).

My favourite lens-test target is a local high school building.  One 
of those really old red brick ones with carved stone and ivy and a 
clock tower sticking out the top.  WIth it I can easily check low and 
high-contrast resolution, distortion, colour fringing and contrast.  
Plus it makes for some interesting pictures.

The building is located right beside their sports field so I can get 
way back for testing those long lenses, and it faces North so it gets 
the sun all day (the sun in the South _really_ disoriented me in 
England).

If I want to find out how good a lens is relative to another one, 
I'll just bring them both along.  I did this today with my recently 
acquired FA*400/5.6 and the 1/10th-the-price Tokina SL 400mm f/5.6.  
I sure hope that FA lens was worth the money!

Cheers,


- Dave

http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ (out of date)
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re[2]: Lens Sharpness?

[Mishka]

LMAO!

> From: Bob Walkden 
> Subject: Re[2]: Lens Sharpness? 
> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 15:55:51 -0700 
> 
> > Unfortunately, it doesn't say much for how well the lens works
> > for what you photograph (unless you photograph newspapers).
> 
> some of my best friends are newspaper photographers .
> 
> ---
> 
>  Bob  
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re[2]: Lens Sharpness?

[Bob Walkden]

Hi,

> Sure, that checks for how well the lens works for photographing
> newspapers at 15 feet.
> Unfortunately, it doesn't say much for how well the lens works
> for what you photograph (unless you photograph newspapers).

some of my best friends are newspaper photographers .

---

 Bob  

mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Friday, June 21, 2002, 11:22:15 PM, you wrote:

> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Subject: RE: Lens Sharpness?


>> I remember reading in a book (I believe it was one of those
> Ansel Adams books..) that the best way to test for Lens
> sharpness/resolution was to take a photo of a newspaper stuck to
> a brick wall at a reasonable distance and then check the
> neg/print afterwards to determine how well the lens holds up.
>>
>> It was something along those lines.. anyone can correct me on
> this one :)

> Sure, that checks for how well the lens works for photographing
> newspapers at 15 feet.
> Unfortunately, it doesn't say much for how well the lens works
> for what you photograph (unless you photograph newspapers).
> Pint your camera at something with fine detail at or near
> infinity (bare tree branches or power poles would be good), and
> photograph it. That will tell you how the lens performs at or
> near infinity.
> Find a subject with very fine detail at a middling distance,
> perhaps 30 feet (unless of course, this is already infinity as
> far as the lens is concerned) and photograph it. This will tell
> you haw well your lens works at middling distances.
> Finally, repeat the test at a fairly close distance.
> Use your widest aperture, and then stop down about 3 stops, then
> another 3 stops for each distance. This will tell you what the
> lenses best aperture range is, at various distances.
> Note; I have never run such a test. I don't really care that
> much.

> William Robb
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Lens Sharpness?

[William Robb]

- Original Message -
From: Rob Brigham
Subject: Lens Sharpness?


> In Pop Photo
>
(http://www.popphoto.com/HowTo/ArticleDisplay.asp?ArticleID=193&;
page=5)
> I read the following:
>
> "Whenever anyone asks me how he can tell if his lens is
sufficiently
> sharp, I tell him (or her) to take pictures with it. Load up
with one of
> those great ISO 400 slide films, wait for a nice bright day,
find a
> colorful scene at mid-distance, and shoot away using a tripod.
"
>
> What?  use 400 ISO film to measure sharpness???

What? Pop Photo suddenly has integrity?

William Robb
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Lens Sharpness?

[William Robb]

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Subject: RE: Lens Sharpness?


> I remember reading in a book (I believe it was one of those
Ansel Adams books..) that the best way to test for Lens
sharpness/resolution was to take a photo of a newspaper stuck to
a brick wall at a reasonable distance and then check the
neg/print afterwards to determine how well the lens holds up.
>
> It was something along those lines.. anyone can correct me on
this one :)

Sure, that checks for how well the lens works for photographing
newspapers at 15 feet.
Unfortunately, it doesn't say much for how well the lens works
for what you photograph (unless you photograph newspapers).
Pint your camera at something with fine detail at or near
infinity (bare tree branches or power poles would be good), and
photograph it. That will tell you how the lens performs at or
near infinity.
Find a subject with very fine detail at a middling distance,
perhaps 30 feet (unless of course, this is already infinity as
far as the lens is concerned) and photograph it. This will tell
you haw well your lens works at middling distances.
Finally, repeat the test at a fairly close distance.
Use your widest aperture, and then stop down about 3 stops, then
another 3 stops for each distance. This will tell you what the
lenses best aperture range is, at various distances.
Note; I have never run such a test. I don't really care that
much.

William Robb
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

RE: Lens Sharpness?

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

I remember reading in a book (I believe it was one of those Ansel Adams books..) that 
the best way to test for Lens sharpness/resolution was to take a photo of a newspaper 
stuck to a brick wall at a reasonable distance and then check the neg/print afterwards 
to determine how well the lens holds up. 

It was something along those lines.. anyone can correct me on this one :)

Cheers,
Dave


Original Message:
-
From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:08:16 +0100
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Lens Sharpness?


