00:01 Apologies to Vahagraphy 00:26 Wedding photographers 00:40 More on 3D Pop, and the Unbalanced Image 01:22 Micro-contrast and Pop & Dimensional Images 02:59 Micro-contrast and Pop UNRELATED 03:34 Tonality separation and Pop 06:45 Bokeh of Apochromatic Lenses 06:14 The excellent Nikon 16-80 f/2.8E 07:42 Real Pros vs. Hobbyists 09:09 True Size of an image 10:38 Channel returning to normal - Last Gear Video 11:24 A Photograph is a Document
7:43 I have a neighbor who is a pro photographer, we met because our dogs play together in the park, totally unrelated to photography. For his works he still uses DSLRs and seems he have enough money to buy the most expensive Canon or Nikon today, but he uses relatively old DSLR cameras. When I asked why he don't buy something new, he says that he knows the cameras, he have the lenses he need, nothing is broke or malfunctioning, and clients still pay him the price he ask, so he don't need to change.
I use the same laptop for my work for the last 10 years (Dell M6800). It never stopped working. *I also use it to watch movies and YT on the TV.* I've changed the keyboard 3 times myself. You can't ask me to change it. As a matter of fact I bought another one on Amazon 2 years ago for about $800, so its replacement can be seamless. I cannot type on new laptops (the terrible "island keys").
I am looking forward to see what you have in store for us! You have done much to introduce photographers on youtube to the traditional principles of aesthetics, philosophy and art in general, and I am excited for further such 'content' without necessarily being limited to the perspective of a camera ;)
So if i am correct: the important things of a lens are : sharpness (which is microcontrast), contrast and APOchromatic design or at least very good chroma control? I have a sony camera, i am thinking about getting a 135mm f2.8 zeiss batis apo lens, it literally checks all the boxes. I dont need a faster lens at 135mm.
All lenses made in the last 20-30 years have great acutance/sharness/micro-contrast. Especially the 135 focal. The No. 1 priority is: -- Are you going to use it/do you need it for *many* shots? Lenses and cameras are among the worst investments in the world (rapid depreciation, and for a Sony lens, you won't even get 40% your money back if you sell it back within the first 12 months). If you're buying the lens for 30 shots/3 prints, better rent it. Considering that 135 is a rather rarely used focal (the range of 50-100 is more practical for portraits), and the particular lens is big and heavy, why don't you rent it first for 4-5 days? -- If you're planning to buy it used, I have a video at th-cam.com/video/J0Hvh7oE-Rg/w-d-xo.html for a quick check - although in my experience, used heavy auto-focus lenses usually suffer from decentered elements and AF problems. So, a thorough geometrical test could be also required. But as I said, the vast majority of people who buy 135mm lenses end up selling them back withing the first few months, because they find them impractical and don't use them. Especially the long/heavy ones. So, rent it first and see if you can actually use it for more than just a few shots. Normally, a lens should take a few hundred keepers (and a few dozen good prints) before you can say "it was worth it". We don't buy lenses because they're sharp, we buy them because we like and print the pictures we make with them.
@@CameraMystique absolutely, i am planning to buy it used which i can get it for about 700 euros. Very good deal. Also the batis is a very lightweight lens (for its class) only 600 grams and it has oss plus it is an APO. I usually use my 85mm batis and sometimes i find the reach a bit short and i switch to APS-C mode pretty often (which makes it 128mm lens). And to be honest that extra tight 128mm in aps c mode is what i love. Thats why i consider a 135mm lens and in particular the batis 135mm for its weight, oss and APO capability.
Very true regarding print size and bokeh. This is why some images on phone screen look 3D while on a 27’ 5k screen they don’t look 3D. I haven’t found any info about this: how often one should change the flash tube from a flash unit. I have couple of sb5000 units from some time ago and the color of a new sb5000 looks different ( less yellow I would say).
One thing about speedlights is to not over-power them often, especially in high burst shots. But ask Nikon how much they'll charge you for that. I once burned the zooming mechanism on an SB5000 by shooting it repeatedly at +3.0 and Nikon replaced it for about $180 total service. Yellowing is something I hear for the first time, and the first thing I would try is to power up the flash itself +0.3 or +0.7 while in TTL (because yellowing is some times a result of under-exposure), and try also minus (-0.3 or -0.7) just in case. Take the pictures using a color object that also has a couple of white areas, in a dark room, with your camera's WB set to "Flash" (which is 5500K). Make sure target's white areas are in focus (to avoid chromatic aberrations). Then, compare the results with a reference test card .jpeg you can find on the internet. I'm saying all that because on an uncalibrated monitor, the good flash is "the other one, not the one you suspected" sometimes.
Your delivery and style is so intriguing and intelligent, it makes me trust you, and certainly I'm looking forward to what you will be doing. I think we're all tired of the same ol' gear reviews. I recommend Gerald Undone's "We're talking about cameras!" video.
Thank you - though you don't have to "trust" anybody. I'm not reviewing anything that I didn't own, for my own personal purposes, not selling anything. Methods - you can try them yourself with your camera/software.
Since you've convinced me to finally print my photos of value (I always knew that was the only thing that made sense), I'd like to ask you to update all your old content to the latest state of the art. 😂 Seriously, your channel is a well-stocked archive that I like to jump back to when I'm ready. Thank you so much for your effort.
That's why I created the Playlists. But I also re-made content in newer videos, so I can go and delete the old crappy ones. The Playlists will shrink, but the content will be "zero fat". Since you started printing, your tech vids are "Prints #1, #2, and #3" from the Prints Playlist. Emphasis on #2. Also, set your monitor brightness to 100 cd/m2, this is the value labs use (so your brightness will match your print brightness). To do that, consult your monitor manual, or find a test site on the internet where they have done it. Usually this value is a lot less bright than the "default" monitor value (monitors are set too bright out of the factory), and for the first 1-2 minutes your monitor will look dark to you, it takes a few minutes for your eyes to adjust.
@@CameraMystique your advice is much appreciated and helps a lot. Actually I was already assuming the brightness of the monitor was too bright and was looking for exactly this information. Mastering printing will be my project for the next months. Do you think pigment ink is worth the costs?
