Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Steve's site

Subject: Re: [OM] Steve's site
From: "Kierstin" <2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 10:50:51 +0100
I have meant to respond to this since I got it, but forgot.  MOOSE, this
chat has helped me a lot.  I didn't know any of these things and obviously
they are all VERY important to the process.

I hope that there are other 'newbies' out there as green as I am, that are
also benefiting from all the knowledge shared here (without looking as
stupid as me)

I really do appreciate all this direction, I feel quite lucky actually, as I
am sure that a lot of you old dogs learned these things the hard way, but
are helping us young pups not to.

Kierstin
----- Original Message -----
From: "dreammoose" <dreammoose@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 2:53 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] Steve's site


>     so do you mean that I wouldn't be able to get as clear a shot with a
>     cheaper lens, even though it covers the same range?
>     Are you also saying that with a cheaper lens I will be restricted to
>     the size I can enlarge image, due to true quality of image?
>
> Yes and yes:
>
> Think cars - a KIA doesn't perform the same as a Mercedes; or pans- thin
> aluminum doesn't perform the same as thick copper, etc.,etc. Well,
> photography can be at least as complicated as cars, more so in the sense
> that so many bits can be interchanged. Yes, with better lens (more $),
> fine grain film (slower), tripod for many shots ($, time, weight), and
> so on, larger and/or sharper prints may be made. However, as Warren and
> I pointed out, any brand name lens should provide perfectly fine results
> for standard 4x6 or 5x7 prints.
>
> Another other thing that may not be clear to you yet is that the
> aperture at which the lens is used can have a considerable effect on
> image quality. This 300mm lens might make pretty soft looking pictures
> at f5.6 when blown up to 8x10 and nice sharp ones at f/11. Also, it will
> be difficult to hold a 300mm steady without a tripod - unless you shoot
> wide open, in bright light, with fast film - but then the film grain and
> lens softness will compromise sharpness/detail.
>
> That stuff on TV where they enlarge the detail on a security tape that's
> been recorded 200 times from a $50 camera with 3 years of dust on the
> lens until they can get a nice clear picture of the shadowed suspect's
> face makes for wonderful fiction, but is really magic, the creation of
> something that isn't there. Computer enhancement can improve the look of
> an image, but can't create imformation that isn't there. There are
> limitations to the amount of detail a given lens can resolve and limits
> to the amount of detail any given film can record. Once the shot is
> taken and film developed, that's it, the limit of what can be done with
> the image is set.
>
> Would I be able to tell while I was taking the photo (focusing for shot)
> that it would not be clear or does it happen in the development stage of
the
> game?
>
>
> You can't tell how sharp the picture will be in the viewfinder for a
> couple of reasons. First, the magnification in the viewfinder just isn't
> sufficient and the ground glass where the image is formed si too coarse
> to see such detail. Second, when you are viewing and focusing, the lens
> is wide open to give you enough light to see to focus. When the shutter
> release is pressed, the diaphram blades are stopped down to the selected
> aperture (see above about aperture and sharpness). On lenses for Olympus
> OM cameras there is a little button on the lens down near the self timer
> that stops the lens down to view depth of field, but it doesn't help
> with evaluating the sharpness of the lens.
>
>     This is all VERY important, I never realised there were so many
>     variables in photography and end result quality. I thought that the
>     quality of image
>     would be about the same with all of the equipment in a range
>     (telephoto/etc..) and that the 'bells & whistles involved with each
lens
>     would increased with price.
>
>     OH NO, what other 'must know' facts I am lacking? It looks like
>     there is a lot more to learn than I ever imagined.
>
> Photography is a dance with light where the limitations of physics,
> current technology and our pocketbooks set the tune. Maybe that's why
> it's so endlessly facinating for many of us. I suppose that' why most
> photographers are seldom bored, but often short of cash.
>
> Don't despair, you can take really nice pictures with modest equipment.
> You don't have to know all that much of the endless possible knowledge
> about photography to take good pictures. Time spent taking pictures is a
> better teacher than time taken reading about taking pictures.
>
> Moose
>
>
>
> < 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 >
>
>


< 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