In Pop Photo
(http://www.popphoto.com/HowTo/ArticleDisplay.asp?ArticleID=193&page=5)
I read the following:

"Whenever anyone asks me how he can tell if his lens is sufficiently
sharp, I tell him (or her) to take pictures with it. Load up with one of
those great ISO 400 slide films, wait for a nice bright day, find a
colorful scene at mid-distance, and shoot away using a tripod. "

What?  use 400 ISO film to measure sharpness???
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .



mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Lens Sharpness?

[Fred]

>> Load up with one of those great ISO 400 slide films, wait for a
>> nice bright day, find a colorful scene at mid-distance, and shoot
>> away using a tripod.

> What?  use 400 ISO film to measure sharpness???

Not only is 400 speed film not the sharpest to use for testing
(although I like shooting 400 speed film a lot), but on a "nice
bright day", one is apparently not going to be able to test any but
the slowest lenses wide open (and a tripod won't really be needed,
either).

Fred
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Lens Sharpness?

[Rob Brigham]

In Pop Photo
(http://www.popphoto.com/HowTo/ArticleDisplay.asp?ArticleID=193&page=5)
I read the following:

"Whenever anyone asks me how he can tell if his lens is sufficiently
sharp, I tell him (or her) to take pictures with it. Load up with one of
those great ISO 400 slide films, wait for a nice bright day, find a
colorful scene at mid-distance, and shoot away using a tripod. "

What?  use 400 ISO film to measure sharpness???
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

RE: Lens sharpness

[petit miam]

Cool, thanks. I didn't know the exact details.

> Leave the centre of the filter free of Vaseline, and
> use a hood, else the
> Vaseline will show up very white. You can play with
> the ratio between the
> covered and uncovered area.
> 
> Frits.

> > I read this tip somewhere about getting a cheap
> > plain(eg. skylight) filter and spreading some
> vaseline
> > on it to soften the picture. Have never tried it,
> but
> > it probably works. Although could be a bit messy.
> Or
> > just get a softening filter.
> 
> 
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. 
> To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
> Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at
> http://pug.komkon.org .
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Lens sharpness

[Brian]

On 1 Feb 2001, at 13:53, Dan Scott wrote:

> 
> I saw a neat tip on using photoshop for that awhile back, if using
> photoshop is an option for you.
> 
> Scan your sharp portrait into photoshop, create a duplicate layer on top of
> the original, blur the duplicate layer just enough to soften or remove
> creases, crowsfeet, spider veins, pores and the like, then selectively
> erase through the softened duplicate layer to reveal the original, sharp
> image underneath (eyes, eyelashes, lips, teeth-depends on the teeth I
> guess-hair detail at highlights, etc.). Kind of time consuming, but the one
> time I took it for a test drive it seemed to work ok. I imagine someone
> really into portraits could do a much better job than I did.
> 
> Dan Scott
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Thanks Dan, that's a great Idea, gotta try that!
Just got Photoshop 6.0, now have to figure out how to
use it (I've been using Paint Shop Pro for the last year or so - 
wonder if the same idea would work)

-Brian
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

RE: Lens sharpness

[Frits J. Wüthrich]

Leave the centre of the filter free of Vaseline, and use a hood, else the
Vaseline will show up very white. You can play with the ratio between the
covered and uncovered area.

Frits.

> I read this tip somewhere about getting a cheap
> plain(eg. skylight) filter and spreading some vaseline
> on it to soften the picture. Have never tried it, but
> it probably works. Although could be a bit messy. Or
> just get a softening filter.


-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Lens sharpness

[petit miam]

I read this tip somewhere about getting a cheap
plain(eg. skylight) filter and spreading some vaseline
on it to soften the picture. Have never tried it, but
it probably works. Although could be a bit messy. Or
just get a softening filter.

> > Hi guys,
> > How sharp are the FA77mm limited and FA85mm? I was
> > playing with my FA100/2.8 taking some portraits
> but
> > the lens is so darn sharp that every single tiny
> > little mark in the faces are shown. You can see
> even
> > lighted colored facial hair on young women's
> faces. Do
> > the portrait lenses perform better?
> > Herbet.


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: What is a Portrait Lens? (was Lens Sharpness)

[canislupus]

At 19:33 4.2.2001 EST, you wrote:
>In a message dated 2/4/01 5:12:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
><< 
> I have even tight  framed head shots of people made with 42 mm lens - one 
>that often get's "too wide for portraits" rating, which we like.  >>
>
>
>Boy, what a 50 or wider lens can do to facial features, especially noses and 
>ears!

Of course it does! But this is what _sometimes_ is nice. And with some
people / faces, I still think it adds an intimacy into the portrait. Of
course, if I was doing a formal / business portrait (portrait studio like
you have), the customers wouldn't propably like it - after all, most
customers are pretty conservative ;-(

The point I was trying to make (how bad to having to explain one's point
afterwards :) was simply that while I prefer the ~80mm Flength for
portraits, I have seen and even shot pictures that IMO qualify as portraits
even if shot with other focal lengths. A portrait dosn't even have to have
the person's face in it!
Anybody seen the Annie Leibowitz's portrait of Pele the fooballer? On the
picture were only the Pele's feet!