@@lxhk3595 I would strongly advise not to print at home. Too expensive and with too many parameters. Just send them to the lab. If the prints are too dark, your monitor is too bright. If the colors are wrong (greenish/blueish faces etc), your monitor is uncalibrated (you can ask the lab to correct colors for you). Most people change cameras or lenses before they realize that the culprit was the monitor, and most monitors are hugely uncalibrated.
My wife says that she could have told me that (not doing it myself but assigning this to a professional lab). I was about to buy an expensive printer. This fits with your thesis that beginners buy too much stuff. Thanks again :)
@@lxhk3595 Only when you have a) a hardware calibrated AdobeRGB monitor (absolutely necessary), b) A full and proficient understanding of ICC profiles and paper profiles, c) Lots of money - then you can buy a large professional printer and print your own. But the cost is justified only if you print *many* large images. Even owners of all that equipment send their 5x7s and 9x12s to labs - much cheaper.
Regarding bokeh/focus ratio: the example at 1:05 is from a video, not a photo meant for a print. I'm not sure of the intent with using that as an example, it is not going to get printed. To me that video was visually pleasing, but to each their own. A related aspect of this might be documentary video footage contra film footage intended for an artistic movie. Different instances where different ratios between focus and out of focus areas are targeted. Sometimes a large percentage of out of focus areas serves a purpose, even if the out of focus areas get a bit muddy in a print.
I have posted dozens of other examples in older videos. The reason I posted this one, is that the average TH-cam viewer *tries to re-create what they see in an influencer video, as if the influencer content is some sort of reference material.* Video is a different animal - in movies nobody has the time to critically check frames. That's why a low resolution movie is not perceived as low resolution, even a 480p video can be great to watch. But in photography, everything is still and subject to critique - all your items in the still image are "sitting ducks" waiting to be criticized or admired. And when you get the print, which is not back-lit as your monitor, it looks terrible, and all the bokeh theories go out the window. That's why large prints are good when they are "front-lit" with a stepped down lens, while large back-lit images with plenty of bokeh are good on our back-lit monitors only.
Hi and thank you for great Chanel, is there any different for 3d pop if we change between dark and light,i e light in the front of the frame dark as the background,
Of course. The key is to create zones of different light or even different subjects. Have you noticed journalists, when they have time, they usually shoot "a few guys in the front, the demonstration in the middle, and something else in the background" - 3 zones. On the other hand, find on the internet "images without shadows" (a phenomenon that happens in Hawaii) and they are weirdly flat.
The litmus test often mentioned is which medium you're aiming to reach: iPhone? Instagram? Or print? And if it's print, what size? I keep noticing that the pursuit of the best or most unique lens is misleading if you're not considering the intended medium. For me, the 3D pop that some lenses offer is irrelevant for 90% of everyday situations. Whether it's photographing the kids or capturing landmarks on vacation, the composition accounts for 99% of the image's impact when printed. Right? When I think from the perspective of print, I come to your conclusion: essentialism when it comes to gear. For me, the takeaway is clear: print more.
PRINTS, as I have been saying since the beginning of this channel, is the primary purpose of hobbyist photography. But the channels which became popular were those advocating purposeless photography (just walking around with fancy gear taking pictures for no reason, digital files that will be completely lost in a few years).
We already have plenty of people who do gear review. We absolutely need more experienced photographers that talk about the ART of photography. Looking forward to your next uploads.
Well done on some home truths. I think the other demise of 3d pop is the bayer sensor and interpolation software itself. A bayer sensor will always have a color edge on something as simple as black writing. As a Foveon sensor user the color, edge definition and contrast rendering are very unique and have a 3d pop regardless of lens used. Nothing beats full 100% RGB information at every pixel location (no interpolation and no moire) hence the word direct image sensor. I admit the Foveon sensor is not as flexible as a bayer when it comes to high iso. If you are willing to slow down and deal with low iso the image quality is exceptional.
On a micro level maybe. But there's no difference at a normal level. The "pop" is nothing other than strong separation (easiest ways: flash/light difference and shallow DOF), while dimensional rendering depends mostly on light/shadow, color/tonality separation and perspective. Micro-contrast is completely irrelevant on the macro level - and while a Foveon sensor can show better micro-contrast (for the reason you mentioned - 3 times higher resolution per mm2, with a lot less sampling errors), color recovery is difficult and asymmetrical, so the light conditions have to be near perfect (hence the ISO issue). Maybe one day they'll develop true "full spectrum photosites" on one single layer, instead of the "sandwich" method of foveon sensors. That will be the day when digital matches or exceeds the color vibrance of good film.
This comment is a bit off topic, but I have a request for a future video short-topic review. If you are so inclined, would you do a short review of gamma curves from start (sensor) to finish (viewed image by your eyes on the monitor or in print) - and it's relationship to maximizing utilization of bit-depth and dynamic range. I realize this is a topic that makes many photographers "tune out", but it would be one of the few on TH-cam that covered the topic from beginning to end (and might just be up your alley). I realize that video people might have a greater interest in this. Would also appreciate your insight on the development tools that alter gamma in LR/PS - i.e. luminance. Thanks as always.
