Flounder and Herring Light, to understand, look at the shots from the more common Leitz Thambar 90/2.2 lens.
Vladimir Bayker, I looked at several links, there weren't many portraits, but where I did find one...well, your masterpiece doesn't even come close. ) Apparently, not everything is so "easy and quick."
Vladimir Bayker, I looked at a few links, there weren't many portraits, but where I did find one...well, your masterpiece doesn't even come close. ) Apparently, not everything is so "easy and quick."
Flounder and Herring Light, so whoever argues, do it better. I'm talking about all the great masters, but when I go to the page, I'm sorry, I feel like throwing up.
Flounder and Herring Light, so whoever argues, do it better. I'm talking about all the great masters, but when I go to the page, excuse me, I feel like throwing up.
Vladimir Bayker, it's a collective farm habit to say things like "I don't have any myself," and so on. What difference does it make whether I have it, he has it, or that one doesn't, if it's right here, specifically this one, yours—shady, crappy, whatever? Be responsible for your masterpiece. He seems like a big shot, he could mentor the youth, like Kirillov, for example, but he still acts like a little kid, communicating in the "you're a fool yourself" style.
Vladimir Bayker, it's a hoary habit to present something like "but I don't have any myself," etc. What difference does it make whether I have it, he has it, or that one doesn't, if it's right here, this one, yours specifically—shady, crappy, whatever? Be responsible for your masterpiece. He seems like a big shot, he could mentor the youth, like Kirillov, for example, but he's still like a little one, communicating in the style of "you're a fool yourself."
Flounder and Herring Light, with trolls who have fake portfolios... be glad I'm communicating somehow. There's nothing offensive in my message, I merely offered a vector for your movement, and you didn't understand. Buy this glass and create highly artistic works. I'll be delighted with your success. The image is completely in line with the optical design. Oh, and you're confusing softness with sharpness.
Flounder and Herring Light, with the trolls who have fake portfolios... be glad I'm still communicating. There's nothing offensive in my message, I merely offered a vector for your movement, and you didn't understand. Buy this glass and create highly artistic works; I'll be delighted with your success. The image is completely in line with the optical design. Oh, and... you're confusing softness with sharpness.
Vladimir Bayker, fake? What kind of claims are these? These are mine, not stolen, and have been highly praised by a number of users, by the way. I have the Master himself as a subscriber, and what about you? Be glad I visited your forgotten, murky (and I mean murky) picture and wrote the first comment – ahahahaha. And vector is good, but I'm not a photographer, I'm a student, I don't need cloudy lenses, my phone is almost enough.
Wow. The lens's production year was 1935, and it was finished in 1942. But I still liked http://www.lensart.ru/picture-pid-7b24b.htm?ps=5 better. Here, the effect takes precedence over the subject. Still, in my opinion, a portrait needs an image that's sharper at the edges, but with low microcontrast, creating a beautiful skin texture. When everything around the eyes is completely blurred, it's effective, but only for a short time. You need to reduce the frame size so that more information reaches the eye when looking at it.
You, sir, are an optics maniac. This is something else.
Wow. The lens's production year was 1935, and it was finished in 1942. But I still liked http://www.lensart.ru/picture-pid-7b24b.htm?ps=5 better. Here, the effect takes precedence over the subject. Still, in my opinion, a portrait needs an image that's sharper at the edges, but with low microcontrast, creating a beautiful skin texture. When everything around the eyes is completely blurry, it's effective, but only for a short time. You need to reduce the frame size so that more information reaches the eyes when looking closely.
You, sir, are an optics maniac. This is something else.
Alexandr Popov, the difference here is two holes; I try to cover them slightly for male portraits. When wide open, this lens creates a glowing effect. The focusing is very demanding; it almost hit my eyes, a defect. Thanks to good microcontrast, skin texture is visible but doesn't leap to the foreground. The actual depth of field is significantly shallower than expected, reaching a few millimeters wide open at a distance of 2.5-3 meters. However, the depth of field is shallow enough for close-up portraits. In fact, if I hadn't gotten hooked on old German lenses, I would have given up photography long ago.
