tdekany
Veteran
- Location
- Portland OR
Indeed beautiful, what I would like to see is the SOOC pictures - if it was manipulated in any shape or form. That is how I judge a picture. However, the composition:5*s!!!!
Tann is The Man with that LX5 - these are, as are so many of your photographs, simply exquisite.
Normally, I keep up with you on Flickr but for the past couple of months I've fallen way behind. Thanks so much for weighing in with your photos. It's good to see you and your images again around here, Tann.
Those are pretty shots. As you say, it's the driver and not the car. You could have probably gotten the same with most P&S cameras. Why is a majority of LX5 "beauty" shots are B&W?
Why do I want high ISO? Because the LX5 is advertised as a good low light camera attributing the bright F2 lens and high ISO. Unfortunately, that bright F2 lens is attached to a sensor that has poor high ISO performance defeating it's low light abilities. So if I'm missing the point, then so is Panasonic.
Hmmm.... let's just say that I don't think the 'majority' of LX5 beauty shots are B&W; I've seen no data that would indicate that, and it runs counter to my experience.
Huh. I've never seen it advertised as that, myself. However, what I do find is that there are many, many other aspects/qualities of the LX5 that far outweigh the fact that it isn't really great at 1600 (or higher).
Well... in this thread alone. It was 8 B&W versus 6 color until you posted your response to my last post. You yourself decided to post B&W shots in defense of the LX5. Why didn't you post color ones first?
Hm.. I don't know how you missed it. Straight from the horse's mouth.
"The f/2.0 lens is about twice as bright as the f/2.8 lens, itself generally considered a bright lens. The result is higher shutter speed can be used to capture stunningly clear, sharp, blur-free images in lower lighting situation."
"the maximum setting is ISO 12800*2 enabling shooting in extremely dark places."
DMC-LX5 | PRODUCTS | LUMIX | Digital Camera | Panasonic Global
I guess Panasonic does really miss the point of it's own product.
Everything I do is edited at least a little. The first two of the shots on this page were shot raw and converted - I don't recall doing much to them, but I no doubt tweaked them. The rest were jpegs (shot before there was raw support for the camera on the Mac). The third and fifth were pretty much straight out of camera. The fourth was reprocessed a few months ago in Color Efex Pro. The B&W were all converted with Silver Efex Pro and I tend to work 'em a bit when I convert. But I'd do the same basic stuff if I'd shot em with a full frame DSLR - I didn't do anything to them specifically because of anything to do with the LX5.
-Ray
for any camera when the shot is not SOOC. To me that shows the person's PP skills, not what the camera can actually do.
if one takes a picture and the quality looks nothing like what one has seen from other users, he/she will be very discouraged.
Not about friends or enemies and no reason to apologize, but you make what I believe is fundamentally a philosophical point, so please indulge me as I address it that way.I realize I will make very few friends when I express my dislike for "supporting shots" (NOT YOURS in this thread, just in general) for any camera when the shot is not SOOC. To me that shows the person's PP skills, not what the camera can actually do.
So I apologize for that.
I realize I will make very few friends when I express my dislike for "supporting shots" (NOT YOURS in this thread, just in general) for any camera when the shot is not SOOC. To me that shows the person's PP skills, not what the camera can actually do.
So that's it? You're basing your entire statement on the content of this thread? LOL. OK.
I dunno. I can make it take pretty good pics in low light.
And that text is rather undefined, as 'lower lighting situation' isn't a specific term, and they didn't say that the ISO 12,800 shots would be any good, just that the camera was 'enabled' to shoot in 'extremely dark places'.
Who would buy a camera with a sensor of this size and type and expect anything useful, whatsoever, at 12,800?
Send it back. It's obviously not the right tool for you.
I liked that little camera a lot and miss it. I may just buy another one now that they're so inexpensive.
-Ray
I do appreciate your reply Ray.
I realize I will make very few friends when I express my dislike for "supporting shots" (NOT YOURS in this thread, just in general) for any camera when the shot is not SOOC. To me that shows the person's PP skills, not what the camera can actually do.
So I apologize for that.
On the other hand, in all other cases I have ZERO issues with what people do with their own pictures as long as it is stated that the photos are not SOOC when they put their pictures in threads. Otherwise, I feel that it is a disservice to all who are new to the camera or photography. Because if one takes a picture and the quality looks nothing like what one has seen from other users, he/she will be very discouraged. m2c
Wouldn't it be awesome if both types of pictures were shown by members? So that newbies like myself with very limited photo skills could learn from?
OK - Rant over.
I completely agree. It would be useful if people would post the SOOC shot of the same scene along with the processed shot in threads like this.