Noctilux Portraits I: May

[Xtol19]

Eh, isn't that why people post their works in forums? If you're not looking for comments, then just keep the images private?
It's a "public" forum for a reason.

Well, that's one reason i seldom post images here. I see tons of images every day, here and in other forums. I don't feel compelled to "comment".

 

[Xtol19]

I am not sure if I speak for the rest but the reason why we pointed out the flaws of the photo is not because we want to insult you or anything. Rather, we are just giving you tips on what to look out for in order to improve your photography. A good lens is one of the many factors when it comes to good portraiture.

Do note that 'Portraits and Poses' thread is meant to showcase your portraiture photography skills, not to tell the rest how good your lens is.

You seem very hung up about this "how good is your lens" thing.

This is not about lens "goodness". It's about "uniqueness".

The truth is, Noctilux is not a portrait lens per se.

It's not 90 mm and it's not designed to be clinically sharp, etc. It's hard to get the focus right. And it's also too heavy for regular use.

In fact, one can get a "better" image with a Summicron or even an Elmarit.

The purpose of shooting Noctilux is to shoot at F1. Hence it's mainly used for low light work.

At F1 it creates very unique images.

In posted the pix for people to see how a portrait looks at F1.

Noctilux is not a "good" lens because it's expensive, and I'm not posting to boast how "good" this lens is. Frankly with modern technology a cheap canon 50/1.8 at f4 can give sharper and cleaner images than Noctilux at f1.

But the look at f1 is unique.

 

[Redsun]

whats with the reflector and the messy hair?

 

[Agetan]

You seem very hung up about this "how good is your lens" thing.

This is not about lens "goodness". It's about "uniqueness".

The truth is, Noctilux is not a portrait lens per se.

It's not 90 mm and it's not designed to be clinically sharp, etc. It's hard to get the focus right. And it's also too heavy for regular use.

In fact, one can get a "better" image with a Summicron or even an Elmarit.

The purpose of shooting Noctilux is to shoot at F1. Hence it's mainly used for low light work.

At F1 it creates very unique images.

In posted the pix for people to see how a portrait looks at F1.

Noctilux is not a "good" lens because it's expensive, and I'm not posting to boast how "good" this lens is. Frankly with modern technology a cheap canon 50/1.8 at f4 can give sharper and cleaner images than Noctilux at f1.

But the look at f1 is unique.

I think you post the images in the wrong section and I think you have read too much on what people say about the lens.

Lens do give certain quality and look but the vision of the photographer on creating images define the uniqueness of the image.

Seriously, what you intended to show and what you say is contradicting. I can't see the uniqueness of the lens on the images that you post but know the lens well enough on how it render the images.

Hart

 

[zeromeansnothing]

You seem very hung up about this "how good is your lens" thing.

This is not about lens "goodness". It's about "uniqueness".

The truth is, Noctilux is not a portrait lens per se.

It's not 90 mm and it's not designed to be clinically sharp, etc. It's hard to get the focus right. And it's also too heavy for regular use.

In fact, one can get a "better" image with a Summicron or even an Elmarit.

The purpose of shooting Noctilux is to shoot at F1. Hence it's mainly used for low light work.

At F1 it creates very unique images.

In posted the pix for people to see how a portrait looks at F1.

Noctilux is not a "good" lens because it's expensive, and I'm not posting to boast how "good" this lens is. Frankly with modern technology a cheap canon 50/1.8 at f4 can give sharper and cleaner images than Noctilux at f1.

But the look at f1 is unique.

As it's not quite obvious to many of us how unique this lens is at F/1.0, could TS briefly explain in detail on this uniqueness that you are trying to showcase?

Also, seeing that we have all failed to notice the uniqueness, could TS also suggest how you will reattempt this shoot/post if you have a chance to reshoot/repost this?

 

[AnsQ]

Thanks. But that's where we differ. I'm not here to say I have a super-expensive lens, hence I'm good. In fact, if people want to hold that expectation, that's their own thing, I don't have to meet their expectations. At least, not in the context of, you got such a good lens, why your pix suck?

