File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Enjoying my E-3 + PanaLeicaSonic D Summilux 25 mm. f/1.4 and CS3 combination. Reized and unprocessed original will be provided in a timely fashion with popular demand.

The lens:
+Fast
+Mechanically well built
-Large
-Heavy
-Expensive
-Hard to get
-Not sealed
-Focus by wire
-Far lower resolution and contrast at all equal apertures, and especially in the corners, when compared to my Zuiko Digital 50 f/2.0 macro. The "Leica" also has alot more CA. The 50-macro is an outstanding piece of precision optic, but it doesn't do 1.4, so there you have it.

The body:
+Viewfinder
Comment too long. Clickhereto view the full text.
>> Anonymous
>PanaLeicaSonic D
>PanaLeicaSonic D

I started lol'ing hard and stopped reading after that little bit there.
>> sage M?e?e?s?e??? !iZn5BCIpug
reported for being a faggot
>> Anonymous
>>234414"reported for being a faggot"

>>234404or>>234411?
>> Anonymous
You have a killer setup. Unfortunately you'll just get a bunch of Canikon faggotry here.
>> Anonymous
Do you have the 12-60? That's one of the best lenses you can get for any system.
>> Anonymous
>>234404
did you use some blue gradient sky filter thingy there? sweet shot, i do say
>> Anonymous
>>234404
>-Focus by wire
Why does people do this?! Srsly, while it's practically of little importance, it just feels horrible wrong. You'd think that at least leica would realize that feel is an important factor in amateur photography, but I suppose not. I was seriously considering splurging on this lens for low light, but (thanks to your information, I might add) will now go for the Sigma 30/1.4 instead, even though it's a bit too telecentric on 4/3rds. I'm also raging at olympus for not making all their new lenses swd, srlsy why didn't they give some mechanical goodness to the 9-18? D;<

Nice picture regardless, and congrats on otherwise awesome gear. It's a rare pleasure to see a composed view of anything 4/3rds related, though. Both the yay and the nay camp seem to stretch truth a tad too far the moment their favorite object of love/hate gets mentioned.

/r/ original though. I suppose the sky was pretty badly underexposed, judging by the apparent noise? Actually /r/ more shots from you in general, it's some rather unusual gear you have.
>> Anonymous
omg szage
ugliest hdr ever seed
>> soulr !lK4GD5SleY
leica is not really leica any more, enjoy your money grabbing digital executives taking over your company.
>> Anonymous
>>234465
They're no worse than the money grabbing film executives that drove it into the ground
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
-Don't have the 12-60 f/2.8-4; would like to have it, sure, but at this point I can't justify the need for it. The 25-millimeter suits me- and my shooting style very well at this point. If that changes, or I suddenly find myself needing the range and sealing, then sure, It'll be a prime canditate.

-The sky is an almost complete forgery, made in CS3 by increasing local contrast through curves, and a black-to-transparent gradient adjustment layer in overlay blending mode, drawn with 100% black on the top, to fully opaque at about midway through the mountains.

-Focus by wire is sure one of the most retarded ideas ever recorded in modern history. What a failure; glad to see some conciensus (?) on that point.

-I find brand wars to be irrational at this point. The modern cameras are all very good, most of the systems are quite comprehensive and good times are had by almost all. But then again, when it comes to trolling, it was never about issues with the products (the products are fine), it's all about projecting their own insecurities and frustration on to others. I'm very sorry that they were raised by bad people and had their emotional development retarded, but I will not be used to manage their anxieties. In short, I pay little- to no attention to the brand war, especially, concidering most of the strengths and weaknesses of the systems are highly subjective and subject to individual valuation.

