Is that a pretend Noctilux?

Wow, thats an amazing shot.
I like the coloury very much.
For me its the best of your Vinery-shots at this time

John: no, it's talent ;-)

Looks terrific. My only critique is that the bluish hues near the ground are a bit distracting, and they threw off the warm feel for me.

OK now thats more like it. I like it a lot, and the dof drop off without the 'noctilux' is perfect. I figure you've just saved £1600 quid.... welldone you!! ;-)

Quote:
John: no, it's talent ;-)
End Quote

Yes, your not too bad in Photoshop - no need for that 85mm 1.2 then ;-) ;-)

Still think the Nocti looks more natural though - you know, with just the one plane of focus rather than just having to guess it ;-)

I love your photos from the sea because they capture exactly what I love the sea for, but it's even greater to see that you take different pictures now. This one is so beautiful, great colours together with an interesting dof. Very well done! =)

Now why restrict the dof plane when you can bend it in any direction that makes the shot look good.... and pay nowt for it.... ??? and the 85mm 1.2 is a cracking piece of glass by two and use the other as a paperweight.

John: if there was an adapter for EOS bodies, I'd be after a Noctilux ;-)

Very nice colors.

Quote;

Now why restrict the dof plane when you can bend it in any direction that makes the shot look good.... and pay nowt for it.... ??? and the 85mm 1.2 is a cracking piece of glass by two and use the other as a paperweight
END

LOL - there's always one ;-)

Your quite right, but remember Craig that the shot was still taken with over £5000 worth of photographic equipment and as such this effect can be created with a variety of equipment of varying expense. In fact, you could just as easily buy a cheap Holga and scan it in etc.

No need to support Dave - he's more than capable of supporting himself, in fact we had a good dig at each other on Sunday whilst we were out and about. It's what we do, but we're great friends. He knows my feelings on equipment as well.

Seriously though, I agree 100% with the fact that we all buy expensive equipment and then proceed to add whatever treatment we think works. I myself love a more gritty, unfinished feel, but I do enjoy and respect people like Dave who make it their business to excel at the Post Processing side of things.

But as for the Noctilux - you can't possibly tell me that it hasn't got a unique drawing. You personally might not like it - even hate it, but it is different, and unlike no other lens on the planet and it is probably all but impossible to replicate its OOF look.

In fact why don't you have a go - I'd be interested to see your results. Maybe we could set up simulating the Nocti challenge. Don't get me wrong, I've tried it myself - even bought software to help me (Varifocus) but in the end having the right tools for the job is the only way (Djn will most likely tell you that)

It's all subjective of course. We all have our particular likes and dislikes and sometimes we move in an out of those likes and dislikes. For me at the moment I'm into less photoshop and more emphasis on minimal manipulatuiions. I''ll probably change back though at some stage.

But in answer to your comment about whatever 'looks good' - it depened on whether YOU think it looks good. I personally don't think this shot looks that good. It looks like a standard photo that has been manipulated to produce a rather obvious effect, and from that viewpoint I think it has little merit other than an aesthetically pleasing image (a bit like my shots).

I've done it myself - still do - and probabably always will. But producing effects does not always render a shot 'good'. There's surely much more to it than that.

For those of you who are a bit mystified, here's a link to the 'noctilux':

http://www.leica-camera.us/photography/m_system/lenses/465.html

It's probably one of the best 50mm lenses ever produced, but only available in a Leica M fitting. And yes, John is clearly on commission ;-)

As for this shot: the DoF is natural, the added blur is not, but it wasn't an attempt to simulate a noctilux.

Lovely. Comparing it to the raw shot, you have added greatly to the interest of the image in your processing. The photoshop v straight photography argument will roll on forever, there's room for both, like well mixed music and acoustic. I agree with Parker though, the blue areas look 'wrong' to my eye and give the level of manipulation away, but the most interesting of the series to date imho.

I like this shot, a lot. And since I started to apply post processing to my shots I started to think that only final result is important and not the discussion of what we wanted it to be like or what tools we have used to achieve this result. Even if the processing is overdone for someone, it does not mean that the shot is bad and I respect Daves talent to transform ordinary shots into something better not just by processing but by simple cropping. This is a real talent.

Its does not matter if Nocti looks more natural, what matters is if one likes this shot or not. I do, some don't and thats not a problem.

I respect Daves talent to transform ordinary shots into something better not just by processing but by simple cropping. This is a real talent.
.........................................................................................................
I'd be interested to hear Djn's take on this. Usually, he would strongly disagree with that idea preferring that a shot be good in the first place. Most photographers would strongly agree that it's not a good strategy trying to make a poor photograph look good with the heavy use of effects or cropping or PS.

I'm not saying this shot is poor at all. I just happen to think it shouts 'photoshop' and in this individual case the effect over powers the actual content. I would like to see the original file to see what was added.

My original post is an 'in joke' which only Dave would understand the context in which it was made, seems to have sparked some debate - that's good I suppose.

In essence - the Noctilux produces an effect which I happen to like. I also like using distinctive lenses because they really help you shape your approach to photography. The Noctilux is an effects type lens and so I would agree that it can and will be used by me to produce an effect - rather like photoshop.

But returning back to my original joke with Dave. He's just sick because he can't get hold of the Canon 50mm f1 and he will have to make do with the 85mm f1.2. ;-) ;-)

fantastic processing! it's completely different feeling from that image that from the original

John: TOUCHÉ.... LOL
This whole thing is subjective, thats why its all so brilliant... I'm liking the idea of the project, sounds like a plan.
djn1: OK so he wins over with the f1.2, what can you do to, uhm silence the matter?
Buy a second hand Leica and put this whole thing to rest ;-)

gorgeous shot. I really like the monochromatic feel.

the title is very fitting this is very dream like

There's a Canon 50mm f/1.2L now, isn't there? Are there any proper reviews around of that (with proper res charts)?

As for this photo, I quite like it. Looks like a little model and the colouring is to my tastes.

Ignore that lens review request. Just found the Photozone one. Quite disappointed with those border sharpness figures tbh.

What a fun shot - it kinda looks like a model vinyard. What's all this about 'making do' with the lens I'm lusting after?!!!

I really like this shot. And the boots on the ground add an element of surprise to the shot. Nicely done.

deliziosi i colori

I like the look of it because it looks like a miniature scene.

I like this photo better. the other one doesnt seem to be very sharp, and i really like the red leaves.

Thanks all.

As for John's point: I agree, in part. Yes, you can't make a great shot out of a crap one, but you can shoot something in the full knowledge that the RAW file may appear to be mundane but has the potential to be transformed into something much more significant.