I thought about something similar ("COLOR DENSITY RECOVERY") years ago when I was analyzing the crap out of D850 vs. GFX 50 for my own purposes. I remember I mentioned it in a video, it's probably still up, don't remember which video. Problem is, there are issues in the variables: *i)* As far as gamma is concerned, unless your monitor is calibrated almost exactly as mine, we'll be seeing different things with inconclusive results. I know that because even when I was doing 2 calibrations back-to-back with same parameters, the result was always slightly different on the same monitor. But between an Adobe calibrated monitor and an sRGB uncalibrated monitor, though the white will be the same (to our eyes), the other colors won't. Add to that TH-cam conversion. Add to that your own mood (if you're upset, you'll be seeing magenta, and that's scientifically and practically proven). *ii)* Photoshop can support 10-bits, but not in all Photoshop functions (regardless of your settings, it switches back automatically to 8-bit in the non-updated functions, without notice, and we don't know when, and unless you have an image with extremely smooth tonalities that can challenge human vision, you can't tell yourself). Plus, I will have to open the files with Adobe color profiles (ooops!), and Adobe itself disagrees with Nikon profiles by a lot! (see from time point 5.23 at th-cam.com/video/FiGuSSu7tSs/w-d-xo.html) *With different color profiles in Adobe, how can I judge any camera's color consistency all along any gamma curve* *iii)* There's not even a monitor that can support 14-bit ProPhotoRGB that my camera claims it can (not that my eyes could see the difference anyway). *iv)* Even if we assume that I found NASA-grade equipment for the above, and assuming that PS can open it at full bit depth and assuming that my monitor can show it, the minute I upload it on TH-cam it's converted automatically to 8-bit sRGB with their own parameters and profiles. You would see a difference over there, but it would be different than the difference I see over here. You would be like "the one of the left is like this and that", and I would be like "what are they talking about, it's the opposite..." - the results of the recent "test video" I posted and was asking your opinions, were quite revealing. Revealing to me as well, because I realized that an sRGB image opened in PS, is different than the same image converted into sRGB by PS (PS color conversion compression errors in the out-of-gamut reds!). Then, the recording software plays a role too - I use the freeware OSB studio - and I won't buy an Adobe video suite for an unreliable test. *iv)* As regards to prints, the most expensive lab will tell you "don't even think of sending us ProPhoto - only up to AdobeRGB". And even if they accepted ProPhoto and could print it, they would have to find the paper that can show it. *v) Dynamic Range vis-a-vis ISO vis-a-vis color curve is a topic alive only on TH-cam and Petapixel.* Everywhere else (in the actual professional publishing world) it's dead on arrival. That's because a) ISO noise depends on software too, and every suite has its own RAW converter and they all look different, b) RAW files come with internal "flags" for noise reduction (20/100 default in D850). c) No professional or serious amateur in his right mind "lifts exposure 3 stops in software", let alone 6 stops (3 stops = 8 times less light, 6 stops = 64 times less light). Any such test would be a) Invalid because of the above parameters, and I would have people reacting and proving different things, with different parameters and different images shot in different geographical locations (color density/saturation issue), b) Not of any value in practice.
@@CameraMystique Thanks for the extensive response. Much appreciated. In this realm, I'm perhaps getting into an area that is currently above my technical expertise (and perhaps it's a mute topic to begin with). That said, I was hoping for someone to just confirm my understanding of what Gamma is from the linear sensor capture of luminance (as opposed to our eyes with a working pupil), where and how the reverse curve is applied for viewing on the LCD, and how the reverse curve is applied in RAW in demosaicing software to again represent the linear curve of the actually scene - which our eyes then interpret in s similar way. All this and why bit-depth for better encoding of low end/shadow data matters. (Truth is, I don't even know what the hell I'm talking about!). Many of the sites I see only touch on this briefly (without a full explanation) or are video based and do the same thing. I've dug a deep rabbit hole!
@@dance2jam Nowadays, it doesn't. photographylife.com/14-bit-vs-12-bit-raw Just shoot as low ISO as you can get away with. Btw, do you have a wide-gamut hardware calibrated monitor? And if you do, do you print images with thousands of tonalities in high-def metallic paper in AdobeRGB, and then display them in a room with controlled color temperature lights? If not, only worry about your ISO.
This goes against your don't recommend gear motto, but here goes. If you can adapt a Zeiss Contax 35-70 f/3.4 zoom to your camera then just buy it and shoot from f/5.6-f/11. Looking back on all my images this lens consistently impresses in this category. It's also a range that can do it all. Classic prime set is 35, 50, and 90. The 70 is a bit short compared to 90, but it works with some cropping.
I'm up to my eyeballs in gear and camera things. And I can't even sell the useless accessories (although some come in handy if I need extra legs to support something).
@@sebastiang7183 Two week ago I sold another 4 lenses. Lens-wise it's not bad now, I only have 3 that are rarely if ever used (two rare APO Voigts and a Nikon fisheye without Omega 3). But I have 3 office-type drawers full of annoying accessories. Why did I ever buy lens pouches, when I have so many T-shirts?
@@CameraMystique Lens pouches: to protect your investment that you just sold in mint condition for half price. I don't regret trying gear. When I look back at all my photos, I see certain lenses that stand out when I look at the metadata. However, once you make your selection you shouldn't have more than 5 lenses or so and probably not more than 3 that you carry. One or two is better. I shot 7-8 countries in Europe with just the 18-55 on the X-T1 and the pictures are fabulous.
I’ve had a bizarre thought the past two years: is it possible that there is a trade off with lens design in regards to sharpness and color richness? Just to add something concerning cooking and chefs: I have been in Europe for a decade now, and what I found fascinating speaking to some chefs here was that the vast majority of them don’t use expensive consumer stick free cookware, but often steel pans and relatively simple methods such as salting the pans and other interesting tricks of the trade. One of the reasons a lot of food in the US tastes the way it does (similar , cheap, bland) is that a lot of the distribution is done by Sisco . Obviously coupling this with the rudimentary schooling most chefs have in many establishments, leads to the underwhelming and vanilla flavor dilemma. European onion rings suck donkey balls, tho. Food safety is (partially )a result of rampant capitalism coupled with aggressive lobbying against the FDA and the like. Unfortunately this is not solely limited to the US, as there’s a massive push for deregulation and dirty tricks in the field of farmed fish . 60 Minutes Australia had a good documentary on the matter . Irish steak, tho … 👌🏽. Just in case anyone was dying for some random trivia… I think some interesting corollaries can be drawn between cheap American cuisine culture and modern lens and CFA sensor designs . I believe this is also one of the reasons why Fuji GFX cameras will always be an expensive Skoda when compared to Hasselblad and Leica sensors. The totality of the systems cannot be understated.