-This image is a single exposure only. I find HDR'ing to produce awful halos, so insted, I micromanage the local contrast through numerous curves adjustement layers.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-3Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Color Filter Array Pattern694Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:08:14 16:33:01Exposure Time1/180 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceFine WeatherFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length25.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width480Image Height640RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
"EDIT"
-I also find the "painting with light technique highly usful. Make a new curves adjustment layer, make changes to the curve, invert the layer mask to pure black, and then paint on the mask with a white, soft-edge brush to "let light" into selected areas of interest. This technique has been used here, mostly on the mountains and the upper left general area of the sky.
>> beethy !Ep8pui8Vw2
>>234912

PROTIP: The sky in the original looks 1000% better than the hideously fake sky in the OP.
>> Anonymous
>>234920
Wrong.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>234948

If you think the hideously over-saturated sky in the OP looks good you have no business ever offering anyone criticism or advice.
>> Anonymous
>>234920
I don't agree, but it is overdone in the OP. I'd like to see it somewhere in between.

>>234953
What someone likes/dislikes does not qualify/disqualify them from being allowed to offer criticism. I'm sure plenty of us would dislike some of the things you like.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>235124
>What someone likes/dislikes does not qualify/disqualify them from being allowed to offer criticism. I'm sure plenty of us would dislike some of the things you like.

Some things (like the sky in the first photo in this thread) are just objectively bad. The only people who like it are people with no experience, eye for quality, or taste.
They are the kinds of people who purchase overstuffed sectional sofas and think that Thomas Kinkaid is a great artist. They drive American cars, buy white bread, have never tried sushi, and who think 'Two & A Half Men' is funny.

The OP's edit looks like shit. PERIOD.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
How about a simple s-curve instead?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-3Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.4.6Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Color Filter Array Pattern678Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:08:15 00:14:08Exposure Time1/180 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceFine WeatherFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length25.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width480Image Height640RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
>>235141They drive American cars

good job at hating America, faggot

>> buy white bread, have never tried sushi, and who think 'Two & A Half Men' is funny.

oh wow, you should try stand up comedy with that wit of yours
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>235149
>good job at hating America, faggot
American cars ? America
American cars = shit

>oh wow, you should try stand up comedy with that wit of yours
Delightfully original comeback.
I especially enjoy how you ignore the central point of the post in order to nitpick at off-topic crap.
>> Anonymous
>>235153

your shitty comments had no place first

i'm just commenting back on your shitty comments and attempt at the funny, which are 0/10

in conclusion, 0/10

i also like you saged your own post so no one would notice you squeezing in a final word just to make yourself feel important, that was 10/10
>> Anonymous
>>235157
lrn2sage pls, so better threads can remain on the front page instead of you two arguing.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>235153
>American cars = shit
Bitches don't know about my 196* Shelby GT
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>235157
>your shitty comments had no place first
1) You have shit English skills.
2) You meant "point" not "place."
3) Good job not being able to defend your opinion though.

>i also like you saged your own post so no one would notice you squeezing in a final word just to make yourself feel important, that was 10/10
I saged both my replies to you, because I don't like uselessly bumping shitty threads when I'm just responding to trolls.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>235165
>Bitches don't know about my 196* Shelby GT

Ok, good point.
I should have specified *new* American cars.
We used to actually make some badass shit, but GMC, FORD, DODGE, etc got too fucking cocky in the 1990s and have been making shitty, unreliable cars for the last 2 decades. They're also incredibly slow at responding to the changing demands of the public, and we're probably going to lose at least one of them because of this oil crisis and the new demand for fuel-efficient cars.
>> Anonymous
>>235166

they had no place in this thread because they were shit comments

good job at learning english and hating America, fucking faggot

this wasn't saged, you faggot>>235141

you just wanted to squeeze in a last word and make yourself feel good while no one else looked, fucking caught
>> sage sage
American cars = mexican, these days
>>235165
A lot has changed in fourty years.

Why is this still on the first page
>> Anonymous
>>235141
>They are the kinds of people who purchase overstuffed sectional sofas and think that Thomas Kinkaid is a great artist. They drive American cars, buy white bread, have never tried sushi, and who think 'Two & A Half Men' is funny.

