beauty seen through a shop window

[Frank F.]

I found some very nice artsy items in Gary's house and went to a little shop in Orange to see if I can find presents for my wife.

The gallery owner was not present, although it was in the middle of her opening hours. Pity. Now I have to have these mail ordered and shipped to Germany!

I really, really hope these are not sold yet...

 

[SquarePeg]

Those look wonderful.

 

[Frank F.]

Even if I cannot buy them I will still have the pictures....

 

[tirediron]

Nicely spotted.

 

[Frank F.]

Thank you. I love the 1.4/35 Ai-S @f=1.4 ... superb dreamy rendering!

 

[The_Traveler]

Why the very shallow DOF with only the figure's waist in focus?

 

[Frank F.]

Dreamy is the goal here. If I wanted hard definition I'd take another approach

 

[The_Traveler]

But the waist is in focus and not 'dreamy'.

 

[Frank F.]

Some people are like birds, they pick and pick and pick, even when there is nothing to pick.

How about lean back & enjoy the show?

 

[The_Traveler]

Frank, You want us to see the picture you have in your mind, with all its allusions.

All we can see are the pictures you post here for C/C.
Believe me, if these were great, I would not even notice mistakes.
If you don't want to hear about the blemishes just post in the just-for-fun forum.

 

[Tim Tucker]

The dolls do look great. But to be honest I don't think it is the 35/1.4 but the skill of the person who set them. The first one has a lovely flow, I just wish you had used f2.8, kept the front of the dress out of focus but more of the mannequin in? You should still easily maintain background separation at the focus distance you were using.
Also there's a fair amount of CA even at these low resolutions, easily removed. That's the trouble with these old MF Nikkor wide angles, there're not as good as modern ones in that their region of great performance is quite narrow in comparison, they really show their flaws at the limits.
With this lens go for f2.8-f5.6 with close focus and then it really shines. I have an early 'K' 50/1.4 on a D600 which is a better lens than the 35/1.4, but still you only get away with f1.4 in low light on film, the lens only cuts it from f2-f8 with digital.

If you don't see the CA, (if it's not hitting you in the face), when you look at these then you have to question whether you're looking closely enough. And if you're not looking closely enough is the dreamy illusion more your projection of what you want to see than what's actually there, (the kudos of f1.4...)? An interesting question. But please try f2.8 with this lens and review with a fair and critical eye, because the benchmark for f1.4 has moved far beyond anything this lens can deliver.

 

[Advanced Photo]

Very nice images there. I did notice the chromatic aberration on the leg especially in no. 1. Was that caused by the additional layer of glass?
Good images regardless.

 

[Advanced Photo]

Frank, You want us to see the picture you have in your mind, with all its allusions.

All we can see are the pictures you post here for C/C.
Believe me, if these were great, I would not even notice mistakes.
If you don't want to hear about the blemishes just post in the just-for-fun forum.

More advice from someone that can't take advice.

 

[The_Traveler]

Say something intelligent or useful about about my work and I'll be happy to listen but very surprised.

And what was your name and website again?

 

[Advanced Photo]

Say something intelligent or useful about about my work and I'll be happy to listen but very surprised.

And what was your name and website again?

Puddin Tame, ask me again and I'll tell you the same. I offered you useful and intelligent comments but you are too full of yourself to listen. Your loss really.