On the issue of regulation, nobody's innocent. *THE MOST TOXIC FOOD IN THE WORLD IS NORWEGIAN SALMON.* (see th-cam.com/video/RYYf8cLUV5E/w-d-xo.html). In the US, as long as I stayed with grocery-store normal foods, they are slightly healthier than in Europe (Europe: unwashed chickens, non-refrigerated eggs, sterilized out of fridge milk, insane amount of pesticides on veggies, which they are trying to fix now - I used to get food poisoning twice a year, and cancer rates in my island have grown double than in the US after we joined the EU). High energy prices in Europe also make good food and refrigeration outrageously expensive. See New York Times "I have no money for food" about France www.nytimes.com/2021/03/16/business/hunger-food-insecurity-europe.html -------- *The problem in the US is the over-processed safe-but-crappy foods* such as corn flakes, snacks etc* and very high home taxation/fees which leans to 30% more workload on a daily basis. Add to that a boatload of restaurants with clueless cooks and crappy quality ingredients, and suburbs where the civil engineers have made cars an absolute necessity, and the population became from "normal" to "obese" in just one generation. Europeans are catching up: in my youth, we had one (1) chubby kid in school, now 25% of children are obese and it's rising. Oh, and who killed social dancing in the US? The IRS. Seriously. www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323628804578348050712410108
@@CameraMystique Thanks. I tried to wrap my head around color profiles on multiple occasions and got lost trying to sort through the maze of printed information , videos, custom software (Lumariver?) and anecdotal opinions. I’ll have a look at your videos and see what I can find. From what little I was able to understand about Hasselblad (and a lot of the forum posts appear to imply that there isn’t more going on under the hood) is that they profile all of their lenses. Re energy prices and their impact on refrigeration practices - there were some leaked documents which illustrated the tax writeoffs for businesses on energy costs , so I’m surprised , though not skeptical , of your claim. The whole consumer energy rate scam is fascinating though - Yiannis something or other (you probably know him ) shed some interesting light on this sector. I truly had no idea how opaque and intriguing energy regulation and crop economics were up until the Ukraine invasion took place. Albania is an interesting wild card though - unless you talk about their fuel pump economics. Yeah, UHT milk is an abomination and only goes into my coffee. I thought eggs didn’t require refrigeration provided they haven’t been refrigerated prior. Time to google this. I worked a research project on diabetes type 2 a few years ago and European rates are growing exponentially- largely as a result of processed foods and corn flake consumption - they’re not far behind the US. Although, again - countries like Albania are an exception. It’s pretty interesting speaking with certain gangster types as they’re fetching fresh milk , feta , and vegetables from the local market. The world is full of intriguing anomalies.
I'm a translation (industrial capacity). Since 1996, the average translator has to print only about 15-20 pages per year. Nowadays almost none. And a moderator in a translator forum announced recently that we should all be environmentally friendly and use "ecological fonts" (fonts less curvy that require less graphite). If I were ever on a date with that woman, I'd call the police and duck for cover.
Once you get old enough to need eyeglasses, then you either need to spend the big bucks on APO lenes or stop caring because you have to keep taking them off and putting them back on to determine if the CA you see are from your lens or your eyeglasses.
On the good side of presbyopia, having to keep the camera away from your body is good shoulder exercise. As far as lenses, most lenses today (including your GF lenses) are practically APO, so no worries. Even kit zoom lenses for crop cameras today are practically APO compared to the previous generation of lenses. The FUJI kit zoom was better than the Milvus 50 f/1.4 : th-cam.com/video/8I8ZVm18NTc/w-d-xo.html
@@CameraMystique Fuji makes excellent lenses in general. The appeal of the GFX system is not just the body but the lens correction. The 20-35 is almost APO especially stopped down. Typically using such wide angles, I see CA when shooting from inside a dark cave out to midday bright light. The 20-35 GFX lens is the first one that had zero CA in those conditions. The problem is those lenses are big bucks, so you expect high correction. I still love the Fuji 18-55. That one is far from APO especially at the wide end, but I have used that lens extensively and have never found the images lacking. It's an excellent video lens as well if you do that.
@@sebastiang7183 This is not full CA that you see from the cave - it's fringing (one tiny form of CA only). CAs, if they exist, are spread all over the image, and manifest as "muddy" colors and loss of detail (the example in th-cam.com/video/L-yLsgeP1JY/w-d-xo.html). But you can reduce their visual impact by altering the WB and choosing a different color profile. Color profiles that are less contrasty (Neutral) are preferred in such cases. An example is in th-cam.com/video/JnsAdcghidU/w-d-xo.html In your type of photography, I would definitely chose the Neutral Profile as the default. It brings up the shadows more naturally too, and if the color is a bit weak, you can always make it "more vibrant" in ACR *without re-introducing the CAs.*
@@CameraMystique I have heard of green fringing, purple fringing, CA, longitudinal and latitudinal CA. I am so confused, and I think some of these terms are thrown around interchangeably. I can recognize color artifacts and the absence of them whatever they are called. I did an experiment and with slightly underexposing it had a significant and positive effect on fringing/CA or some form or color aberration however it's classified.
Hobbyist spending more money is very true. Whenever I see a lot of professional photographers in my area, I'll always have the newest gear of them all, lol. They'll be using some beat up DSLR or a Sony A7 III with some cheap zoom. I suppose there isn't a lot of money to be made in photography in my area.
I was supporting 3 people with an old laptop for my job, on which I had changed the keyboard 3 times, while hobbyists had super machines to play video games. And Cartier Bresson, Sebastião Salgado and Eugene Smith became world famous with one old film Leica and a couple of small lenses. Professionals have clients, Artists have skills, and Hobbyists have aspirations.
![[tech] Hyperfocal distance outdated || Close-Focus DOF differences | Context & Dimensional Rendering](/img/n.gif)
00:01 Apologies to Vahagraphy 00:26 Wedding photographers 00:40 More on 3D Pop, and the Unbalanced Image 01:22 Micro-contrast and Pop & Dimensional Images 02:59 Micro-contrast and Pop UNRELATED 03:34 Tonality separation and Pop 06:45 Bokeh of Apochromatic Lenses 06:14 The excellent Nikon 16-80 f/2.8E 07:42 Real Pros vs. Hobbyists 09:09 True Size of an image 10:38 Channel returning to normal - Last Gear Video 11:24 A Photograph is a Document
7:43 I have a neighbor who is a pro photographer, we met because our dogs play together in the park, totally unrelated to photography. For his works he still uses DSLRs and seems he have enough money to buy the most expensive Canon or Nikon today, but he uses relatively old DSLR cameras. When I asked why he don't buy something new, he says that he knows the cameras, he have the lenses he need, nothing is broke or malfunctioning, and clients still pay him the price he ask, so he don't need to change.