Ahahahahahahahaha. OK, so I still don't agree with what you originally said, but I just laughed tea all over myself. Well said, sir.
>> Anonymous
>>235141
Guy who prefers the OP edit here, you're pretty off. I have never tried sushi (I don't like the smell of it, sue me) and I do eat white bread (and other types), but everything else is way wrong.

A deep blue sky is the color version of a really dark sky in black and white, and the saturation except at the very top (which is definitely oversaturated) is equal with the rest of the image. I'd lighten it for contrast with the ground, and equalize the saturation at the top with the rest of the image, but otherwise it looks fine, definitely better than the absolutely flat unprocessed original. The bad top is outweighed by the good other 80% of the sky, especially in comparison.

Now, I am on a uncalibrated LCD monitor at the moment, that could be why everyone else is ragging on it but it looks fine to me. It's not *that* off, though, things look normal but slightly different. I'll hook up my CRT and get back to you.
>> Anonymous
>>235174

you forgot your trip, penistard
>> Anonymous
i have to take a shit
>> Anonymous
>>235180
>>penistard

You so funny! But I'm someone else thankyouverymuch.
>> Anonymous
>>235180
No I didn't. No trip to forget.
>> Anonymous
>>235186
You aren't me. Stop pretending to be me. THERE IS ONLY ONE ANONYMOUS.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>235179
>A deep blue sky is the color version of a really dark sky in black and white, and the saturation except at the very top (which is definitely oversaturated) is equal with the rest of the image.

But the point is that color ? B&W
What works in B&W does not necessarily work in color.

The sky in the OP looks fucking ridiculous, especially the HIDEOUS over-saturation at the top. It looks so bad that I initially thought he had pasted the sky in from another photo.

OP did a good job with the rest of the photo, but that sky is just waaaay over the top and looks really, really unnatural. Reminds me a lot of a DC edit, actually. Just needs some fake-ass vignetting.
>> Anonymous
>>235188
>>235188
>>235187
>>235186
>>235181
>>235180

Please do not bring your witty one-liners to the top of the board.
>> Anonymous
>>235194
>>235194
>>235194
>>235194
Please do not bring your fascistfaggotry to the top of the board.
>> 1/10 - Too Obvious Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>235215

Fucking hell, are you retarded?
Sage = don't bump = doesn't bring the post to the top of the page.
>> Anonymous
the real reason pentard wants to sage is so people can't see the bullshit posts he makes

age
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>235229

Reported for trolling, since it's too obvious that this is all the same person, and most likely a tripfag posting as Anon.
>> Anonymous
>>235232
What's funny is that it *isn't* all the same person.
>> Anonymous
>>235242

what's funny is pentard is such a bad name user and keeps on digging his hole deeper and deeper
>> sage sage
Man I can't wait for school to start again
>> Anonymous
How did this thread get so much shit in it? (Not to you, Pentard, I'm talking about the samefag.)

On the calibrated CRT it still looks fine except for the top. If OP fixes that it'll be perfect.

When I said it's the "color version," I didn't mean literally, I just meant it's how you accentuate the sky: in black and white you throw a red filter on or convert the file in the same way, in color you throw a polarizer on or boost saturation in it in post.
>> sage sage
>>235244
That too.

Anyway, yes, the OP's sky is overdone, but not so bad as to justify this shitstorm. Sage.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>235247

I've looked at it on 3 different LCDs and it looks unnaturally dark and over-saturated on all of them. I think if the sky was brightened and desaturated a bit so that the clouds weren't smog-gray (and wasn't so pixel-fucked from USM) this picture would be a lot better.

Unfortunately the samefag Anon in this thread has chosen to turn this into a shitstorm about unrelated topics instead of just discussing the pic, and has ruined what could have been a reasonable thread.

Too bad.
>> Anonymous
it isn't all the same person

i know cuz i'r one of them
>> Anonymous
>>235266
lol
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>235269
lmao