Frantisek

-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: What is a Portrait Lens? (was Lens Sharpness)

[Collin Brendemuehl]

And in grand scale, at that!  :)

>Boy, what a 50 or wider lens can do to facial features, especially noses and
>ears!
>
>Suda Mafud, A member of the http://www.Africana.com online community


***

"The accumulation of all powers legislative,
executive and judiciary in the same hands . . .
may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

--James Madison, Federalist 47

-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: What is a Portrait Lens? (was Lens Sharpness)

[SudaMafud]

In a message dated 2/4/01 5:12:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<< 
 I have even tight  framed head shots of people made with 42 mm lens - one 
that often get's "too wide for portraits" rating, which we like.  >>


Boy, what a 50 or wider lens can do to facial features, especially noses and 
ears!

Suda Mafud, A member of the http://www.Africana.com online community
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

RE: What is a Portrait Lens? (was Lens Sharpness)

[canislupus]

At 14:02 3.2.2001 -0600, you wrote:
>I think you know the classical answer to the question already,
>so are just "stirring the pot". :)
[...]
>I have seen good 35mm portraits (head and shoulders shots) done
>with lenses from 50mm through 300mm.  In fact, 105mm through
>300mm has seen a lot of favor in recent years in glamour and
>fashion photography with photographers that use 35mm cameras.
>
>Len
>---

While I agree with you (it's after all a classical definition), a portrait
lens can be any focal length ever. 
Have you seen Bill Brandt's acts? He shot them using a LF pinhole camera of
super wide angle... 

I have very nice "work" portraits done with 50mm lens. I have even tight
framed head shots of people made with 42mm lens - one that often get's "too
wide for portraits" rating, which we like. There are even few (but only
few) "portraits" I made with 20mm lens (although not much flattering to the
woman I photographed, _I_ like them ;)

So it seems to me that just every lens is portrait lens in broader meaning
of the word "portrait". 
But of course the 1.8/80 I think of as portrait lens is propably the most
universal (but... ;)

Frantisek

-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: What is a Portrait Lens? (was Lens Sharpness)

[SudaMafud]

In a message dated 2/3/01 3:04:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

<< 
 > What is a "portrait lens?"  Can someone define it for > me?  What > are 
the characteristics of a good portrait lens?
 >
  > Shel Belinkoff >>

My 80-200 f/2.8 FA AF was a great "portrait" lens. You could shoot from any 
distance, frame tightly or full length, shoot head shots or head and 
shouders, move from place to place or stand still. With an AF 500FTZ onboard, 
you were set to do politicians or Brides. 

Mafud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.

Re: Lens sharpness

[Rodger Whitlock]

On  Fri, 2 Feb 2001 at 19:26:11 -0600, Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

> ...I don't think I've ever had *any* adult over the age of 25-30
> tell me they actually liked a headshot I'd taken of them, generally
> saying *I* made them look horsey/old/horrid/wrinkly/puffy/had bad
> skin/yellow teeth/etc./etc.. Telling them that I thought the photo
> was great because it looked just like them, never seems to have
> the effect I'd intended. 

> So I'm faced with a problem, do I give someone a photo I like but
> that makes them feel bad about themselves, or do I shoot photos I
> like and give them prints that make them feel good about
> themselves and me? 

For a professional portraitist, of course, there's no problem. The 
customer says what he/she wants and that's what's provided. But we 
amateurs all have *exactly* the problem you describe.

After I got my new Z1-p and 77 ltd last summer I rushed off and took 
some snapshots of a friend in her garden. I didn't take great care in 
posing her, and combined with the sharpness of the 77 it led to the 
issuance of a diktat "Don't you ever dare point that thing at me 
again!" Admittedly, one of the shots made her look like someone 
waiting in line for a brain transplant or something.

I used the F 100/2.8 to photograph a heavily tattooed friend. He was 
quite interested in the closeups of his tattoos, never having seen 
some of them in quite such detail (i.e. his huge back piece). One 
that stood out in my mind, a head-and-shoulders portrait in which one 
only glimpses a tattoo on one shoulder.

To my mind, it is one of the best portrait shots I've ever taken. The
contrast between the serious facial expression and the hinted tattoo
give the thing great psychological depth. I feel it truly reveals
something of my friend's inner life. It is a truly beautiful 
photograph.
 
But the subject had precisely the reaction you describe in your first 
(quoted) paragraph. 

I think the difficulty is that sharp portraits dispel the subjects' 
illusions about their appearance, and no one likes having their 
illusions undone. I imagine that on the whole, PDMLer's are not a 
very handsome lot and that we all look at ourselves in the mirror 
from time to time. But I will also assert that our inner pictures of 
ourselves leave out the sagging flesh, the skin defects, the graying 
hair, the bloodshot eyes, the bulging waistlines. The camera is less 
kindly.

About the only solution that comes to mind is to take some portraits 
of one's nearest and dearest with the pantyhose over the lens, and 
others without, and don't let the subjects see the sharp ones. 

