Diversity of Photos for Reviews, Photographic Sameness, Colorful Subjects
Feedback is always welcome, and it hits home when it echoes my own sentiments:
I understand the considerations of "getting things done" and the technical requirements for subject matter, but diglloyd.com is starting to feel like a place you go to see photos of trees, moss, leaves, muddy streams, the mosaic. It isn't that the photos are unsuccessful for illustrating the concepts you're trying to communicate, it's that the monotony distances the publications from why we take photos in the first place.
and:
Could you PLEASE take some sample shots of colorful subjects (strong reds, yellows, etc) and variations of bright highlight/backlight situations. The forest shots are ideal soft lighting scenes, and no use to me.
but:
Just a quick comment on your "dull color" comments. I'd like you to know that there are some of us who don't feel that way. I've been stuck with a low contrast 18-200 nikon lens for the past 3 years and know just what that can produce in dull lighting. So the pictures you bring back in those conditions are awe inspiring to me. It's easy to shoot a nice picture in fabulous light, but really tough in the rain. The pictures in your recent posts are a proof of the quality of both photographer and lens.
Some of this feedback echoes how I feel about 8 weeks of incessant rain and the same type of subject matter. The passes are closed until late spring, it’s a long drive to the mountains, the weather has been terrible for travel, the flowers are not yet out, and well, things are pretty much green here. It’s a minimum 2+ hour round trip to anywhere interesting in San Francisco. As for strong reds and yellows, they’re hard to come by as yet. But all that is changing now as the weather has broken to 80° temperatures.
I suppose if I were still living in Wisconsin, then my photos would be dominated by snow and ice and water. If I lived in New York, I’d have a lot more options, but where I live, there is very little variety even in a 30 mile radius of my home.
I’m just as frustrated at the subject matter right now, and it’s been a nagging background itch that I haven’t scratched.
Staging
My first goal with the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 Distagon was to nail down its behavior in a technical sense, because the main question I’ve received about the 35/1.4 has been “should I get the 35/2 or 35/1.4?”. Almost an invariant.
Remember, if one does not understand the lens behavior technically, making images can be prone to frustration with sub-optimal results. Hence while I prefer ad-hoc handheld shooting a variety of material, when I note peculiarities I do like to nail down my technical understanding first, so as to educate myself on exploiting the behavior of a lens: focusing, field curvature, etc. See Making Sharp Images.
In fact, just yesterday I received an email from a frustrated 35/1.4 Distagon user, illustrating just how important technical aspects can be to expectations and results.
So I set out to answer key optical performance questions first, which is a rather dry technical matter. I consider that investigation mostly closed at this point, and my thoughts will appear later today in a new page in my review. I will repeat some of that approach against the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G when I have the Zeiss ZF.2 35/1.4 Distagon for Nikon in hand in 6-8 weeks.
Now I look forward to shooting a wider variety of material and different subjects, which is by far my preferred way of shooting.
Canon 5D Mark II + Zeiss ZE 35mm f/1.4 Distagon
