Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] TOPE: Landscapes (or how not to use the 21/3.5)

Subject: Re: [OM] TOPE: Landscapes (or how not to use the 21/3.5)
From: "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 05:55:59 -0500

Mark,
I'm sure someone else has already spotted this and set you right but I'll
weigh in anyway.

Portra 160 in full sunlight on snow, I'm thinking correct exposure is 1/320
@ f/16 for a front-lit subject.

According to my referemces, this is correct . . . direct frontal lighting on bright snow or sand is a "sunny-22" rule due to increased land . . . er, ummm snowscape . . . reflectivity. Bracketing would make one at 1/250th and one at 1/500th, the closer of the two being 1/250th if only one is possible.

I agree with someone a prior posting to examine the negatives under magnification. Printers, particularly with automagic machines that try to make everything average to 18 0ray, running on pure automagic mode, tend to blow out light sand and snow with print underexposure (from negatives; light makes negative film/print black).

Additionally, most find it requires some experience working with focal lengths shorter than 24mm; the break point being about that length. The AOV becomes so wide that both visualization is more difficult (much different from normal human experience) and composition is more difficult (something of interest that can occupy a very large field of view). The usual problems are too much foreground "dead space" and/or objects present in middle or background that are distracting from the intended subject material.

The "super-wide" perspectives of 21mm and shorter are not for everything. My test for this is a scan of the scene from top to bottom and left to right, looking for something of visual interest from very close to distant with emphasis on the very close. For a new super-wide user, specifically evaluating the close objects may seem a little upside-down. The perspective makes distant objects relatively smaller and closer objects relatively bigger than than the human eye sees them. The resulting image tends to emphasize and draw more attention to closer ones due to their relative size unless there's something to "pull" the eye elsewhere. YMMV as this is specific scene dependent.

Don't give up on the super-wide; work with it and give yourself a chance to learn how to visualize for it. When it works well, the results are dramatic.

-- John


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz