Fill flash & 50mm Summilux bokeh (try again)

[michael_stern]

Sorry to waste time and space, but need to try posting this again...

 

<p>

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=626554&size=md"

width=540 height=418>

</center>

[jacques_balthazar1]

I'm getting fed up with the recent tendency of this otherwise great

list to become a receptacle for totally void of interest images,

especially when they are intentionally presented with subject lines

that are supposed to attract the attention of the time constrained

technically minded leicaphile.

 

<p>

 

Next time please use adequate subject line like "snapshot of my

parrot", and post the thing in a budgies newsgroups.

 

<p>

 

And others: please have the modesty of posting your snaps in ad hoc

image oriented websites and mailing lists, unless they do really show

something worthwhile about leica for the leica community.

 

<p>

 

And please, please, always use the words "image for critique" in your

subject line, allowing filtering out at browsing stage...

 

<p>

 

How much crap we have to endure from all over the place for the rare

pleasure of seeing a couple of great Dixon portraits.

 

<p>

 

This is getting even worse than the dreaded PAW project in vogue in

other circles....

[david_smith12]

Michael,

 

<p>

 

Please comment about the bird's eye color. I think I see some

redeye. Everytime I use flash with my pets (dog and cat) I get

tremendous redeye. Does your original show redeye? Does the parrot

have a colored pupil or is it black?

 

<p>

 

Is there strong backlight coming in from the window or is this

reflected flash?

 

<p>

 

Thanks

[giles_poilu]

I do have some sympathy with Jacques view, it is simply a snapshot

(and not sharp) of a dumb parrot with (coincidently) some out of

focus highlights in the background that would have occurred with any

reasonable lens.

 

<p>

 

Bokeh, bokeh, bokeh........

[tim_gee]

Hey Jacques and Giles why so "toffee nosed" with someone simply

having a go? It's hardly in the spirit of this great forum (which I

know you value) to be intolerant. OK so it's not a great shot. Show

us something better or offer constructive advice.

 

<p>

 

Seems we've been spoiled by Mike Dixon and others who have set such a

high standard - but they like Michael had to learn too.

[albert_smith]

Jacques,

 

<p>

 

Just how did a "time constrained technically minded leicaphile" like

yourself ever find the time to compose this diatribe because Michael

had the audacity to actually place a Leica photo in a Leica forum?

Yes we all love Mike Dixon's work, as a matter of fact he has a great

website with only his photos to look at, but this is a forum made up

of many people of varying degrees of experience and interests. One

of the common things asked on the forum is why don't more people post

more photographs? I'm sure your judgmental reply to Michael has

prevented us from "suffering" from seeing many other pictures here.

 

<p>

 

If you are truly time constrained, I know a good way for you to save

15 or 20 minutes a day.

 

<p>

 

Michael, I am sorry to have hijacked your thread, but I was offended

at the first reply and had to say something. Thanks for the effort

and hope to see more.

[travis2]

Michael, dun worry...keep your postings coming. This forum does not

belong to any one person. I myself like to see more pictures.

 

<p>

 

 

jacques, why dun u post some pictures so that we can appreciate

how "time constrained" u r? o, did u say u were time constrained??

sorry.

 

<p>

 

 

just had to say something...this kindda response is totally

ungentlemanly and low-class.

 

<p>

 

 

and u think u r the only one with "constrained time"?

[jacques_balthazar1]

Tim,

 

<p>

 

Deep inside, I would like people to abstain from posting their own

snaps alltogether in an equipment oriented discussion group such as

this one.

 

<p>

 

I know it is not realistic to ask this to be imposed, so I am asking

of posters to clearly identify the reason for posting in the subject

line, and not attract people in a thread under false pretenses, as

Michael does in this case.

 

<p>

 

That said, I am grateful for some of the pics posted in this

discussion list (Dixon!), but do prefer a simple optional link to a

web page rather than being forced to view an imposed image that slows

down the browsing...