-- 
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.

Re: What is a Portrait Lens? (was Lens Sharpness)

[Tom Rittenhouse]

Mike, that is as definitive a description of what a good
portrait lens is as I have ever read.
--Tom


Mike Johnston wrote:
> 
> Shel wrote:
> 
> > What is a "portrait lens?"  Can someone define it for me?  What
> > are the characteristics of a good portrait lens?
> 
> I suppose by definition it's a lens you use to make portraits with. More
> typically, it's a medium telephoto of 85mm to 105mm focal length, since
> those are frequently preferred to make portraits with.
> 
> At the turn of the century a good portrait lens was a highly prized tool,
> and various portrait photographers were highly possessive about their
> carefully selected lenses. Even until recently, some of these lenses were
> sought after and sold for far more than their more pedestrian brethren. They
> have names few photographers recognize today.
> 
> A good portrait lens back then (of course, they were all view camera lenses)
> was a lens that looked sharp without obvious softness, but that didn't
> resolve too much. The reason for this is that the human eye and mind, when
> "recognizing" a human face, typically is highly sensitive of identifiers in
> shape, form, expression, and so forth--permanent features of the face being
> recognized; but tends to ignore what we know to be transient, insignificant
> surface details--blemishes, stubble, bad skin, lines, etc. We're aware that
> these things are not identifiers, so the mind tends to give them less
> emphasis in the recognition process.
> 
> Some feel that a good portrait lens should do the same. Too much resolution
> of surface detail is a distraction from the way a person looks. Surely, all
> of us have seen photographs of ourselves or our loved ones that "don't look
> right" because of excessive resolution--every pore pronounced, every crease
> and line emphasized. It's like a caricature.
> 
> Most of the early portrait masters used relatively simple lenses that had
> decent contrast but not very good correction. Further control was afforded
> through choice of apertures.
> 
> These days, what I would look for in a portrait lens is a lens that has high
> contrast for large structures (say, 5 lp/mm), but not very good resolution
> of small structures (30-40 lp/mm) and good soft blur or "bokeh."
> 
> I don't mind if a lens only has these properties at a certain restricted
> range of apertures.
> 
> I have a number of old portraits in my collection that are absolutely
> stunning--gorgeous, flattering yet clear. In my opinion the high point of
> portrait photography passed many years ago.

-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.

RE: What is a Portrait Lens? (was Lens Sharpness)

[Len Paris]

I think you know the classical answer to the question already,
so are just "stirring the pot". :)

The easy answers (and those are the only kinds of answers I
know) that satisfy my requirements are:

   1.  A lens of sufficient focal length to allow a decent
working distance and not cause any of the subject's body parts
to be given unwanted emphasis.

   2.  A lens of sufficient aperture to allow good control over
depth of field.

   3.  A lens sharp enough to provide all of the detail that is
needed.

I have seen good 35mm portraits (head and shoulders shots) done
with lenses from 50mm through 300mm.  In fact, 105mm through
300mm has seen a lot of favor in recent years in glamour and
fashion photography with photographers that use 35mm cameras.

Len
---



> What is a "portrait lens?"  Can someone define it for
> me?  What
> are the characteristics of a good portrait lens?
>
> --
> Shel Belinkoff

-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.

Re: Lens sharpness, portraits and the 77

[SudaMafud]

In a message dated 2/2/01 11:54:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<<  For me, a portrait _should_ please the subject. >>

I agree Bill. 
Who else *has* to be pleased? The one who pays my freight, if not the 
subject. I only have to be *proud* of my work, that I applied all I know in 
the production of the piece.
Besides, any needed "softness" can be achieved under the enlarger.

While reading the thread, I am reminded that I shoot perhaps 20 shots in a 
portrait sitting. I pick what are the most "artistic" (pleasing to me) photos 
to show the client, many times some "soft," some sharp. 
Businessmen prefer "sharp" photos, especially photos that show their 
environment but most of all shows their eyes in sharp, piercing detail, while 
women usually choose the "softer" photos, those with huge bokeh (blotting out 
their environment) and a "pleasing" image of their smooth, creamy face, 
whether they own one or not.

*I'm* most pleased with my work when I get the check and a signed model 
release.

Mafud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.

Re: What is a Portrait Lens? (was Lens Sharpness)

[SudaMafud]

In a message dated 2/2/01 10:16:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<<  In my opinion the high point of portrait photography passed many years 
ago.
  >>

I liked it all Mike, but would you explain the above?

Mafud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.

Re: Lens sharpness, portraits and the 77

[Dan Scott]

Hi William,

Truthfully, I wasn't thinking of your post when I wrote my response to Fred
and Shel. If  you look at the part of my post you didn't quote (was I too
windy?) you'll see that I basically agree with you. What stays with me will
be as sharp as I can shoot, and what goes out will be my best attempt to
make a flattering portrait of my subject (flattering in their eyes, not
necessarily mine).

However, if you would like to trade your 77mm ltd. for a coke bottle, 
I've got one in 'super +++minty' condition.

