Fresh out of the box (lens that is)

[Don Nelson]

Here's the first image from the new lens, fresh out of the box
5D3, Zeiss Distagon T* 35/f1.4 , f11, 1/5sec, no ND or polarizer (plenty dark in the rain here in the Pacific NW).
Literally - secret falls has once place to photograph - a rock on the side of the river reached by a climb down a muddy slope. So no hope of moving to left which would be my ideal spot. Someone needs to cut some branches on the top left of the falls but that's about 50 feet up the slope so I will leave that to someone more clever.
All comments are appreciated (I wish this forum would permit something vertical more than 800 pixels - that compresses a lot....)


(FYI: Better specs than the Canon versions; the ZF Nikon version has better specs than the Nikon lenses. Only the New Sigma 34/1.4 has better specs for f1.4-f2.8 and not better for F4+, and the difference is in the pincushion distortion is better in Sigma for F1.4-f2.8 which is correctable in raw for zeiss lens). Sigma lens has advantage of auto focus - Zeiss is manual. Both are meter coupled, etc. Sigma lens build quality seems less well built (feels cheap to me, but I have big hands ;-) ) than the Zeiss lens. Zeiss lens NOT built in Germany - it is likely Cosina built under Zeiss design specs in China. Zeiss focusing is silky smooth and very long in turns - a joy to fine focus).

[Don Nelson]

I should say that I usually do color 8x10 chromes of the waterfalls.
This one was made digitally so that I can convert it to a B&W inkjet negative to print in Platinum (hand coated wet chemistry on Platine paper and exposed under UV light vacuum table).
This is the target negative (before inverting and printing the negative on OHP using Cone selenium inks)

[dankearl]

Congrats on the new lens, Don.
Waterfall looks like Coast Range?
I actually prefer the B&W. As is my want, I would clone out the Sky patches in the BG.
I Might also add some contrast to the foliage only.

[Rachel Hollander]

Hi Don - congrats on the new lens. Looks like a good one. Nice control of the exp in the water and good use of the slow ss. If it were mine, I would dial back the sharpening on the surrounding foliage as it looks a little oversharpened and draws the eye away from the falls.

TFS,
Rachel

[Cheryl Slechta]

Hi, Don, I like the way the two channels of water intersect. Looks like a nifty lens.

[Morkel Erasmus]

Don, a nice lens to add to your collection! You know the scene and I don't, but as presented it does seem like the image can do with a slight CCW rotation? 1 degree? Just perspective wise (I can see the falls are level at the top).

Also, the colour version looks very "crunchy" - not sure what your sharpening settings are for web display?
The monochrome has potential for me - but I would try and tweak the tonal range a bit more...get deeper blacks and brighter brights?
WDYT?

[Andrew McLachlan]

Hi Don. congrats on the new lens...my preference is for the color version as presented here...agree with Morkel on the rotation tweak as well.

[Don Nelson]

Don, a nice lens to add to your collection! You know the scene and I don't, but as presented it does seem like the image can do with a slight CCW rotation? 1 degree? Just perspective wise (I can see the falls are level at the top).

Also, the colour version looks very "crunchy" - not sure what your sharpening settings are for web display?
The monochrome has potential for me - but I would try and tweak the tonal range a bit more...get deeper blacks and brighter brights?
WDYT?

Hi, Morkel
The camera was dead level -- both the 3d3 and 1dx have a nice level feature. And the water falling vertical, is actually vertical (catch the small falls off to the left - draw a ruler vertical (hold down the shift key) and the top of the falls is level. The trick your eye is playing is due to the nature of the falls - the water is being propelled out from the cliff from two directions. Its an optical illusion.

with respect to crunchy - I'm beginning to see that the posting software on BPN is making a mess of it. I've posted the same image, at the same size (800 high) over on a pbase account- open that and you will see its not "crunchy". Its hard to post something at a site where the posting software modifies the image ;-0. It makes creation of images unpredictable!

Take a look at http://www.pbase.com/donnelson/image/152888897 and tell me what you think ...

[Don Nelson]

And for those that are curious, here's an alternate view that I don't like as much -- too obscured.
This one is unprocessed, so just take it as a snapshot ;-) Its also taken with a leveled camera. This waterfall is at 52 foot drop from top to bottom

[Don Nelson]

Just for pixel peepers -- why is it when the same image gets posted on bpn, and then again on Pbase.....the image gets crunchy on one?
This is the upper right of both images -- and it is near pixel peeping.....
Are the two images posted similarly? look at the locations with the light red arrows...are they the same replication of the same original image?
Do we expect the one with more contrasty pixels adjacent to be overall a little more crunchy?
what do you think?

[Anette Mossbacher]

Hi Don, very nice image and for sure congrats on the fancy lens. Envy you
Rachel brought a good point with sharpening on the trees and bushes.

Have a great evening

Ciao
Anette

[Andrew McLachlan]

Hi Don, I actually think I prefer the alternate view a little more but might have swung the camera a little more to the right...assuming the forest on the right-side, out of view, would allow for it. Thanks for pointing out the optical illusion in the original post...not sure how reliable the Canon virtual horizon feature is, but a few days ago I noticed that on my D800 when I had my bubble level in the hot shoe and compared it to the virtual horizon feature. I was surprised to see that the virtual horizon indicator was actually off by a smidgen...guess I will rely on the old fashioned spirit level