I can't supply any nudes but if you're willing to go with a zoom 28mm is
available for the 645. Here's the information page from Ricoh.
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/lens/645/wide/hdpentax-da645-28-45/
On 9/16/2018 7:49 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
Jostein wrote on 9/15/18 6:13 PM:
Inspired by Larrys work, I wanted to explore the options with the 645Z.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alunfoto/44656069202/in/dateposted-public/
Very nice.
With no large-aperture wide-angle for that system, the ISO must be
stretched pretty far to make the dust lanes in the galaxy appear.
To get the same AoV of my 24 on the K-1 you'd need 36 on the 645Z. Do
remember that the ones I posted were stitched panoramas. Interesting,
I tried poking around on ebay and the wide angle options seem to be
35 f3.5 or 45mm f/2.8
https://www.ebay.com/sch/3323/i.html?_fsrp=1&_nkw=pentax+645+wide+angle&_sacat=3323&_from=R40&rt=nc&Mount=Pentax
KEH doesn't really show anything else
https://www.keh.com/shop/lenses/pentax-645-a--pentax-645-fa--pentax-67-.html?multi=true
I'm rather surprised by this.
From looking at Larrys shots, I believed the quality of the
foreground would be the decisive factor for whether a result would be
print worthy.
It is my experience that photos of just the sky get very boring very
quickly, even if it's an amazing image of the sunset, milky way etc.
And as far as the night sky goes, there is nothing I can do that you
can't download better versions of from the Hubble archives. I always
try to put something interesting in front of a pretty sky.
With that in mind, I took an extra long exposure at a lower ISO and
smaller aperture to see if they could be combined effectively in post.
That turned out to be more finicky than I had hoped, even with no
fluttering vegetation to move between or during exposures. Or maybe
I'm just too tired to be efficient now (it's 3 am).
I haven't yet experimented much with lighting my subject on the ground
when putting the sky in the background.
Here's one I did in Rhyolite outside of Death Valley
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/11770425926/in/album-72157639425946344/
Anyway, I think the technique may have some merit for the right kind
of foreground.
I'd like to try it with nudes, as has been observed a nude in the
foreground can improve a photo with almost any background. There are
some major depth of field challenges there. But I suppose that someone
with focus stacking software could do two fifteen second exposures,
with the foreground subject lit with a flash and one image focused on
the foreground and the other focused on the background, and let the
focus stacking software sort out which frame to grab which heavenly
bodies from.
Sky exposed for 15 seconds at f/4.5 and ISO 12800.
Foreground exposed for 8 minutes at f/8 and ISO 800.
Tonal PP done in LR. Pasted the two together in photoshop.
Jostein
--
America wasn't founded so that we could all be better.
America was founded so we could all be anything we damn well please.
- P.J. O'Rourke
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
