Petzval lens, new sample pictures

<http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lomography/the-lomography-petzval-po
rtrait-lens/posts/587724?ref=activity>

As expected, nice bokeh - but still not sharp enough. Pity.

 

Maybe it's just a shitty photographer, here's a sample that is pretty
sharp:

<http://cdn.lomography.com/downloads/kickstarter/lomography-petzval-kicks
tarter_update_17_girl.jpg>

Same cameras as before (Canon 5D). This is taken with a star shaped
aperture.

 

Hopefully, they aren't using a ringer for these shots. Though I'm sure the lenses are pretty much going to be carbon-copies of each other since elements are made on $1M machines designed to duplicate lenses by the thousands.

 

I am one of them, which is why the quality of the end product concerns
me. And when the sample pictures aren't as sharp as I would want them to
be, that's a shame.

But, I followed up with some other links that were actually sharper.

 

On 16/09/2013 06:15, Sandman wrote:
[]

Wasn't the whole point of that lens to provide pictures which were /not/
sharp, at least away from the centre?

 

Absolutely. I'm am talking about it not being as sharp as I would have
wanted in the center. Like this one:

http://tinyurl.com/qbpqd4f

There is no reason I can think of why this couldn't be sharp. It's
either the photographer or the lens here. The Bokeh is *fantastic* but
the subject is not anywhere near sharp enough to use for anything but
novelty. I can accept degrees of blurriness in a feature lens like this,
but this is over the top.

That said, some pics taken with the lens look just fine, like this one:

http://tinyurl.com/ng3dmbx

It's resized, but you can see the hair on her forehead which means that
the lens should be able to focus sharpe....ish

We'll see. I'll post about it when it arrives.

 

On 16/09/2013 09:13, Sandman wrote:
[]

[]

There looks to me to be (at least) some camera shake in that image - it
was taken at 1/80 according to the EXIF. These lenses are not image
stabilised, something many of may take for granted these days. But even
so, it's not so hot, is it? Might there be sample variation in these
lenses?

 

There looks to me to be (at least) some camera shake in that image - it
was taken at 1/80 according to the EXIF.[/QUOTE]

Indeed, but the blurriness is hardly due only to the shutter speed. But
then again, the image is unrealistically grainy for ISO 250. I have no
experience with the Canon 5D and perhaps it produces grainy pics at ISO
250?

For a 80mm lens? They do? I don't own a single IS 80~mm lens...

Maybe. This one was shot on august 27th, so it's a fairly recent sample.
This is another from the same day:

http://tinyurl.com/pfzohg5

1/100, ISO 200, still blurry as hell.

 

Indeed, but the blurriness is hardly due only to the shutter speed. But
then again, the image is unrealistically grainy for ISO 250. I have no
experience with the Canon 5D and perhaps it produces grainy pics at ISO
250?

For a 80mm lens? They do? I don't own a single IS 80~mm lens...

Maybe. This one was shot on august 27th, so it's a fairly recent sample.
This is another from the same day:

http://tinyurl.com/pfzohg5

1/100, ISO 200, still blurry as hell.[/QUOTE]

Let's hope you get the results you expect when yours arrives.

BTW: most kit lenses these days (18-55 mm DX) have stabilisation, as
does my 16-85 mm DX and 70-300 mm (used on DX format). The only non-IS
lenses I have are the 35/1.8 Nikon DX and 10-24 Tamron.

 

Let's hope you get the results you expect when yours arrives.[/QUOTE]

i do, too!

Indeed. All of those are zoom lenses, where IS is important.

Which, like the Petzval, is a prime lens. Obviously there are fixed tele
lenses with IS, but in the <100mm it's not really necessary. Especially
considering that most lenses in this categories are plenty fast as is.

Yes, few (if any?) wide zooms have IS. This is true of Nikons high-end
14-24 wide zoom as well.

 

On 9/16/2013 5:57 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:

The point is to make money for he manufacturer.
The effect is easily and uncontrollably reproducible with software.

 

Some lenses are made to take photographers, not pictures.

 

The point is to make money for he manufacturer.[/QUOTE]

Contrary to what product on planet earth?

Cool, could you please detail the process you use for the Petzval effect
in software?

 

Contrary to what product on planet earth?

Cool, could you please detail the process you use for the Petzval effect
in software?
[/QUOTE]


DxO FilmPack Creative Blur.

Topaz In Focus

Here is a very rough idea using just a selection, feathering and a
radial blur. Yes, I know I did not center the sharp area, but I did not
want to futz with it.

 

I forgot the link, and did not have an image of a girl in a rowboat. But
with some tweaking One can achieve a similar effect.

<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/savanah_0160.jpg>

 

I forgot the link, and did not have an image of a girl in a rowboat. But
with some tweaking One can achieve a similar effect.

<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/savanah_0160.jpg>[/QUOTE]

Wow. If you think that is a *similar effect* then there is nothing more
I can say. Enjoy your "easily and uncontrollably reproducible" Petzval
effect, Peter.

 

DxO FilmPack Creative Blur.[/QUOTE]

Not sure we have the same version, I have a "Creative blur vignetting",
I'm assuming that's the one you're talking about here.

I'm fiddling with the settings here, you weren't very specific, but try
as I might, I can't get it to only affect the background based on the
depth of field in the picture. How do you do it?

I can't find this in the filmpack at all. Is this a variable for the
"Creative Blur" above or is a separate setting?

 

There is always ONE that defies the rule

Sure, Macro lenses benefit from IS.

Me neither.

I love the bokeh on my Nikkor 85/1.4G. A good example is here:

http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/Bilderna_Framkallade

The color photo at the bottom.

Huh, never seen that in any of my IS lenses that I can remember. Here
are some quick test shots from the 80-400mm IS-lens from Nikon:

http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/Af-s_Nikkor_80-400mm_45-56g

While not particularly fantastic bokeh in itself, it doesn't look shaken
or duplicated as far as I can make out.

Portrait mostly. It's what it's for after all. I'm certain that it will
be a great lens for video as well in certain settings.

 

Wow. If you think that is a *similar effect* then there is nothing more
I can say. Enjoy your "easily and uncontrollably reproducible" Petzval
effect, Peter.
[/QUOTE]

Note I did not say that was a final effect. Only a start. Last night I
was getting my digital images ready for our CC competition. Today and
tomorrow I am doing my prints, and Friday through the weekend, I have
some priority things to handle.
Hint make a selection with a lot of feathering, then invert it. play
with the creative blur in FilmPack, then apply a sircular swirl, or
polar coordinate to the blur. There is no simple formula, you have to
play until you get an effect you like. As I said, I really did not
expect too much from the image I played with. Try using what I said.
while it won't be exact, you will get some interesting results.

 

se my resonse to Jonas.