I use the same laptop for my work for the last 10 years (Dell M6800). It never stopped working. *I also use it to watch movies and YT on the TV.* I've changed the keyboard 3 times myself. You can't ask me to change it. As a matter of fact I bought another one on Amazon 2 years ago for about $800, so its replacement can be seamless. I cannot type on new laptops (the terrible "island keys").
I am looking forward to see what you have in store for us! You have done much to introduce photographers on youtube to the traditional principles of aesthetics, philosophy and art in general, and I am excited for further such 'content' without necessarily being limited to the perspective of a camera ;)
If you liked the video "Intuition", and the first 2 minutes of the video "Writing", then you'll probably like what's coming.
@@CameraMystiqueOh, that sounds exciting :)
So if i am correct: the important things of a lens are : sharpness (which is microcontrast), contrast and APOchromatic design or at least very good chroma control? I have a sony camera, i am thinking about getting a 135mm f2.8 zeiss batis apo lens, it literally checks all the boxes. I dont need a faster lens at 135mm.
All lenses made in the last 20-30 years have great acutance/sharness/micro-contrast. Especially the 135 focal. The No. 1 priority is: -- Are you going to use it/do you need it for *many* shots? Lenses and cameras are among the worst investments in the world (rapid depreciation, and for a Sony lens, you won't even get 40% your money back if you sell it back within the first 12 months). If you're buying the lens for 30 shots/3 prints, better rent it. Considering that 135 is a rather rarely used focal (the range of 50-100 is more practical for portraits), and the particular lens is big and heavy, why don't you rent it first for 4-5 days?
-- If you're planning to buy it used, I have a video at th-cam.com/video/J0Hvh7oE-Rg/w-d-xo.html for a quick check - although in my experience, used heavy auto-focus lenses usually suffer from decentered elements and AF problems. So, a thorough geometrical test could be also required.
But as I said, the vast majority of people who buy 135mm lenses end up selling them back withing the first few months, because they find them impractical and don't use them. Especially the long/heavy ones. So, rent it first and see if you can actually use it for more than just a few shots. Normally, a lens should take a few hundred keepers (and a few dozen good prints) before you can say "it was worth it". We don't buy lenses because they're sharp, we buy them because we like and print the pictures we make with them.
@@CameraMystique absolutely, i am planning to buy it used which i can get it for about 700 euros. Very good deal. Also the batis is a very lightweight lens (for its class) only 600 grams and it has oss plus it is an APO. I usually use my 85mm batis and sometimes i find the reach a bit short and i switch to APS-C mode pretty often (which makes it 128mm lens). And to be honest that extra tight 128mm in aps c mode is what i love. Thats why i consider a 135mm lens and in particular the batis 135mm for its weight, oss and APO capability.
@@jijdom So you've done your homework and you know what you need - ok then! Just test the AF when you get it.
Man!!! How I wish I could afford one of Christopher Burkett prints!!! Thank you so much for sharing his content.
Me too!
Very true regarding print size and bokeh. This is why some images on phone screen look 3D while on a 27’ 5k screen they don’t look 3D. I haven’t found any info about this: how often one should change the flash tube from a flash unit. I have couple of sb5000 units from some time ago and the color of a new sb5000 looks different ( less yellow I would say).
One thing about speedlights is to not over-power them often, especially in high burst shots. But ask Nikon how much they'll charge you for that. I once burned the zooming mechanism on an SB5000 by shooting it repeatedly at +3.0 and Nikon replaced it for about $180 total service.
Yellowing is something I hear for the first time, and the first thing I would try is to power up the flash itself +0.3 or +0.7 while in TTL
(because yellowing is some times a result of under-exposure), and try also minus (-0.3 or -0.7) just in case. Take the pictures using a color object that also has a couple of white areas, in a dark room, with your camera's WB set to "Flash" (which is 5500K). Make sure target's white areas are in focus (to avoid chromatic aberrations). Then, compare the results with a reference test card .jpeg you can find on the internet.
I'm saying all that because on an uncalibrated monitor, the good flash is "the other one, not the one you suspected" sometimes.
PS. Remove filters from the lens before the test. Especially the Hoya consumer UV filters - they are notorious for yellowing images.
PS2. I have full complex flash color tests (Nikon) in the video th-cam.com/video/WW9lldTYTRU/w-d-xo.html time points from 11.43 - 23.15
Hi , thanks again for an interesting video, looking forward to the non gear talk -- referencing the archived videos makes sense..
Going back to Photo Essays, I even made a Playlist with them.
Your delivery and style is so intriguing and intelligent, it makes me trust you, and certainly I'm looking forward to what you will be doing. I think we're all tired of the same ol' gear reviews. I recommend Gerald Undone's "We're talking about cameras!" video.
Thank you - though you don't have to "trust" anybody. I'm not reviewing anything that I didn't own, for my own personal purposes, not selling anything. Methods - you can try them yourself with your camera/software.
Since you've convinced me to finally print my photos of value (I always knew that was the only thing that made sense), I'd like to ask you to update all your old content to the latest state of the art. 😂 Seriously, your channel is a well-stocked archive that I like to jump back to when I'm ready. Thank you so much for your effort.
That's why I created the Playlists. But I also re-made content in newer videos, so I can go and delete the old crappy ones. The Playlists will shrink, but the content will be "zero fat". Since you started printing, your tech vids are "Prints #1, #2, and #3" from the Prints Playlist. Emphasis on #2. Also, set your monitor brightness to 100 cd/m2, this is the value labs use (so your brightness will match your print brightness). To do that, consult your monitor manual, or find a test site on the internet where they have done it. Usually this value is a lot less bright than the "default" monitor value (monitors are set too bright out of the factory), and for the first 1-2 minutes your monitor will look dark to you, it takes a few minutes for your eyes to adjust.
