Portraits with the M8 + Noctilux ASPH

[blakley]

Click the picture for a slideshow from an event I attended this week.

<p>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/blakley/sets/72157600225732641/show/"><img

src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/220/502599439_82af14209b.jpg"></a>

[paul hart]

Excellent! There are some beautiful images in this slideshow. In my humble and accurate

opinion, the M8 plus Noctilux at f1 opens a new area for exploration in portrait photography.

Here's my favourite from my efforts with this setup so far...<p><center><a href="http://

www.flickr.com/photos/paul_hart/331282932/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://

farm1.static.flickr.com/129/331282932_14dbf30d22.jpg" width="500" height="333"

alt="Rachel" /></a></center>

[chandos_michael_brown]

I guess I'm just an old stick in the mud, Bob, but to my eye not a single one of these photos is in focus.

 

I'm not sure what, then, exactly, they illustrate.

 

Cheers!

 

Chandos

[Spearhead]

I wasn't going to say anything, but I had exactly the same reaction as Chandos. They all look vaguely out of focus, except the first one in the slide show.

[kajf]

Not really Noctilux, but 50f1.4A at f2 - and not that bad. (M8)

 

I traded my Noctilux to the 50f1,4A due to the long focus throgh and weight - and are very

happy with trade.<div></div>

[vivek iyer]

Bob, None of the portraits match up to some of the excellent captures we have seen from you with the same lens on film.

 

I wonder if you are being a bit less careful because of digital, high ISO capabilities, post processing possibilities, etc.

[blakley]

I really like that shot, Kaj.

 

I don't think what you're all objecting to is really unsharpness - if you examine the individual photos at "original" size, one or two have some motion blur but most are very sharp at the point of focus, which is usually the near eye or glasses frame (depending on what I could see to focus on...)

 

The plane of focus in most of the shots is very narrow, however, and the Noct ASPH bokeh gives what looks to me like coma even in areas quite close to the plane of focus, which makes the whole image look "dreamy", or "painterly" to my eye but possibly "fuzzy" or "out of focus" to others.

 

Personally, I like the effect (in fact, I posted this set to get your reactions to it), but I do take Vivek's point that it looks different on the M8 than it does on film. I haven't done any real side-by-side tests to confirm this but I might.

 

As explanations I can imagine: 1. the UV/IR cut filter is doing something to the image, 2. the fact that the sensor is thinner than film is doing something to the image. I don't think the crop factor should affect this.

[andy middleton]

Bob,

also for me there are no sharp images there and I do see quite some camera shake.

I know the zone of focus with the nocti is extremely short and assume it is real difficult,I am

staying away from that beast at the moment :-)

[andy middleton]

v2 35mm cron<div></div>

[larry_kincaid1]

Response to Portraits with the M8<div></div>

[Brad_]

Honestly, and I'm not trying to be harsh, but if someone hadn't told me otherwise, with the

off-focus and weird color-casts, I would have assumed they came from a cellphone cam.

Wish I felt otherwise - seriously...

[larry_kincaid1]

"None of the portraits match up to some of the excellent captures we have seen from you with the same lens on film. . . I wonder if you are being a bit less careful because of digital, high ISO capabilities, post processing possibilities, etc."

 

I tend to agree with Vivek. Additional post-processing in PS would make a difference. Does this imply that scanned film images need less post-processing for optimal imaging? It's also hard to ignore the irony of demanding super sharp portraits from a Noxilux when many portraits are blurred on purpose for effect.

[Brad_]

>>> Does this imply that scanned film images need less post-processing for optimal

imaging?

 

No. We're quite aways from optimal. Pix from either my sonys or canon are really close if

someone is not into postprocessing and are acceptable for "straight" prints. If you're fussy

and want to enhance, there's plenty of room - and should be done whether from film or

digital.

[Allen Herbert]

excellent captures we have seen from you with the same lens on film.

 

Not even close. I think M8 users are just dumping their images on the forum without any thought,understanding, for the post process....and claiming great quality.

 

I've seen scanned films posted on this forum,done with understanding and care, that make your eyes water.

[Allen Herbert]

Portraits with the M8 + Noctilux ASPH

Bob Blakley, May 17, 2007; 06:35 p.m.

 

This is the second M8 image i have seen with an orange cast....the other was of a cat. The exposure seems out creating a dirty grainy quality. Or, is it a case of the colours being all sort of topsy turvy with the M8....perhaps there should be a range of filters for different colours and lighting conditions.

[fjords]

Ya can't expect the clueless who have been give vision to understand it;)

[blakley]

Wow, not the wildest applause I've had recently by any means.

 

I must say I like the effects I've shown here, and I don't intend to start shooting f/8 at 1/125 in diffuse 5500K light, so I'm afraid you'll have to learn to live with it.

 

I like criticism and appreciate much of what you've all written (in fact I posted a question about the source of the Noct's wide-open look in the Leica Camera Users forum after reading your reactions, because I want to know if I can get the effect in other ways or with other lenses).

 

I will admit, however, to a little bit of irritation at straightforward abuse, especially when it's just wrong; I'm talking specifically about your post, Allen: "I think M8 users are just dumping their images on the forum without any thought,understanding, for the post process....and claiming great quality".

 

If I'd wanted to dump images I would have put all 21 photos inline rather than giving you a convenient link via just one picture and letting you decide for yourself whether to look at the rest. If I'd intended to claim great quality I would have said something - anything at all - about quality. And in all cases the colors, exposure, cropping, etc... are what I intended, achieved with the help of post-processing; I don't subscribe to the theory that the objective of post-processing is to achieve a conventional look.

[michael s.]

Seems as though the Noctilux -- a lens I've never owned, never used, and so far as I'm aware, never even seen in person -- is a bit of a live-by-the-sword, die-by-the-sword proposition.<p>

 

In this set, Bob, <a href=http://www.flickr.com/photos/blakley/502561440/in/set-72157600225732641/>one photo</a> caught my eye. I liked the feel and texture of that one, and thought to myself, there's something about Mary ... :-)<p>

 

On some others, the very shallow d.o.f. and color casts were a bit distracting. In this kind of light, I often convert to b & w, even if that's a cowardly way out. And while I don't mind blur, and take quite a few blurry ones myself, these were sort of at an in-between phase for me: not blurry enough to appeal to me on that basis, and in several cases not sharp enough where it seemed they were supposed to be sharp. <p>

 

But I also regret the comment about "M8 users ... just dumping their images ..." Broadsides like that just don't help the Forum or the photographers who post here, in my opinion.

[Allen Herbert]

..." Broadsides like that just don't help the Forum or the photographers who post here, in my opinion.

 

You are correct. I apologise.

[terry_rory]

I have sometimes taken portraits at wide apertures that are soft or even slightly OOF. Sometimes it cannot be helped. In this one the little girl suddenly lunged for the food on the chopsticks at a much faster speed than I anticipated so I just took the shot. I kept it because I liked the moment but it is technically poor..(digital)..

 

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/11/89860298_436768c6a0_o.jpg" width="750" height="533" alt="Chopsticks" /></a>

 

This one was staged but is just plain soft...(film)...

 

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/189/484056937_e184904bfb.jpg" width="500" height="332" alt="" /></a>

 

And this one (M6 + Elmar @ f/2.8) is only just in focus and grabbed at 1/15th sec handheld in subdued room light at night....

 

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/56/117163233_d0047799c1_o.jpg" width="750" height="564" alt="Sleeper" /></a>

[blakley]

Wow, Trevor - that second one is fantastic.

[larry_kincaid1]

We have to be careful about what the topic is here. The quality and reputation of the Noctilux ASPH is well docmented and needs no further comment. That leaves the subject of the photo (portrait, in this case) and how well it works on the M8 and its sensor in color or b&w. In this case color. I transformed my M8 example into color, so color was not an issue. Color is still an issue with the M8 regardless of the lens. Any post-processing tips would be useful to all of us. Every once in a while on this forum, experts in PS will take someone's example and try a variety of tweaks in PS and then repost the same photo for everyone to comment on. Anyone want to do that for the original Noctilux example? Remove the orange cast?

[andy middleton]

Bob

In response to Larry request I took the liberty.Of course I do not know what the real light

situation was so just my interpretation.

andy<div></div>

[marc_bergman1]

Here is a Photoshop CS2 tutorial on fixing an orange color cast.

<p>

<a href="http://www.graphic-design.com/Photoshop/color_cast/index.html">Orange Color Cast Tutorial</a>

<p><div></div>

[kelly_flanigan1]

The number of actual day to day users of a Noctilux 50mm F1.2 Aspherical lens rangefinder lens must be really extremely small; most are glued to collectors shelves. It came out in 1966; when color print films were asa 80; Kodachrome II was 25 and Kodachrome-x was considered an amateur offering for the Instamatic at asa 64. The typical chap today can buy Fuji Superia at walmart with an iso of 800; and have 10 times the film speed of 1966's Kodacolor. Thus one can shoot at with an elmar at F3.5 with iso 800 superia; and have a faster system than the 1966 F1.2 Noct with asa 80 film.