As you pointed out, this pix is to show how a face looks with a 50 mm at f1. If people are distracted by baby hair, so be it. It's not to show ps skills either. I don't believe in pp to get fake smooth skin.

Thanks for showing how a face looks when shot at 50mm at f1.0.

 

[pitbull]

a bit of topic but i think with how the TS is talking, this thread should belong to gear tech talk area...here in this section, equipment should not be part of the topic. use crappy phone to post pictures of oso can.

 

[Canonised]

TS, please take a few steps back to cool down your negative perception of the comments posted (and a few of these posters are pro and serious hobbyists).

Firstly your title is already a very attention-getting one. In the minds of most shooters, "Noctilux" is like the AMG or M5 engines. People expect high performance, or beauty from this lens. When you post an image screaming Noctilux portrait, it is not unreasonable to expect a high quality image. But if you start leaving behind reflector, messy hair, poor colour control, etc you must expect a lot of comments not to your liking.

You are making yourself sound rather silly when you start making all kind of arguments and contradicting comments to defense your views.

If a Noctilux is not the right lens for a portrait shot, then why post one and scream "N... P...."?

If the purpose of using a Noctilux is to shoot at F1, for low light work, why a portrait with reflector, bright natural light (as seen from your reflection), etc...

If you post this image as a unique image, the people here couldn't see any uniqueness in your image, and as such they are asking you to tell them.

What I can say is that you are very lucky that these people bother to make any comments.

I am sure if you have posted an image like this, you would not have gotten all these unwanted comments.

http://www.arnehelme.com/p288431506/h330CC164#h2af6e35

btw, who gave you the impression that a "Noctilux" is not a portrait lens?

 

[Zeisser]

Just start a thread in the Forum : Others. It has a thread about for example 'Anything Zeiss' it's all about Zeiss lens. You could actually
start someting like eg ' Leica lens etc etc'. Perhaps you posted in wrong section.

In P&P do expect alot of comments and praises though. Noctilux is not a trivial name. Some OT from this,
in the world of hi end audio 'Noctilux is the Top Hi End Speaker from Bower & Wilkins (B&W) Britian top hifi speaker manufacturer. So when you mentioned Noctilux
bros here expect top notch quality pictures.

So just relax and take it all with a pinch of salt

 

[kingpin]

Firstly your title is already a very attention-getting one. In the minds of most shooters, "Noctilux" is like the AMG or M5 engines. People expect high performance, or beauty from this lens. When you post an image screaming Noctilux portrait, it is not unreasonable to expect a high quality image. But if you start leaving behind reflector, messy hair, poor colour control, etc you must expect a lot of comments not to your liking.

You are making yourself sound rather silly when you start making all kind of arguments and contradicting comments to defense your views.

..........................I am sure if you have posted an image like this, you would not have gotten all these unwanted comments.

Zenfolio | Arne Helme Photography | Noctilux f/0.95 | Noctilux f/0.95 self portrait

btw, who gave you the impression that a "Noctilux" is not a portrait lens?

Good sensible remarks.

Like the photos by arne helme especially the one with chap looking at the shelf of bottles. Shows creative use of the "fine" focal plane of the noct. WE can all learn.

 

[NineEleven]

Hi TS, I had the opportunity to see a friend who picked up his Noctilux lately & went about to shoot with his M9. The colors rendered were beautiful, the portraits of his lovely wife & details+bokeh were captivating. Some were captured in the dark corners of the Buddha tooth relic temple so the 0.95 was maximised. All not edited & straight from the cam.

What we see here, #2 is better for me but we're expecting better exposure/sharpness etc. in general.

 

[virtualme78]

I agree with Canonised. If everyone couldn't tell the uniqueness from the image posted then something might be missing. Its always good to accept the comments regardless good or bad with grace and reflect on oneself then improve from there. That being said, it is usually easier said than done for most people.

TS, please take a few steps back to cool down your negative perception of the comments posted (and a few of these posters are pro and serious hobbyists).

Firstly your title is already a very attention-getting one. In the minds of most shooters, "Noctilux" is like the AMG or M5 engines. People expect high performance, or beauty from this lens. When you post an image screaming Noctilux portrait, it is not unreasonable to expect a high quality image. But if you start leaving behind reflector, messy hair, poor colour control, etc you must expect a lot of comments not to your liking.

