From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/11/28 Wed AM 05:20:13 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation
Mike,
But by decreasing DOF you can effectively concentrate only on that part
of the face that you want to show
Dave, yours may be a true observation though I never found it to be an
obstacle. First of, I still think that by opening aperture (and the lens
is fast enough) you can decrease sharpness... And of course there are
various soft filters too.
I think it would be far worse if the lens lacked
Boris Liberman wrote:
First of, I still think that by opening aperture (and the lens
is fast enough) you can decrease sharpness...
Hmmm. You can decrease the depth of the plane of focus but you can't
(afaik) decrease the sharpness of it. Thereby giving a softer look to
more of the
- Original Message -
From: mike wilson
Subject: Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation
Boris Liberman wrote:
First of, I still think that by opening aperture (and the lens
is fast enough) you can decrease sharpness...
Hmmm. You can decrease the depth of the plane of focus but you
But isn't true that the sharpest focus for a lens is less than wide
open, so by opening it up you are decreasing overall focus by some amount?
John Graves
WA1JG
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mike wilson wrote:
Boris Liberman wrote:
First of, I still think that by opening aperture (and the lens
John Graves wrote:
But isn't true that the sharpest focus for a lens is less than wide
open, so by opening it up you are decreasing overall focus by some amount?
John Graves
WA1JG
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
As Bill pointed out, most lenses are less sharp at maximum aperture but
I am not sure
At 06:23 AM 28/11/2007, John Graves wrote:
But isn't true that the sharpest focus for a lens is less than wide
open
Generally yes.
, so by opening it up you are decreasing overall focus by some amount?
You don't loose much sharpness opening up the 77, but DOF really becomes
shallow.
In the
Hi!
mike wilson wrote:
John Graves wrote:
But isn't true that the sharpest focus for a lens is less than wide
open, so by opening it up you are decreasing overall focus by some amount?
John Graves
WA1JG
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
As Bill pointed out, most lenses are less sharp at maximum
Mike,
But by decreasing DOF you can effectively concentrate only on that part
of the face that you want to show. For example if the model for some
reason has really ugly ears, by throwing them out of sharply rendered
space you can at least partially solve this problem.
Another point that
On 23/11/07, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
I don't think he was talking about your mistress.
Oh that wasn't my mistress, but this is:
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3064/shawn.jpg
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
On Nov 24, 2007 7:24 PM, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 23/11/07, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
I don't think he was talking about your mistress.
Oh that wasn't my mistress, but this is:
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3064/shawn.jpg
Let me guess...
clicks on link
..I
Were men are men, and sheep are nervous.:-0
Dave
On 11/24/07, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 24, 2007 7:24 PM, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 23/11/07, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
I don't think he was talking about your mistress.
Oh that wasn't my
- Original Message -
From: Cotty
Subject: Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation
I don't think he was talking about your mistress.
Oh that wasn't my mistress, but this is:
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3064/shawn.jpg
I didn't realize you were Scottish
William Robb
On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 10:24:49AM +, Cotty wrote:
On 23/11/07, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
I don't think he was talking about your mistress.
Oh that wasn't my mistress, but this is:
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3064/shawn.jpg
Boy, do *you* have sex issues.
- Original Message -
From: John Francis
Subject: Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation
I don't think he was talking about your mistress.
Oh that wasn't my mistress, but this is:
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3064/shawn.jpg
Boy, do *you* have sex issues.
Shawn
In a message dated 11/23/2007 2:54:38 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The infamous Becky Carter:
http://beckycarter.com/
Although the shot in the link that Cotty posted looks more life like.
Cheers,
Dave
Egad!
I must have been off list when this was
The Stones sing, Hey! You! Get of a my cloud!
Willie yells, Hey! McCloud! Get of a my ewe!
Regards,
Bob...
-
Note: No trees were killed in the sending of this message,
but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
- Original Message -
From: David Savage
Subject: Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation
On Nov 23, 2007 10:02 PM, David J Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave.
The one thing the teacher of the basic portriat class i took this
spring kept saying, was that when taking ones portrait
On Nov 23, 2007 11:38 PM, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find it's best to treat blemishes or wrinkles individually. A very
soft brush set at 30% opacity with a 30% fill rate can soften nicely.
The color, of course, is picked up from a directly adjacent part of
the face. That
I am loosely involved with some research being done at the Institute
for Creative Technology - in one line of work (not my project) they
are trying to develop the technique for ultra-realistic computer-
generated avatars for use in training films, etc. If you use anything
more than a
Bob Sullivan wrote:
You can always fuzz them up a bit.
Try some gausian blurr.
You can't ever make them sharper...
Two possible Photoshop techniques:
One:
Make a duplicate layer
Brighten it up a lot
Apply gaussian blur - a lot (20-30 pixel radius)
Change blend mode to overlay
Adjust opacity to
Stan Halpin wrote:
All of which is to say that, while I agree with Mark that we do
recognize and observe others at a grosser level of detail, it is also
true that we recognize and are uncomfortable at some unconscious
level when there is less detail than we are able to discern in real
15:08
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation
William Robb wrote:
On Nov 23, 2007 10:02 PM, David J Brooks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The one thing the teacher of the basic portriat class i took
this
spring kept saying, was that when taking ones
David Savage wrote:
Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can think of a good example of overdoing the lack of detail in
portraits: Remember those scary-looking Photoshop jobs of girls with
big eyes, unnaturally plastic-looking skin, etc? Discussed on the list
some time ago. Anyone got the
- Original Message -
From: Charles Robinson
Subject: Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation
http://beckycarter.com/
Oh god, that's depressing to look at. Does ANYbody think that looks
good?