Dan Scott ("show me the pores, baby...")
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


>Dan said:
>> Well guys, personally, I want portraits to be as sharp and as
>accurate as
>> possible, too. I think my photos of my friends and family
>should look like
>> the people I see and know.
>> Dan Scott
>



>Lets not get carried away. One would think I had implied
>that because I think the 77 is too sharp for a portrait lens,
>that by definition I want a coke bottle in a  PK helicoid mount
>for portraiture. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

 

>For me, a portrait _should_ please the subject. That is why
>I shoot portraits. If my subject is going to hate the picture, I
>am not going to waste film on producing it.



>William Robb
>
>
>-
>This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
>go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
>visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.



-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.

Re: Lens sharpness

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi Collin ...

I've been giving that  some thought over the last day or so. 
Yesterday I had lunch with a local photographer who teaches aa
portrait lighting class a few times a year, and while we didn't
talk much about lighting, he did mention a few things that he
teaches.  One thing he mentioned is that you can soften a
portrait by how you choose to do the lighting, just as you
suggest.  Somewhere I have a book that touches on portrait
lighting.  Perhaps it's time to dig it out and look through it. 
Thanks for your "humble opinion."
-- 
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The difference between a good photograph 
and a great photograph is subtleties."

Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
> 
> jmho, but I suspect that sharpness (or over-sharpness
> as it has been alluded to) is not so much a problem
> with lenses as it might be with lighting.  Softer light
> will de-emphasize detail by removing excess contrast
> on the subject.  It's contrast that makes small facial
> hair stand out.  Softening light can reduce that effect
> to a great degree.

-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.

Re: Lens sharpness, portraits and the 77

[William Robb]

Dan said:
> Well guys, personally, I want portraits to be as sharp and as
accurate as
> possible, too. I think my photos of my friends and family
should look like
> the people I see and know.
> Dan Scott

>
> Fred said:
> >Personally, ~I~ like a portrait to be as ~sharp~ as possible.
~I~ want to
> >see ~every~ detail in a portrait, and I want my portrait
lenses to
> >faithfully pass as much detail to the film as possible.  If
the subject
> >wants some softening (and I am not disputing that many
subjects do want
> >that - I do understand), then I will put a softening filter
on the lens.
> >
> > >Fred
>
>
> Shel said:
> >
> >Why spend high end dollars when what you want is a bargain
> >basement type of image? There are numerous third party and
off
> >brand lenses that will offer a nice portrait image, or you
can
> >pick up a klunker lens somewhere that has poor optical
> >performance for just a few bucks, and experiment a little
with
> >them.  Why spend $500.00 or more for an exquisite piece of
glass
> >and then complain that it's  "too sharp" for portraits.  If
you
> >do that, you've bought the wrong tool for the job.

Lets not get carried away. One would think I had implied
that because I think the 77 is too sharp for a portrait lens,
that by definition I want a coke bottle in a  PK helicoid mount
for portraiture. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
I quite often use the 4x5 for portraits. The Nikkor 210 is a
pretty darned sharp lens, and the 4x5 format holds lots of
detail.
However, there is also a smoothness of tonal transition from
large format that the 35mm camera user doesn't have available.
35mm images are very harsh to begin with. The medium format
shooter know of what I speak, to a certain extent.
For me, a portrait _should_ please the subject. That is why
I shoot portraits. If my subject is going to hate the picture, I
am not going to waste film on producing it.
Having said that, I quite often do shoot the sharpest I can
for people pictures. I think the 77 is going to be swell for
some of that. For portraits, I still prefer the M85mm f2, which
is certainly not a dog of a lens. It is not as sharp as the 77
by a fair sight, though. The K 105 f2.8 is very nice too, and it
is an excellent lens.
I don't like diffusing under the enlarger, I find that the
mushy shadows that you get from that to be ugly and unnatural. I
prefer diffused highlights to diffused shadows. Bobs method of
moving the focus for part of the exposure works well, but is
fiddly.
If I am going to toss a diffuser onto the lens anyway, then
I may as well use a lens more suited to my end goal.
I like short telephoto lenses for general photography, and
that is what drew me to the 77. I suspect I could weld it to one
of my LX's and be quite happy to use it that way forever. It
just wouldn't go into the studio very often.
William Robb


-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.

What is a Portrait Lens? (was Lens Sharpness)

[Mike Johnston]

Shel wrote:


> What is a "portrait lens?"  Can someone define it for me?  What
> are the characteristics of a good portrait lens?


I suppose by definition it's a lens you use to make portraits with. More
typically, it's a medium telephoto of 85mm to 105mm focal length, since
those are frequently preferred to make portraits with.

At the turn of the century a good portrait lens was a highly prized tool,
and various portrait photographers were highly possessive about their
carefully selected lenses. Even until recently, some of these lenses were
sought after and sold for far more than their more pedestrian brethren. They
have names few photographers recognize today.