@@CameraMystique your advice is much appreciated and helps a lot. Actually I was already assuming the brightness of the monitor was too bright and was looking for exactly this information. Mastering printing will be my project for the next months. Do you think pigment ink is worth the costs?
@@lxhk3595 I would strongly advise not to print at home. Too expensive and with too many parameters. Just send them to the lab. If the prints are too dark, your monitor is too bright. If the colors are wrong (greenish/blueish faces etc), your monitor is uncalibrated (you can ask the lab to correct colors for you). Most people change cameras or lenses before they realize that the culprit was the monitor, and most monitors are hugely uncalibrated.
My wife says that she could have told me that (not doing it myself but assigning this to a professional lab). I was about to buy an expensive printer. This fits with your thesis that beginners buy too much stuff. Thanks again :)
@@lxhk3595 Only when you have a) a hardware calibrated AdobeRGB monitor (absolutely necessary), b) A full and proficient understanding of ICC profiles and paper profiles, c) Lots of money - then you can buy a large professional printer and print your own. But the cost is justified only if you print *many* large images.
Even owners of all that equipment send their 5x7s and 9x12s to labs - much cheaper.
Regarding bokeh/focus ratio: the example at 1:05 is from a video, not a photo meant for a print. I'm not sure of the intent with using that as an example, it is not going to get printed. To me that video was visually pleasing, but to each their own. A related aspect of this might be documentary video footage contra film footage intended for an artistic movie. Different instances where different ratios between focus and out of focus areas are targeted. Sometimes a large percentage of out of focus areas serves a purpose, even if the out of focus areas get a bit muddy in a print.
I have posted dozens of other examples in older videos. The reason I posted this one, is that the average TH-cam viewer *tries to re-create what they see in an influencer video, as if the influencer content is some sort of reference material.*
Video is a different animal - in movies nobody has the time to critically check frames. That's why a low resolution movie is not perceived as low resolution, even a 480p video can be great to watch. But in photography, everything is still and subject to critique - all your items in the still image are "sitting ducks" waiting to be criticized or admired. And when you get the print, which is not back-lit as your monitor, it looks terrible, and all the bokeh theories go out the window. That's why large prints are good when they are "front-lit" with a stepped down lens, while large back-lit images with plenty of bokeh are good on our back-lit monitors only.
Hi and thank you for great Chanel, is there any different for 3d pop if we change between dark and light,i e light in the front of the frame dark as the background,
Of course. The key is to create zones of different light or even different subjects. Have you noticed journalists, when they have time, they usually shoot "a few guys in the front, the demonstration in the middle, and something else in the background" - 3 zones.
On the other hand, find on the internet "images without shadows" (a phenomenon that happens in Hawaii) and they are weirdly flat.
You should study the topic of "chiaroscuro", which I have mentioned many times in this channel too.
That is why i am watching Dean Collin's videos over and over and over.....real photography.
The litmus test often mentioned is which medium you're aiming to reach: iPhone? Instagram? Or print? And if it's print, what size? I keep noticing that the pursuit of the best or most unique lens is misleading if you're not considering the intended medium. For me, the 3D pop that some lenses offer is irrelevant for 90% of everyday situations. Whether it's photographing the kids or capturing landmarks on vacation, the composition accounts for 99% of the image's impact when printed. Right? When I think from the perspective of print, I come to your conclusion: essentialism when it comes to gear. For me, the takeaway is clear: print more.
PRINTS, as I have been saying since the beginning of this channel, is the primary purpose of hobbyist photography. But the channels which became popular were those advocating purposeless photography (just walking around with fancy gear taking pictures for no reason, digital files that will be completely lost in a few years).
We already have plenty of people who do gear review. We absolutely need more experienced photographers that talk about the ART of photography. Looking forward to your next uploads.
Vids "Art & Gear #1", "Art & Gear #8", and the entire playlist "Photo Essays", among others...
Well done on some home truths. I think the other demise of 3d pop is the bayer sensor and interpolation software itself. A bayer sensor will always have a color edge on something as simple as black writing.
As a Foveon sensor user the color, edge definition and contrast rendering are very unique and have a 3d pop regardless of lens used. Nothing beats full 100% RGB information at every pixel location (no interpolation and no moire) hence the word direct image sensor. I admit the Foveon sensor is not as flexible as a bayer when it comes to high iso. If you are willing to slow down and deal with low iso the image quality is exceptional.
On a micro level maybe. But there's no difference at a normal level. The "pop" is nothing other than strong separation (easiest ways: flash/light difference and shallow DOF), while dimensional rendering depends mostly on light/shadow, color/tonality separation and perspective. Micro-contrast is completely irrelevant on the macro level - and while a Foveon sensor can show better micro-contrast (for the reason you mentioned - 3 times higher resolution per mm2, with a lot less sampling errors), color recovery is difficult and asymmetrical, so the light conditions have to be near perfect (hence the ISO issue).
Maybe one day they'll develop true "full spectrum photosites" on one single layer, instead of the "sandwich" method of foveon sensors. That will be the day when digital matches or exceeds the color vibrance of good film.
This comment is a bit off topic, but I have a request for a future video short-topic review. If you are so inclined, would you do a short review of gamma curves from start (sensor) to finish (viewed image by your eyes on the monitor or in print) - and it's relationship to maximizing utilization of bit-depth and dynamic range. I realize this is a topic that makes many photographers "tune out", but it would be one of the few on TH-cam that covered the topic from beginning to end (and might just be up your alley). I realize that video people might have a greater interest in this. Would also appreciate your insight on the development tools that alter gamma in LR/PS - i.e. luminance. Thanks as always.
Before I respond, what is the ideal heel height of shoes for Argentine Tango, for a woman 5'5", dancing with a 5'11" partner? 2.3 or 2.7 inches?
I thought about something similar ("COLOR DENSITY RECOVERY") years ago when I was analyzing the crap out of D850 vs. GFX 50 for my own purposes. I remember I mentioned it in a video, it's probably still up, don't remember which video. Problem is, there are issues in the variables:
*i)* As far as gamma is concerned, unless your monitor is calibrated almost exactly as mine, we'll be seeing different things with inconclusive results. I know that because even when I was doing 2 calibrations back-to-back with same parameters, the result was always slightly different on the same monitor. But between an Adobe calibrated monitor and an sRGB uncalibrated monitor, though the white will be the same (to our eyes), the other colors won't. Add to that TH-cam conversion. Add to that your own mood (if you're upset, you'll be seeing magenta, and that's scientifically and practically proven).