Ken Rockwell might..
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML
- Original Message -
From: Stan Halpin
Subject: Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation
All of which is to say that, while I agree with Mark that we do
recognize and observe others at a grosser level of detail, it is also
true that we recognize and are uncomfortable at some unconscious
EEEKKK!
Cotty wrote:
On 23/11/07, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
I can think of a good example of overdoing the lack of detail in
portraits: Remember those scary-looking Photoshop jobs of girls with
big eyes, unnaturally plastic-looking skin, etc? Discussed on the list
that should be your, not you're, damn spell checker...
P. J. Alling wrote:
Think of it as the perfect tool to facilitate a break up with you're
wife/girlfriend/etc...
David Savage wrote:
I did some portraits of my parents this evening I have to say that
the 77 Ltd., for all it's good
On Nov 24, 2007 2:03 PM, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
that should be your, not you're, damn spell checker...
I knew what you meant :-)
Cheers,
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please
On Nov 23, 2007, at 16:52, David Savage wrote:
On Nov 24, 2007 2:50 AM, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stan Halpin wrote:
All of which is to say that, while I agree with Mark that we do
recognize and observe others at a grosser level of detail, it is
also
true that we recognize
On Nov 24, 2007 8:03 AM, Charles Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 23, 2007, at 16:52, David Savage wrote:
On Nov 24, 2007 2:50 AM, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Remember those scary-looking Photoshop jobs of girls with
big eyes, unnaturally plastic-looking skin, etc?
On Nov 24, 2007 2:50 AM, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stan Halpin wrote:
All of which is to say that, while I agree with Mark that we do
recognize and observe others at a grosser level of detail, it is also
true that we recognize and are uncomfortable at some unconscious
level when
On 11/23/07, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave, as a long time portrait shooter, I am going to go out on a limb here
and say that your instructor was full of manure.
Only manure Bill. You must be in a good mood today.
LOL
The regular instructor was unavailable for the class, and
William Robb wrote:
On Nov 23, 2007 10:02 PM, David J Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The one thing the teacher of the basic portriat class i took this
spring kept saying, was that when taking ones portrait, it is about
the face, the look. Any imperfections should be there in the photo.
I find it's best to treat blemishes or wrinkles individually. A very
soft brush set at 30% opacity with a 30% fill rate can soften nicely.
The color, of course, is picked up from a directly adjacent part of
the face. That technique seems to work better than the healing brush.
Paul
On Nov 23,
On Nov 23, 2007 10:49 PM, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree, but my models bitch moan about looking old (to which I
reply You are old :-)
If you are doing pictures for yourself, then do what you want
These are purely lighting technique test photos. The resultant
portraits of
Dave.
The one thing the teacher of the basic portriat class i took this
spring kept saying, was that when taking ones portrait, it is about
the face, the look. Any iomperfections should be there in the photo.
Thats who they are.
Made sence to me.
However its is a sharp lens is'nt it.:-)
Dave
Think of it as the perfect tool to facilitate a break up with you're
wife/girlfriend/etc...
David Savage wrote:
I did some portraits of my parents this evening I have to say that
the 77 Ltd., for all it's good points, is a very unflattering lens for
shooting people with a less than perfect
On Nov 23, 2007 10:30 PM, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Every wrinkle, pore, blemish etc. is rendered in razor sharp detail.
Yup. I noticed that when I bought my first 77mm LTD. I still use softening
filters to knock the lenses doen a bit since there is no Photoshop effect
that
Dave,
You can always fuzz them up a bit.
Try some gausian blurr.
You can't ever make them sharper...
Regards, Bob S.
On Nov 23, 2007 6:38 AM, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did some portraits of my parents this evening I have to say that
the 77 Ltd., for all it's good points, is a
On Nov 23, 2007 10:02 PM, David J Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave.
The one thing the teacher of the basic portriat class i took this
spring kept saying, was that when taking ones portrait, it is about
the face, the look. Any imperfections should be there in the photo.
Thats who they
- Original Message -
From: David Savage
Subject: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation
I did some portraits of my parents this evening I have to say that
the 77 Ltd., for all it's good points, is a very unflattering lens for
shooting people with a less than perfect complexion.
Every
Mark wrote:
Human beings don't recognize faces by fine details and sharp, detailed
portraits don't look like the way we remember the faces of people we
know.That's why the portrait lens has long been quite a different
animal form lenses intended for other purposes.
-
I've never owned a
On Nov 23, 2007, at 10:23 AM, Joseph Tainter wrote:
Human beings don't recognize faces by fine details and sharp,
detailed
portraits don't look like the way we remember the faces of people we
know.That's why the portrait lens has long been quite a different
animal form lenses intended for
On 23/11/07, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
I can think of a good example of overdoing the lack of detail in
portraits: Remember those scary-looking Photoshop jobs of girls with
big eyes, unnaturally plastic-looking skin, etc? Discussed on the list
some time ago. Anyone got the
- Original Message -
From: Cotty
Subject: Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation
On 23/11/07, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
I can think of a good example of overdoing the lack of detail in
portraits: Remember those scary-looking Photoshop jobs of girls with
big eyes
46 matches
Mail list logo