A good portrait lens back then (of course, they were all view camera lenses)
was a lens that looked sharp without obvious softness, but that didn't
resolve too much. The reason for this is that the human eye and mind, when
"recognizing" a human face, typically is highly sensitive of identifiers in
shape, form, expression, and so forth--permanent features of the face being
recognized; but tends to ignore what we know to be transient, insignificant
surface details--blemishes, stubble, bad skin, lines, etc. We're aware that
these things are not identifiers, so the mind tends to give them less
emphasis in the recognition process.

Some feel that a good portrait lens should do the same. Too much resolution
of surface detail is a distraction from the way a person looks. Surely, all
of us have seen photographs of ourselves or our loved ones that "don't look
right" because of excessive resolution--every pore pronounced, every crease
and line emphasized. It's like a caricature.

Most of the early portrait masters used relatively simple lenses that had
decent contrast but not very good correction. Further control was afforded
through choice of apertures.

These days, what I would look for in a portrait lens is a lens that has high
contrast for large structures (say, 5 lp/mm), but not very good resolution
of small structures (30-40 lp/mm) and good soft blur or "bokeh."

I don't mind if a lens only has these properties at a certain restricted
range of apertures.

I have a number of old portraits in my collection that are absolutely
stunning--gorgeous, flattering yet clear. In my opinion the high point of
portrait photography passed many years ago.

--Mike

-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.

Re: Lens sharpness

[Collin Brendemuehl]

jmho, but I suspect that sharpness (or over-sharpness
as it has been alluded to) is not so much a problem
with lenses as it might be with lighting.  Softer light
will de-emphasize detail by removing excess contrast
on the subject.  It's contrast that makes small facial
hair stand out.  Softening light can reduce that effect
to a great degree.

Collin

***

"The accumulation of all powers legislative,
executive and judiciary in the same hands . . .
may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

--James Madison, Federalist 47

-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.

Re: Lens sharpness

[Dan Scott]

Well guys, personally, I want portraits to be as sharp and as accurate as
possible, too. I think my photos of my friends and family should look like
the people I see and know.

But--and this is a big *but*, while my comment primarily addressed my
wife's *personal* reaction to the sharpness of the FA 100/2.8, I don't
think I've ever had *any* adult over the age of 25-30 tell me they actually
liked a headshot I'd taken of them, generally saying *I* made them look
horsey/old/horrid/wrinkly/puffy/had bad skin/yellow teeth/etc./etc..
Telling them that I thought the photo was great because it looked just like
them, never seems to have the effect I'd intended.  

So I'm faced with a problem, do I give someone a photo I like but that
makes them feel bad about themselves, or do I shoot photos I like and give
them prints that make them feel good about themselves and me?

I currently have 3 lenses (4, if you count the tessar in my p&s) an FA
35/2, an A 50/1.7, and an FA 100/2.8, and I wouldn't lose the sharpness of
any of them. However, in the future, when I make a print of a headshot as a
gift, I'll do a digital face-lift on the file before I print it (my version
of Fred's approach). I'd rather make a sharp image selectively soft than
hurt a friend or have friends and family hide when they see me with a
camera.

Dan Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Fred said:
>
>This discussion of how some lenses are "too sharp" for portrait use shows
>up periodically on the PDML (and often prompts a few of us to jump in with
>a defense of sharp lenses for portraiture).  Well, here's my two f-stops
>worth:
>
>Personally, ~I~ like a portrait to be as ~sharp~ as possible.  ~I~ want to
>see ~every~ detail in a portrait, and I want my portrait lenses to
>faithfully pass as much detail to the film as possible.  If the subject
>wants some softening (and I am not disputing that many subjects do want
>that - I do understand), then I will put a softening filter on the lens.
>
>I would be disappointed with any lens that is soft, and would certainly
>not be pleased with how soft a given lens could make a portrait.  I am
>happy that Pentax has produced dedicated soft-focus lenses for rendering
>variably soft images, but I am also happy that most other portrait lenses
>from Pentax are sharp.  Remember, one can always soften an image with a
>filter, but one cannot sharpen a soft lens when detail is desired.
>
>Fred


Shel said:
>
>Why spend high end dollars when what you want is a bargain
>basement type of image? There are numerous third party and off
>brand lenses that will offer a nice portrait image, or you can
>pick up a klunker lens somewhere that has poor optical
>performance for just a few bucks, and experiment a little with
>them.  Why spend $500.00 or more for an exquisite piece of glass
>and then complain that it's  "too sharp" for portraits.  If you
>do that, you've bought the wrong tool for the job.


-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.

Re: Lens sharpness

[Shel Belinkoff]

I was going to avoid this thread, but, since today is slow at
work I went out and shot a roll of TX.  Coincidentally, I used
an 85mm lens, which some of you call a "portrait lens."  But I
didn't use it for portraits, but rather, for some street
shooting.  Just because the focal length of a lens lends itself
to they typical portrait, does not make it a portrait lens, per
se.  I would throw my 85s in the trash in they were less than
sharp and delivered less than exemplary performance.
I'm sure that there are many photographers who use an 85mm, or a
105mm lens as just another focal length, and don't use them as
dedicated portrait lenses.  If a lens is too sharp for your
needs, just get one that's not.  There are plenty of low to
medium quality lenses that will produce a soft image.  