You are making yourself sound rather silly when you start making all kind of arguments and contradicting comments to defense your views.

If a Noctilux is not the right lens for a portrait shot, then why post one and scream "N... P...."?

If the purpose of using a Noctilux is to shoot at F1, for low light work, why a portrait with reflector, bright natural light (as seen from your reflection), etc...

If you post this image as a unique image, the people here couldn't see any uniqueness in your image, and as such they are asking you to tell them.

What I can say is that you are very lucky that these people bother to make any comments.

I am sure if you have posted an image like this, you would not have gotten all these unwanted comments.

Zenfolio | Arne Helme Photography | Noctilux f/0.95 | Noctilux f/0.95 self portrait

btw, who gave you the impression that a "Noctilux" is not a portrait lens?

 

[zeromeansnothing]

Seeing these comments make me feel so glad that im not the only person who dun see the uniqueness..

 

[Errz]

Seeing these comments make me feel so glad that im not the only person who dun see the uniqueness..

"The Emperor's New Clothes" ?

 

[virtualme78]

Pardon me if I sound rude but after viewing the link that Canonised posted, I like to say that this is an excellent example of " it's the photographer, not the camera"

 

[Xtol19]

whats with the reflector and the messy hair?

What's with it?

 

[Xtol19]

I think you post the images in the wrong section and I think you have read too much on what people say about the lens.

Lens do give certain quality and look but the vision of the photographer on creating images define the uniqueness of the image.

Seriously, what you intended to show and what you say is contradicting. I can't see the uniqueness of the lens on the images that you post but know the lens well enough on how it render the images.

Hart

Where did I contradict myself?

 

[Xtol19]

TS, please take a few steps back to cool down your negative perception of the comments posted (and a few of these posters are pro and serious hobbyists).

Firstly your title is already a very attention-getting one. In the minds of most shooters, "Noctilux" is like the AMG or M5 engines. People expect high performance, or beauty from this lens. When you post an image screaming Noctilux portrait, it is not unreasonable to expect a high quality image. But if you start leaving behind reflector, messy hair, poor colour control, etc you must expect a lot of comments not to your liking.

You are making yourself sound rather silly when you start making all kind of arguments and contradicting comments to defense your views.

If a Noctilux is not the right lens for a portrait shot, then why post one and scream "N... P...."?

If the purpose of using a Noctilux is to shoot at F1, for low light work, why a portrait with reflector, bright natural light (as seen from your reflection), etc...

If you post this image as a unique image, the people here couldn't see any uniqueness in your image, and as such they are asking you to tell them.

What I can say is that you are very lucky that these people bother to make any comments.

I am sure if you have posted an image like this, you would not have gotten all these unwanted comments.

http://www.arnehelme.com/p288431506/h330CC164#h2af6e35

btw, who gave you the impression that a "Noctilux" is not a portrait lens?

Thanks for comments. I'm way past the praise-seeking stage. I'm also past the stage where comments like "messy hair"', this cropping better than that cropping, background distracting, over-pp, etc interest me.

Anyone wants to praise, go ahead. Anyone wants to criticise, go ahead. It's not a big deal either way.

However, I will tell people, without hesitation, that I've no interest in comments that are tangential to my intent. If they don't like that, so be it.

As for your questions, it is precisely because Noctilux is normally used in low light, and not usually for portraits, that I wanted to shoot it this way.

If you say other photographers are better than me, I'll say of course. So? I'm sure I can find another photographer better than you too. What's your point? That I'm a lousy photographer? Just say, it's ok. I already have no interest in how you judge me as a photographer. So that doesn't matter to me.

 

[Sgdevilzz]

We should just let TS floats his boat. I don't think he understand our explanation to him, it's like one ear in one ear out. Haizz...

 

[Xtol19]

We should just let TS floats his boat. I don't think he understand our explanation to him, it's like one ear in one ear out. Haizz...

It's more like, no interest in such comments. Understanding and being interested are two different things. You think I haven't gone through that stage of commenting and giving "advice" to other posters in forums before?