Zuiko 50/1.8 pics

[Michael Fraley]

Hi All,

I recently bought a Zuiko 50/1.8 for my OM-2000 camera. This is from the first roll. I like how light this lens is on the camera, compared to a zoom. This is Kodak Gold 200.



and another...

[k38]

Very nice clouds! Lens looks like a champ.

Dwight

[doubs43]

fraley said:

Hi All, I recently bought a Zuiko 50/1.8 for my OM-2000 camera. This is from the first roll. I like how light this lens is on the camera, compared to a zoom. This is Kodak Gold 200.

Michael, I wouldn't be surprised to find that you grow attached to the Zuiko lens. I own almost all focal length Zuikos from 21mm through 200mm and none have disappointed me.

My wife and I spent a few days with our son and his family over Christmas and I took an OM-1 and an OM-2n with me. I have three or four rolls of film to be developed as soon as I can get them to the camera shop. I'll post a few when I get the negatives back and can scan them.

Walker

[John Parry]

Yes - those work very nicely!

Regards - John

[Michael Fraley]

Thanks everyone! Walker, I'll look forward to seeing your pictures posted too...

[GeneW]

Michael, these shots look really good! Nothing quite like a first-rate prime. Looking forward to more.

Gene

[herron]

Looks like you have a winner.

One comment: Is that "Roberts Motel" shot a section of a larger image...? There seems to be much more grain (or noise, as they say nowadays) than in that first one.

Or maybe it's just my monitor.....

It's a neat shot. I love the birds perched around the edge!

[Michael Fraley]

Hi Ron Head, nice kit, generous of you to give your OM-1 away too. Still in the family, though, huh?

Hi Ron Herron, there is a lot of grain which surprised me. Most of the roll wasn't like that. I took a slightly underexposed negative and increased the contrast -- actually 'auto adjust levels' in MS Picture It!
That was the result. No cropping, that's full frame.

Cheers,
Michael

[GeneW]

Michael, I find that any underexposed frames in C41 films tend to get grainy. Sometimes I apply a touch of noise reduction (I use Noise Ninja) to smooth it out. But other times, like this one, I like the grain and leave it alone.

Gene

[herron]

Actually, it's a rather nice effect. I like the shot anyway, with its pleasing composition, the birds, and the dramatic lighting on the cloud contrasting so nicely with that darker sky. I was just curious about the grain, since they came from the same roll.

[herron]

genew said:

Michael, I find that any underexposed frames in C41 films tend to get grainy. Sometimes I apply a touch of noise reduction (I use Noise Ninja) to smooth it out. But other times, like this one, I like the grain and leave it alone.

Gene

Gene:
I use PhotoShop CS to work on my images, but I've never tried anything like Noise Ninja. Is it really effective? What kind of effect would it have on scanned images? I have a lot of old family snapshots from the 60s/70s that I would like to clean up.

Unfortunately, all I have are the prints, not the negatives. Most are only 4x6, and a lot of them are printed on the satin or textured commercial prints that were popular for snapshots back then. Most are also a little soft in focus.

When I scan them, I get LOTS of noise all through them, and nothing I try in PS seems to help.

[GeneW]

herron said:

Gene:
I use PhotoShop CS to work on my images, but I've never tried anything like Noise Ninja. Is it really effective? What kind of effect would it have on scanned images? I have a lot of old family snapshots from the 60s/70s that I would like to clean up.

Ron, I'm not sure how much it would help. It definitely helps on images scanned from negs if there's too much grain aliasing or whatever.

There are two very good products for Windows -- Noise Ninja and Neat Image. I've had luck with both but purchased NN because I could also get a Linux version of it.

Neat Image offers a 'personal edition' or something like that for free. It's worth downloading it and checking it out on your scans. Here's the URL:

www.neatimage.com/

Gene