Why spend high end dollars when what you want is a bargain
basement type of image? There are numerous third party and off
brand lenses that will offer a nice portrait image, or you can
pick up a klunker lens somewhere that has poor optical
performance for just a few bucks, and experiment a little with
them.  Why spend $500.00 or more for an exquisite piece of glass
and then complain that it's  "too sharp" for portraits.  If you
do that, you've bought the wrong tool for the job.
-- 
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.

RE: Lens sharpness

[herbet brasileiro]

I agree with Len here. The portraiture photographer
should be able to bring out the best in people's faces
not to show all their defects. Moreover, Putting a
soft filter or using a soft-lens like FA85 soft is not
the same as using a less sharper lens. Soft filters
are just too soft. I regret having sold my old Fa
35-80. 
Herbet.

--- Len Paris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with you 100% Fred. In fact I'm the guy that
> upset
> certain folks by saying I would never knowingly buy
> a soft lens.
> I like 'em as sharp as I can get 'em.  I was only
> trying to
> answer the question.  I have had customers that
> didn't like how
> they looked when I use the FA*85mm f/1.4 or the
> FA100mm f/2.8
> macro, when that happens, I do a re-shoot (if
> possible) with the
> FA 28-200 zoom. It makes them much happier.  I
> didn't buy the
> 28--200 because it was soft, it just works out that
> way.  And
> it's really only soft compared to the aforementioned
> lenses,
> it's not terrible.  It definitely has its uses.
> 
> Len
> ---
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 10:28 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Lens sharpness
> >
> >
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > I don't own the 77mm Limited, but the FA*85mm
> f/1.4
> > is, perhaps a
> > > bit better for portraits if you use it at f/1.4.
> > When you stop it
> > > down, it too is agonizingly sharp, IMO.
> >
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > My wife, after seeing a photo of our son taken
> with
> > the FA 100/2.8,
> > > threatened me with mayhem and murder if she ever
> > caught me aiming
> > > that particular lense anywhere near her. I find
> the
> > thought that
> > > there are even sharper lenses being used for
> portraits a bit
> > > frightening. 
> >
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Had the same problems doing actors headshots
> with a
> > Tamron 90mm
> > > Macro - great for getting in close without
> making
> > your subject a bit
> > > squeamish, but not so great for a "flattering
> picture".
> >
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > The 77 is IMHO too sharp for a portrait lens. I
> am
> > not sure if it is
> > > sharper than my A100 2.8 Macro, but it wouldn't
> > surprise me if it
> > > was.
> >
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > I made only some images with this lens [77/1.8]
> but
> > agree with
> > > William - too sharp for portrait.
> >
> > +
> >
> > This discussion of how some lenses are "too sharp"
> > for portrait use shows up periodically on the PDML
> > (and often prompts a few of us to jump in with a
> > defense of sharp lenses for portraiture).  Well,
> > here's my two f-stops worth:
> >
> > Personally, ~I~ like a portrait to be as ~sharp~
> as
> > possible.  ~I~ want to see ~every~ detail in a
> > portrait, and I want my portrait lenses to
> faithfully
> > pass as much detail to the film as possible.  If
> the
> > subject wants some softening (and I am not
> disputing
> > that many subjects do

__
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.

Re: Lens sharpness

[Aaron Reynolds]

> On 1 Feb 2001, at 13:53, Dan Scott wrote:
> 
> >
> > I saw a neat tip on using photoshop for that awhile back, if using
> > photoshop is an option for you.

Another great way to do this is to duplicate the layer, use the median
tool on it and make it just nuttily fuzzy (it's under
Filters->Noise->Median, I usually use it somewhere between 12 and 15),
then (in Photoshop 5.0 or later) change the layer blending from normal
to darken, and adjust the opacity to suit your taste.  Then use a
soft-edged eraser to bring back important details (usually I find that
the pupils and teeth need to be sharp and not much else).  If you have
the processor muscle, change the layer blending and opacity before using
the median tool on the top layer, then you can get a real-time preview
of the effect at different levels.

If anyone wants to see a sample of the stuff I've been doing this way,
drop me a line and I'll dig up a scan.  If you've been in the store, the
pic of the fairy (not shot by me, but I did all of the digital
work...for a crazy amount of money) and the picture of the door at the
base of a grain silo were both treated in this manner.  I'm currently
doing this to a series of images of doorways in Cozumel, Mexico (again,
not shot by me...I never have time to shoot anymore...*sniff*) for
another client.

-Aaron
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.

Re: Lens sharpness

[William Robb]

- Original Message -
From: "herbet brasileiro" Subject: Lens sharpness


> Hi guys,
> How sharp are the FA77mm limited and FA85mm? I was
> playing with my FA100/2.8 taking some portraits but
> the lens is so darn sharp that every single tiny
> little mark in the faces are shown. You can see even
> lighted colored facial hair on young women's faces. Do
> the portrait lenses perform better?
> Herbet.

The 77 is IMHO too sharp for a portrait lens. I am not sure if
it is sharper than my A100 2.8 Macro, but it wouldn't surprise
me if it was.
William Robb


-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.