*ii)* Photoshop can support 10-bits, but not in all Photoshop functions (regardless of your settings, it switches back automatically to 8-bit in the non-updated functions, without notice, and we don't know when, and unless you have an image with extremely smooth tonalities that can challenge human vision, you can't tell yourself). Plus, I will have to open the files with Adobe color profiles (ooops!), and Adobe itself disagrees with Nikon profiles by a lot! (see from time point 5.23 at th-cam.com/video/FiGuSSu7tSs/w-d-xo.html)
*With different color profiles in Adobe, how can I judge any camera's color consistency all along any gamma curve*
*iii)* There's not even a monitor that can support 14-bit ProPhotoRGB that my camera claims it can (not that my eyes could see the difference anyway).
*iv)* Even if we assume that I found NASA-grade equipment for the above, and assuming that PS can open it at full bit depth and assuming that my monitor can show it, the minute I upload it on TH-cam it's converted automatically to 8-bit sRGB with their own parameters and profiles. You would see a difference over there, but it would be different than the difference I see over here. You would be like "the one of the left is like this and that", and I would be like "what are they talking about, it's the opposite..." - the results of the recent "test video" I posted and was asking your opinions, were quite revealing. Revealing to me as well, because I realized that an sRGB image opened in PS, is different than the same image converted into sRGB by PS (PS color conversion compression errors in the out-of-gamut reds!). Then, the recording software plays a role too - I use the freeware OSB studio - and I won't buy an Adobe video suite for an unreliable test.
*iv)* As regards to prints, the most expensive lab will tell you "don't even think of sending us ProPhoto - only up to AdobeRGB". And even if they accepted ProPhoto and could print it, they would have to find the paper that can show it.
*v) Dynamic Range vis-a-vis ISO vis-a-vis color curve is a topic alive only on TH-cam and Petapixel.* Everywhere else (in the actual professional publishing world) it's dead on arrival. That's because a) ISO noise depends on software too, and every suite has its own RAW converter and they all look different, b) RAW files come with internal "flags" for noise reduction (20/100 default in D850). c) No professional or serious amateur in his right mind "lifts exposure 3 stops in software", let alone 6 stops (3 stops = 8 times less light, 6 stops = 64 times less light).
Any such test would be a) Invalid because of the above parameters, and I would have people reacting and proving different things, with different parameters and different images shot in different geographical locations (color density/saturation issue), b) Not of any value in practice.
@@CameraMystique Thanks for the extensive response. Much appreciated. In this realm, I'm perhaps getting into an area that is currently above my technical expertise (and perhaps it's a mute topic to begin with). That said, I was hoping for someone to just confirm my understanding of what Gamma is from the linear sensor capture of luminance (as opposed to our eyes with a working pupil), where and how the reverse curve is applied for viewing on the LCD, and how the reverse curve is applied in RAW in demosaicing software to again represent the linear curve of the actually scene - which our eyes then interpret in s similar way. All this and why bit-depth for better encoding of low end/shadow data matters. (Truth is, I don't even know what the hell I'm talking about!). Many of the sites I see only touch on this briefly (without a full explanation) or are video based and do the same thing. I've dug a deep rabbit hole!
@@dance2jam
Nowadays, it doesn't. photographylife.com/14-bit-vs-12-bit-raw
Just shoot as low ISO as you can get away with. Btw, do you have a wide-gamut hardware calibrated monitor? And if you do, do you print images with thousands of tonalities in high-def metallic paper in AdobeRGB, and then display them in a room with controlled color temperature lights?
If not, only worry about your ISO.
This goes against your don't recommend gear motto, but here goes. If you can adapt a Zeiss Contax 35-70 f/3.4 zoom to your camera then just buy it and shoot from f/5.6-f/11. Looking back on all my images this lens consistently impresses in this category. It's also a range that can do it all. Classic prime set is 35, 50, and 90. The 70 is a bit short compared to 90, but it works with some cropping.
I'm up to my eyeballs in gear and camera things. And I can't even sell the useless accessories (although some come in handy if I need extra legs to support something).
@@CameraMystique That was for your audience that still must chase 3D rendering. I have to do the same. Sell some of my gear.
@@sebastiang7183 Two week ago I sold another 4 lenses. Lens-wise it's not bad now, I only have 3 that are rarely if ever used (two rare APO Voigts and a Nikon fisheye without Omega 3). But I have 3 office-type drawers full of annoying accessories. Why did I ever buy lens pouches, when I have so many T-shirts?
@@CameraMystique Lens pouches: to protect your investment that you just sold in mint condition for half price. I don't regret trying gear. When I look back at all my photos, I see certain lenses that stand out when I look at the metadata. However, once you make your selection you shouldn't have more than 5 lenses or so and probably not more than 3 that you carry. One or two is better. I shot 7-8 countries in Europe with just the 18-55 on the X-T1 and the pictures are fabulous.
I’ve had a bizarre thought the past two years: is it possible that there is a trade off with lens design in regards to sharpness and color richness? Just to add something concerning cooking and chefs: I have been in Europe for a decade now, and what I found fascinating speaking to some chefs here was that the vast majority of them don’t use expensive consumer stick free cookware, but often steel pans and relatively simple methods such as salting the pans and other interesting tricks of the trade. One of the reasons a lot of food in the US tastes the way it does (similar , cheap, bland) is that a lot of the distribution is done by Sisco . Obviously coupling this with the rudimentary schooling most chefs have in many establishments, leads to the underwhelming and vanilla flavor dilemma. European onion rings suck donkey balls, tho. Food safety is (partially )a result of rampant capitalism coupled with aggressive lobbying against the FDA and the like. Unfortunately this is not solely limited to the US, as there’s a massive push for deregulation and dirty tricks in the field of farmed fish . 60 Minutes Australia had a good documentary on the matter . Irish steak, tho … 👌🏽. Just in case anyone was dying for some random trivia… I think some interesting corollaries can be drawn between cheap American cuisine culture and modern lens and CFA sensor designs . I believe this is also one of the reasons why Fuji GFX cameras will always be an expensive Skoda when compared to Hasselblad and Leica sensors. The totality of the systems cannot be understated.
