[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 19 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]



File: Flashlight.jpg (298 KB, 1200x1090)
298 KB
298 KB JPG
https://kenrockwell.com/tech/flashlight-test.htm

Nothing pisses me off like morons putting a flashlight up to their lenses and being aghast when they don't look crystal clear.

Look, guys if you can hold a lens up to a standard house light and not see any noticeable scratches or haze these things are not going to have a noticeable impact on the final images taken with the lens. If you hold a flashlight up to a lens, it will show you everything potentially wrong with a lens but also will greatly over-exaggerate these flaws because you are putting way more light through the lens than even the sun will on a standard sunny day.
>>
>>3310145
No, older zooms have unrepairable balsam separation only seen with a flashlight but destroys sharpness
>>
>>3310175
>older zooms
and nothing of value was lost.
>>
If you're 30+ just look at all the shit that's floating around in your eyeballs! But, in a practical context, it's irrelevant because you just don't notice it unless you're looking for it specifically.
>>
>>3310145
Scratches and certain bubbles aren't really an issue. It's other things.
>>
>>3310182
Even haze under most circumstances isn't much of an issue.

Pretty much only separation is worrying.
>>
File: 1522544915384.jpg (310 KB, 1200x1000)
310 KB
310 KB JPG
>it is okay to have some dust and fiber on your sensor
>it is okay to have your ISO higher
>it is okay to have a little haze
>it is okay to have wiping scratches
>it is okay to have some separation
>>
What a weirdly specific thread.
>>
The worse your lens gets the bigger your lens hood will need to be to prevent glares from fucking things up. Then it gets to the point where nothing can help it.
>>
>>3310233
Do you even take any photos or do you just sperg over your gear getting dirty?
>>
>>3310176

>what is Vivitar Series 1 70-210 f3.5, designed by Ellis Betensky of NASA Apollo optics fame

kys yourself.
>>
>>3310393
>Vivitar Series 1 70-210 f3.5,
I had one of those when I was a wee lad learning the craft. It served it's purpose back then buy I wouldn't want one in this day and age
>>
>>3310397

I had one too and loved it, very sharp lens if you're on a manual focus system but let's not bullshit here not all old zoom lenses are shit.

If I absolutely had to use a telephoto zoom lens from the 1970s on my system though, that would be the one.
>>
>>3310175
>balsam
As in tree sap?!
>>
File: Untitled-1.jpg (2.31 MB, 4243x5304)
2.31 MB
2.31 MB JPG
>>3310145
Ahh so this is what anon's are doing with their time instead of going outside and taking good photos. Wasting their time gearfagging themselves using flash lights to inspect trival aspects of their equipment. Interesting!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2018:06:10 05:58:15
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width4243
Image Height5304
>>
File: IMG_20180519_082339911.jpg (2.15 MB, 2340x4160)
2.15 MB
2.15 MB JPG
Will the picture be affected if the lense looks like this?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Makemotorola
Camera ModelMoto G (5)
Camera Softwarecedric-user 7.0 NPPS25.137-93-8 10 release-keys
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:05:19 08:23:39
Exposure Time1/838 sec
F-Numberf/2.0
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating50
Lens Aperturef/2.0
BrightnessUnknown
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length3.59 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2340
Image Height4160
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationLow
SharpnessSoft
Geodetic Survey DataWGS-84
>>
>>3310320
Solid comeback, anon. If he ever answered you, I'd imagine your next comment would be, "Okay, show us your photos!" Then followed by, "These are shit!" for which you'd feel smug that you've won the argument over keeping your gear clean and unabused.
>>
>>3310928
take a fucking picture with it and find out
>>
>>3310928
Yes. You'd end up with less contrast and possibly visible flaring in some instances, probably while wide open. Though, it is only a f/3.4 so it wouldn't be too bad; compared to the same lens that could go to say f/1.4.
>>
>>3310927
at least they are not planning and committing crimes in their spare time. like other people do. would you know what I mean?
>>
>>3310928
Nah l have a lens with that same water etching, and it is just fine.
>>
>>3310233
>That photo
You came to the wrong McFucking neighborhood
>>
>>3310927
love pictures of random people's backs
>>
>>3310927
Yeah, that's great and all until you shoot through a roll of film and find fifty years of fungus and dust fogging up all the shots you took with that $700 vintage Leica lens you just bought.

Keep taking photos of the backs of peoples heads though. You know how much we love your snapshits, chosis.
>>
File: Service Station.jpg (238 KB, 2048x1285)
238 KB
238 KB JPG
>>3310927
I'm OP.

Here's a photo I took last month with a hazed up Zeiss-Opton 5cm 1.5 Sonnar on some expired Kodak Gold. I've seen your work, Chosis. This single photo of mine is better than the combined artistic imprint of your entire body of work. Maybe you should stick to what you do best, committing mail fraud.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.