Re: Lens sharpness

[Brian]

On 1 Feb 2001, at 13:53, Dan Scott wrote:

> 
> I saw a neat tip on using photoshop for that awhile back, if using
> photoshop is an option for you.
> 
> Scan your sharp portrait into photoshop, create a duplicate layer on top of
> the original, blur the duplicate layer just enough to soften or remove
> creases, crowsfeet, spider veins, pores and the like, then selectively
> erase through the softened duplicate layer to reveal the original, sharp
> image underneath (eyes, eyelashes, lips, teeth-depends on the teeth I
> guess-hair detail at highlights, etc.). Kind of time consuming, but the one
> time I took it for a test drive it seemed to work ok. I imagine someone
> really into portraits could do a much better job than I did.
> 
> Dan Scott
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Thanks Dan, that's a great Idea, gotta try that!
Just got Photoshop 6.0, now have to figure out how to
use it (I've been using Paint Shop Pro for the last year or so - 
wonder if the same idea would work)

-Brian
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.

Re: Lens sharpness

[Dan Scott]

"bc" wrote:

>On 1 Feb 2001, at 9:35, herbet brasileiro wrote:
>
>> Hi guys,
>> How sharp are the FA77mm limited and FA85mm? I was
>> playing with my FA100/2.8 taking some portraits but
>> the lens is so darn sharp that every single tiny
>> little mark in the faces are shown. You can see even
>> lighted colored facial hair on young women's faces. Do
>> the portrait lenses perform better?
>> Herbet.
>
>Had the same problems doing actors headshots with a
>Tamron 90mm Macro - great for getting in close without
>making your subject a bit squeamish, but not so great
>for a "flattering picture".
>
>Two solutions I am looking at -
>   a) softening filters
>   b) slightly softening the print in the darkroom
>
>Haven't tried a) yet, B has worked on numerous occasions
>but mostly to reduce the effect of grain on hi-speed-big-
>enlargement shots.
>
>Cheers!
>Brian

I saw a neat tip on using photoshop for that awhile back, if using
photoshop is an option for you.

Scan your sharp portrait into photoshop, create a duplicate layer on top of
the original, blur the duplicate layer just enough to soften or remove
creases, crowsfeet, spider veins, pores and the like, then selectively
erase through the softened duplicate layer to reveal the original, sharp
image underneath (eyes, eyelashes, lips, teeth-depends on the teeth I
guess-hair detail at highlights, etc.). Kind of time consuming, but the one
time I took it for a test drive it seemed to work ok. I imagine someone
really into portraits could do a much better job than I did.

Dan Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.

Re: Lens sharpness

[bc]

On 1 Feb 2001, at 9:35, herbet brasileiro wrote:

> Hi guys,
> How sharp are the FA77mm limited and FA85mm? I was
> playing with my FA100/2.8 taking some portraits but
> the lens is so darn sharp that every single tiny
> little mark in the faces are shown. You can see even
> lighted colored facial hair on young women's faces. Do
> the portrait lenses perform better?
> Herbet.

Had the same problems doing actors headshots with a 
Tamron 90mm Macro - great for getting in close without
making your subject a bit squeamish, but not so great
for a "flattering picture".

Two solutions I am looking at -
a) softening filters
b) slightly softening the print in the darkroom

Haven't tried a) yet, B has worked on numerous occasions
but mostly to reduce the effect of grain on hi-speed-big-
enlargement shots.

Cheers!
Brian
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.

Re: Lens sharpness

[Dan Scott]

herbet brasileiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi guys,
>How sharp are the FA77mm limited and FA85mm? I was
>playing with my FA100/2.8 taking some portraits but
>the lens is so darn sharp that every single tiny
>little mark in the faces are shown. You can see even
>lighted colored facial hair on young women's faces. Do
>the portrait lenses perform better?
>Herbet.

My wife, after seeing a photo of our son taken with the FA 100/2.8,
threatened me with mayhem and murder if she ever caught me aiming that
particular lense anywhere near her. I find the thought that there are even
sharper lenses being used for portraits a bit frightening. 

Dan Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.

RE: Lens sharpness

[Paris, Leonard]

I don't own the 77mm Limited, but the FA*85mm f/1.4 is, perhaps a bit better
for portraits if you use it at f/1.4.  When you stop it down, it too is
agonizingly sharp, IMO.

Len
---

> Hi guys,
> How sharp are the FA77mm limited and FA85mm? I was
> playing with my FA100/2.8 taking some portraits but
> the lens is so darn sharp that every single tiny
> little mark in the faces are shown. You can see even
> lighted colored facial hair on young women's faces. Do
> the portrait lenses perform better?
> Herbet.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.

Lens sharpness

[herbet brasileiro]

Hi guys,
How sharp are the FA77mm limited and FA85mm? I was
playing with my FA100/2.8 taking some portraits but
the lens is so darn sharp that every single tiny
little mark in the faces are shown. You can see even
lighted colored facial hair on young women's faces. Do
the portrait lenses perform better?
Herbet.

__
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.