Alexandr Popov, the difference here is two apertures; I try to cover them slightly for male portraits. Wide open, this lens produces a shimmering effect, but focusing is very demanding; I almost missed my eyes, which is a flaw. Skin texture, thanks to good microcontrast, is legible, but doesn't pop out. The actual depth of field is significantly less than calculated; wide open, at a distance of 2.5-3 meters, it's a few millimeters, though the entry and exit to the depth of field is so shallow that it's sufficient for a close-up portrait. Actually, if I hadn't gotten hooked on old German lenses, I would have given up photography long ago.
Vladimir Bayker, Interesting topic. It's just damn expensive. A lot can be achieved with post-processing these days. It's not as expensive, although certainly not as sporty.
Vladimir Bayker, Interesting topic. It's just damn expensive. A lot can be achieved with post-processing these days. It's not that expensive, although certainly not that sporty.
Alexandr Popov, a lot, but not everything. The good thing about old lenses is that the shot practically doesn't require extensive editing.
Alexandr Popov, a lot, but far from everything. The good thing about old glass is that the shot practically doesn't require extensive editing.
Vladimir Bayker, Old glass was made by hand. These are unique pieces today. They're "in themselves"... a time machine. Modern glass is different. Their qualities change as you look at the photograph. As for me, I have a couple of interesting ones, not so old, of course. But I can't find a task for them... The dynamics of life don't allow me to use them. Or maybe I just haven't reached the right state yet. But there is interest. In any case, it's interesting. It's a photographic history. The tangle of contradictions is just something to consider – taking a photograph from 1942 in 2020...
Alexandr Popov, the difference here is two apertures; I try to cover it slightly for male portraits. Wide open, this lens produces a shimmering effect, but focusing is very demanding; I almost missed my eyes, which is a flaw. Skin texture, thanks to good microcontrast, is legible, but doesn't pop out. The actual depth of field is significantly less than calculated; wide open, at a distance of 2.5-3 meters, it's a few millimeters, though the depth of field is so shallow that it's sufficient for a close-up portrait. Actually, if I hadn't gotten hooked on old German lenses, I would have given up photography long ago.
Vladimir Bayker, good, good. Could you show me something from the pre-German period?
Vladimir Bayker, good, good. Could you show something from the pre-German period?
Kambala i Selyodka Lite, if without the old German lenses... Look at the last frame on my page; both the camera and the lenses are quite modern and not German.
Vladimir Bayker, Old glass was made by hand. These are unique items today. They are "in themselves"... A time machine. Modern glass is different. Their qualities change as you look at the photograph. As for me, I have a couple of interesting ones, not so old, of course. But I can't find a task for them... The dynamics of life don't allow me to use them. Or maybe I just haven't reached the right condition yet)) But there is interest. In any case, it's interesting. It's a photographic history. The tangle of contradictions is worth considering - taking a photograph from 1942 in 2020...
Alexandr Popov, glass used to be made without marketing or editorial adjustments, achieving high quality, both optical and mechanical. Nowadays, lenses are mostly semi-finished products, and without software, they're useless, even in the top-of-the-line lines. The exceptions are mostly German lenses, but these lenses come at a corresponding price. The pace of life is fine, and it has nothing to do with it. Many photographers, spoiled by all sorts of automatic devices, have lost the skill of manual work, and the younger generation doesn't even know what it is. Only skill helps here, once motor skills have been honed to the point of automatism.
He seems like a big shot, he could mentor the youth, like Kirillov, for example, but he still acts like a little kid, communicating in the "you're a fool yourself" style.
There's nothing offensive in my message, I merely offered a vector for your movement, and you didn't understand. Buy this glass and create highly artistic works. I'll be delighted with your success. The image is completely in line with the optical design. Oh, and you're confusing softness with sharpness.
Be glad I visited your forgotten, murky (and I mean murky) picture and wrote the first comment – ahahahaha.
And vector is good, but I'm not a photographer, I'm a student, I don't need cloudy lenses, my phone is almost enough.
You, sir, are an optics maniac. This is something else.
In fact, if I hadn't gotten hooked on old German lenses, I would have given up photography long ago.