On the issue of regulation, nobody's innocent. *THE MOST TOXIC FOOD IN THE WORLD IS NORWEGIAN SALMON.* (see th-cam.com/video/RYYf8cLUV5E/w-d-xo.html). In the US, as long as I stayed with grocery-store normal foods, they are slightly healthier than in Europe (Europe: unwashed chickens, non-refrigerated eggs, sterilized out of fridge milk, insane amount of pesticides on veggies, which they are trying to fix now - I used to get food poisoning twice a year, and cancer rates in my island have grown double than in the US after we joined the EU). High energy prices in Europe also make good food and refrigeration outrageously expensive. See New York Times "I have no money for food" about France www.nytimes.com/2021/03/16/business/hunger-food-insecurity-europe.html
--------
*The problem in the US is the over-processed safe-but-crappy foods* such as corn flakes, snacks etc* and very high home taxation/fees which leans to 30% more workload on a daily basis. Add to that a boatload of restaurants with clueless cooks and crappy quality ingredients, and suburbs where the civil engineers have made cars an absolute necessity, and the population became from "normal" to "obese" in just one generation. Europeans are catching up: in my youth, we had one (1) chubby kid in school, now 25% of children are obese and it's rising.
Oh, and who killed social dancing in the US? The IRS. Seriously. www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323628804578348050712410108
PS. Color richness = good APO or near-APO lens, but 95% is your camera's color profiles.
@@CameraMystique Thanks. I tried to wrap my head around color profiles on multiple occasions and got lost trying to sort through the maze of printed information , videos, custom software (Lumariver?) and anecdotal opinions. I’ll have a look at your videos and see what I can find. From what little I was able to understand about Hasselblad (and a lot of the forum posts appear to imply that there isn’t more going on under the hood) is that they profile all of their lenses. Re energy prices and their impact on refrigeration practices - there were some leaked documents which illustrated the tax writeoffs for businesses on energy costs , so I’m surprised , though not skeptical , of your claim. The whole consumer energy rate scam is fascinating though - Yiannis something or other (you probably know him ) shed some interesting light on this sector. I truly had no idea how opaque and intriguing energy regulation and crop economics were up until the Ukraine invasion took place. Albania is an interesting wild card though - unless you talk about their fuel pump economics. Yeah, UHT milk is an abomination and only goes into my coffee. I thought eggs didn’t require refrigeration provided they haven’t been refrigerated prior. Time to google this.
I worked a research project on diabetes type 2 a few years ago and European rates are growing exponentially- largely as a result of processed foods and corn flake consumption - they’re not far behind the US. Although, again - countries like Albania are an exception. It’s pretty interesting speaking with certain gangster types as they’re fetching fresh milk , feta , and vegetables from the local market. The world is full of intriguing anomalies.
I'm a translation (industrial capacity). Since 1996, the average translator has to print only about 15-20 pages per year. Nowadays almost none. And a moderator in a translator forum announced recently that we should all be environmentally friendly and use "ecological fonts" (fonts less curvy that require less graphite). If I were ever on a date with that woman, I'd call the police and duck for cover.
Once you get old enough to need eyeglasses, then you either need to spend the big bucks on APO lenes or stop caring because you have to keep taking them off and putting them back on to determine if the CA you see are from your lens or your eyeglasses.
On the good side of presbyopia, having to keep the camera away from your body is good shoulder exercise. As far as lenses, most lenses today (including your GF lenses) are practically APO, so no worries. Even kit zoom lenses for crop cameras today are practically APO compared to the previous generation of lenses. The FUJI kit zoom was better than the Milvus 50 f/1.4 : th-cam.com/video/8I8ZVm18NTc/w-d-xo.html
@@CameraMystique Fuji makes excellent lenses in general. The appeal of the GFX system is not just the body but the lens correction. The 20-35 is almost APO especially stopped down. Typically using such wide angles, I see CA when shooting from inside a dark cave out to midday bright light. The 20-35 GFX lens is the first one that had zero CA in those conditions. The problem is those lenses are big bucks, so you expect high correction. I still love the Fuji 18-55. That one is far from APO especially at the wide end, but I have used that lens extensively and have never found the images lacking. It's an excellent video lens as well if you do that.
@@sebastiang7183 This is not full CA that you see from the cave - it's fringing (one tiny form of CA only). CAs, if they exist, are spread all over the image, and manifest as "muddy" colors and loss of detail (the example in th-cam.com/video/L-yLsgeP1JY/w-d-xo.html).
But you can reduce their visual impact by altering the WB and choosing a different color profile. Color profiles that are less contrasty (Neutral) are preferred in such cases. An example is in th-cam.com/video/JnsAdcghidU/w-d-xo.html
In your type of photography, I would definitely chose the Neutral Profile as the default. It brings up the shadows more naturally too, and if the color is a bit weak, you can always make it "more vibrant" in ACR *without re-introducing the CAs.*
@@CameraMystique I have heard of green fringing, purple fringing, CA, longitudinal and latitudinal CA. I am so confused, and I think some of these terms are thrown around interchangeably. I can recognize color artifacts and the absence of them whatever they are called. I did an experiment and with slightly underexposing it had a significant and positive effect on fringing/CA or some form or color aberration however it's classified.
Hobbyist spending more money is very true. Whenever I see a lot of professional photographers in my area, I'll always have the newest gear of them all, lol. They'll be using some beat up DSLR or a Sony A7 III with some cheap zoom. I suppose there isn't a lot of money to be made in photography in my area.
I was supporting 3 people with an old laptop for my job, on which I had changed the keyboard 3 times, while hobbyists had super machines to play video games. And Cartier Bresson, Sebastião Salgado and Eugene Smith became world famous with one old film Leica and a couple of small lenses.
Professionals have clients, Artists have skills, and Hobbyists have aspirations.