I recently acquired a noctilux and thought I would share this image since the out-of-focus areas are so much unlike that of my 50 micron.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=672922

-- Don M (maldos@cox.net), April 02, 2002

Answers

I leica it! Sorry, had to.

Cute pup. Looks real vicious. What's his name?

Could you post similar shot with the 50 'cron, so we can see side-by- side difference in bokeh? That would be fun.

Please, no more scary beasts like that one! I'm going to have nightmares! ;)

-Ramy

-- Ramy (rsadek@cs.oberlin.edu), April 02, 2002.

After reading a number of Noctilux-related posts and seeing the pictures I am learning to associate that "swirly bokeh" with this lens. It seems rather painterly, like maybe Van Gogh. Nice shot, Don.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), April 02, 2002.

Thanks for the view. This is becoming my favorite lens that I don't own. Hmmm: do I sell the Hasselblads? What's the market for a 6 mth old Mac G4??

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), April 02, 2002.

Nice shot and nice composition. Nice DoF and bokeh, of course. The dog's left eye and left ear area are too dark on my monitor (no fur detail visible in that critically sharp region of the focus plane, which so wonderfully contrasts with the out of focus areas), I wonder how a FB warm-tone print would look, but that is the problem with computers and digital images, we only see a digital facsimile of the art work. I would be interested in seeing a full (24x36mm) negative print so I could see how you cropped it. I'm guessing you centered the dog when you focused and snapped the picture, and then did the crop on the right side to improve compositional balance, yes?

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), April 02, 2002.

Nice one ...real cool tone..

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

Dan, Actually the full image is off-centered with more negative space on the left. The entire background is is same out-of-focus area of that which is seen. I felt that it just looked better in a more square format, I guess I still miss my Hassy (on occasion. BTW, his name is Truman. Don

-- Don M (maldos@cox.net), April 02, 2002.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=672922

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), April 02, 2002.

I'm a great fan of selective focus, but I find the OOF here excessive and disconcerting, and the Bokeh bad.

-- Willhelmn (wmitch3400@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

Bill, you know I love you, you old pudge, you call 'em the way you see 'em. But, I think you missed it on the bokeh aspect of this shot. Were looking at a flippin' digitization of a great negative. The image looks completely different at the office (iMac CRT) and at home (iBook TFT). [Have I mentioned my MicroSoft replusion lately?] Like I said, give me the neg and a coupled of hours in the darkroom with a packet of 11x14 of Ilford FB matte warm tone and I'll make a piece of art out of this shot.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), April 02, 2002.

Don, I do know better than to comment on Bokeh from digital scans. I shall try to refrain from doing so again. Jesus, it's been a bad day -- I already apologized once for confusing a Thambar with a Hektor. Forgive me. Please. I'm sure a real print would be stunning.

-- Willhelmn (wmitch3400@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

Willhelmn, No offense has been taken. Actually I find the whole topic quite interesting. I, by no means, profess to be a professional photographer, just a serious amateur who must practice medicine, on occasion, in order to do those things in life which bring me joy.

Regards, Don

-- Don M (maldos@cox.net), April 03, 2002.