If only the sun set behind the church, I could make it work, or, if the street was dark
Taking photos is a mechanical skill but making them good to the eyes can often be more akin to art. I know it sounds pretentious but it's kinda true.
You can torch it for the sake of... ehrm additional lighting.
Try to avoid making horizon in the middle, landscape pictures prefer to have ratios, like 1/3, it would help the composition.
Dudes, don't overcomplicate things in LR. The more you do, often the more harm you cause. Basically JPG's made in good lighting conditions, with modern glass is made to be usable for starter type cameras, as a definition(think of an smartphone). Having high resolution, need for lens corrections, bad light, noise, aberrations etc etc camera CPU will NEVER ever be able to handle RAW conversion on the fly. The sensor development, resolution is league ahead of the mobile CPU powers and the gap will remain. Camera has to take shots and be ready at any moment to do so. For cameras the JPG processor is not a priority for sure, actually JPG should die soon, that's another discussion, albeit fit for this place. Cameras will not compete with phones, what are they doing best, generating Instagram pics.
Mechanical skill and art share many things. Our perception of things isn't something that abstract, it is described and already automated(AUTO MODE), especially taking into consideration neural networks. Basically, can you call mathematics art? Yes in certain way, as you can always get the solution going through various routes and methods, formulas, that process is art for me sure, but the result itself often ain't. But in the end... the photographer itself matters, how he uses and has mastered its tool.
Okay... something from me too... I got my hands on some Vintage lenses.
The first one is Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm F2.8
. Got on fleabay for 30€, the Englishman described it was fully working, and of Horse it wasn't. It had a bump and kinda suspected that. Anyways, took the sucker apart, straightened the barrel, fixed aperture blades and cleaned optics... as you the the first pic with the ammonia bottle, I didn't have any fungus it, but was worth cleaning still.
It is the cheapest Zeiss lens actually, and for a reason. 4 elements in 3 groups. No coating. Many internet reviewers claim the lens is very sharp. I wonder what kind of crap they used before. It ain't bad, but it ain't stellar for sure. It cannot resolve sensor sizes past 12mpx wide open actually. For FB it doesn't matter thou. If you use it on cropped sensors, you might get the best center area of the glass, thus kinda avoiding the corner softness and distortion, but end up into sharpness problem. Many do not take this phenomenon into account actually... but okay, seldom who shoots vintage glass anyway. Bokeh has a tendency to swirliness, but not in the Biotar scale. It gets nervous on many focus lengths like in the third pic, you have to know this thing and fight it, because it ain't my taste. Contrast falls enormously with light sneaking into the glass directly, even if is scattered from ground. The lens gets sharpest at F8 and F11, past those diffraction kicks in. Oh well, so I let it hit the dust on the shelf now.
I took another oldie with me that day... and it was AUTO REVUENON 55mm F1.4
(Imho Tomioka made), rumored to be planar design knock off. I had compared this lens and it performs much better than any Russian
Biotar design for sure. As usally F1.4 is not usable for any vintage glass, see the 4th pic, but stepped down it ain't that bad, at F4 it starts to look clean. Colours are good, it has some primitive coating. Aberrations are bad thou, very pronunciated, so it can screw a good shot actually, so I don't have many keepers from this glass.
On the walk home I got fed up, and put my second lens and calmed down. Contax Zeiss Sonnar 135mm F2.8 MMJ
. It has the T*, that historically came from Honeywell and SR-71 program, to HFT coating at Rollei and only then to Zeiss as T*, not vice versa, they had a trade deal back in the day, so QBM got Zeiss design glass.
It is razor sharp as you see with the Cuban police lady, even wide open it is respectable, see my mouse, the focusing is so smooth and easy, you really get to use it, not relying on autofocus it really matters. Aberrations are there, but calmed down past F4 greatly, depending on the scene. The colours... It is Kubrick and the Shining, there is nothing more to add, it renders it the Zeiss way. There was no LR in the days, the post processing magic was done already by the glass. Bokeh is creamy and well controlled as you see in pic7. No schizophrenia. It is a steady second glass that I always carry around. And it made in the 1970ties. I have to mention, their over the Berlin Wall Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135mm F3.5
is a stunner too, it does have the same sharpness(sample variation tho), the optical formula delivers, the coatings are worse, but still, it is there and can be obtained fairly cheap, their blades do get stuck, but an easy fix, if your hands grow out of the right place...
My daily driver is 24mm F1.4 G Master lens btw... I haven't got hold of anything, that tops it at that length on any platform. I haven't found a really weak spot for it, it fast, colors are superb, light... So... in the end of a day... yeah... there's art for sure... but the glass still matters...
I hope with Robot Zombie, we don't hang up TPU with such long posts lol. I hope you got the idea from the pics, they really differ and deliver different results in many disciplines. Also using them is a matter of getting used to. But at least it's fun...