 

<p>

 

Also many pictures posted here are plain beginners snapshots, and an

insult to the capabilities of the Leica products. Deep inside, I

cannot help but wish for more humility from some posters. I do not

easily post my images because I find most of them to be of very

little relevance to a worldwide audience discussing things Leica.

This is not false modesty, it is respect for the viewers.

 

<p>

 

 

I'm asking same respect from the others: there are sites specialised

in discussing images and/or sites specialised in subjects such as

parrots. Please let such snaps be posted and discussed there, and

keep this territory for our red dot/black tape trivia !

 

<p>

 

It is perfectly OK to be a rookie, a beginner, a learner and to be

keen to progress. But, for me, this is not the place for boring snaps

of flashlit-parrot-in-front-of-window...

[michael_stern]

<I>Please comment about the bird's eye color. I think I see some

redeye. Everytime I use flash with my pets (dog and cat) I get

tremendous redeye. Does your original show redeye? Does the parrot

have a colored pupil or is it black?

 

<p>

 

Is there strong backlight coming in from the window or is this

reflected flash?</I>

 

<p>

 

Hi, David Smith;

There is no red-eye in the parrot picture (perhaps amber-eye, as that

is what her eye color is around the pupil). I've photographed a lot

of parrots, including a few in dark places with direct flash, and

never had a problem with red-eye. I'm guessing their retinas don't

reflect light the same way our mammal ones do. And there was lots of

back light from the window, which is why I needed flash. As for dog

and cat red-eye (which from my dogs is actually green-eye), if the

ambient lighting is low, those glowing retinas are inevitable. In

fact, that's why I got the Metz 32-Z2 ... because you can bounce the

light and get nice, lovely eyes like these on Allstar's Darling

Clementine:

 

<p>

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photo/626973

" width=828 height=735>

</center>

[michael_stern]

Sorry about that red X. I guess I don't have this uploading-picture

process correct yet. I'll try again...

 

<p>

 

<center>

<img src=?http://www.photo.net/photo/626973?

width=513 height=426>

</center>

[michael_stern]

Oops, again. I apologize, but I'm going to try once more to upload

this picture.

 

<p>

 

<center>

<img src=?http://www.photo.net/photo/626987?

width=513 height=426>

</center>

[michael_stern]

Fourth time's the charm, I hope:

 

<p>

 

<center>

<img src=�http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?

photo_id=626987&size=md�

width=513 height=426>

</center>

[michael_stern]

Honestly, last try to post this picture:

 

<p>

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?

photo_id=626987&size=md" width=332 height=482>

</center>

[michael_stern]

Sheesh, how embarrassing. No anamorphic lens required. Here it is

correctly:

 

<p>

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?

photo_id=626987&size=md" width=513 height=426>

</center>

[jacques_balthazar1]

Al, Travis,

 

<p>

 

I know that some people here qualify straightforwardness as rudeness,

and, well, I do not really care.

 

<p>

 

Today, my time management priority is to question why I am so often

lured into looking at pics that a 10 year old in summer photo class

would not dare show off. I am into Leica because I strive for quality

in general and have specific imaging ambitions for myself and for

others. I visit a couple of Leica groups because I find there people

with similar ambitions (abandonned LUG/LEG due to the horrors of PAW).

 

<p>

 

I do not give a hoot about supersharp/unique-Leica-

3D/bokeh/roundness/ etc in the images of others (but I do in mine).

What I do care about when looking at pictures by others, or when

considering showing my own to specific audiences, is *relevance*.

 

<p>

 

The web has become a poor excuse to post to a worldwide audience

images that would NEVER have made it past the family shoebox 10 years

ago. Not because they are crap, but because they are totally

irrelevant and uninteresting.

 

<p>

 

Posting such IRRELEVANT snaps in a Leica dedicated newsgroup under

the title "Fill flash & 50mm Summilux bokeh" is adding insult to

injury. Call me a snotty jerk if you will, but this parrot would get

a bashing even on instamatic.com (if it existed).

 

<p>

 

Sorry this has fallen on Michael. Had he given a clear subject line,

I would not have looked at the thread and he would never have had

seen my diatribe fall upon him.

[peter_mackay2]

I'm getting tired of this forum. Thousands of dollars' worth of

equipment and.....pet photos?

[travis2]

thats ok. See how many of us would click on a thread by u in future.

Parrot or no parrot.

 

<p>

 

by u dun care, of cos.

[travis2]

Guys, in future, please make sure all pics are RELEVANT before u post.

 

<p>

 

and i mean RELEVANT!

 

<p>

 

u dunno when u gonna get it.

[michael_stern]

There is scientific evidence that pets lower peoples' blood

pressure. Clearly that's not true of photos of pets. Nevertheless,

I do apologize for my vague subject line and promise to be more clear

about exactly what I'm posting in the future. Just to veer back to

the topic of photography and photographic equipment here, I have

found that Leica Ms are great for taking pictures of potentially

nervous animals (birds and horses in particular) for the same reason

they're good with people who might otherwise be intimidated by

noisier gear. One thing's for sure with such critters: you learn to

focus fast!

[david_kelly1]

"Time-constrained technically-minded leicaphile" -fun, but takes too

long write in time available. Suggest use Bill Pierce's shorthand for

the same demographic: "rich dentist."............

[eliot]

Well I generally like the parrot photo, the green background mixes

nicely with the green color of the birds feathers. And FWIW, parrots

are not dumb animals, they are quite intelligent and clever

(including this one a yellow headed Amazonian parrot).

 

<p>

 

However, the poster deserves some legitimate critique. The fill

flash is tecnically fine. However, the bird's eye/head is not in

focus as it should be and the framing could be better. It's not easy

taking really good pet photos, and it's particularly hard to show

them!

[iván]

Hi, Michael:

 

<p>

 

Just two short items:

 

<p>

 

First: Yes, the title WAS missleading. And the photo WAS irrelevant

(as most of our postings, perhaps; technique is not relevant on

itself, I think. Unless we speak about Mike's technique; at that high

level it is an issue on itself)

 

<p>

 

Second: You deserve my admiration for your fairplay attitude.

Elegant answer, indeed.

 

<p>

 

Regards.

 

<p>

 

-Iván

[glenn_travis]

This post is as good an image as I've seen on this ng. I am the only

one doing real photography. The rest of you are only showing inane

snapshots, yet I haven't complained about the lack of talent, skill,

or photographic vision, no matter how trite, hackneyed, or boring.

Nor have I complained about the "clique orgy suck" that is going on.

Mike Dixon must be hung like a stallion.

[mike dixon]

"There is scientific evidence that pets lower peoples' blood pressure.

Clearly that's not true of photos of pets."

 

<p>

 

LOL! That's one of the best lines I've heard here in a while! You

seem to have the right temperament for dealing with this bunch.

 

<p>

 

Glenn, I have no idea how my anatomy is in any way relavent to the

discussion here or to photography in general (since I'm not a porn

model), but I might want to incorporate your comment in a press

release--you mind??

[douglas anthony cooper ww]

If I may briefly pierce the rudeness: this image is incredibly helpful, and entirely appropriate to the subject line. I looked up "50mm Summilux bokeh" on Google, and this was the first page to come up. It tells me precisely what I wish to know: the rendition of specular highlights, (in particular with regard to leaves out of focus, which is the ultimate test); the potential doubling of lines; the way in which the foreground, in focus, stands out against the blur.

 

As a result of this snapshot -- which is not *supposed* to be a masterpiece, as far as I can tell -- I can now make an informed decision about whether to purchase this lens. If the headline were: "Preternatural Parrot Portraits," I'd probably complain, but with greater tact and humility. As it stands, this image is a public service.

 

Was this shot with the first version of the 50 Summilux, by any chance? The lens was recomputed, and is apparently sharper in the later version, but it's the first that has the reputation for great blur.