Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Ah, Bokeh! Or is it Hokey?

Subject: [OM] Re: Ah, Bokeh! Or is it Hokey?
From: "Earl Dunbar" <edunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:44:54 -0400
When I switch between the two images fairly quickly, I can sense my eyes 
adjusting to the difference in the bokeh, specifically the contrast, as I focus 
on the area just to the left of Smokey's upraised arm.  The first one (which I 
presume is the Zuiko), has more contrast, is a bit more pronounced, and the 
edges are ever so slightly softer.  This give the shot more depth, IMO.   Also, 
if you look at the diagonal highlight just to the right of the shoulder, you'll 
see the second shot renders this area slightly "sharper".

Colour appears to be slightly different, too, but this may be a (very) slight 
difference in exposure; the second shot is perhaps 1/6 less exposed.  And the 
images are not =exactly= the same size.

Earl

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 8/26/2004 at 4:12 PM hiwayman@xxxxxxx wrote:

>Last summer I did a short series (about half a roll of Provia 100F) of
>test shots to compare the 90/2 Zuiko and the 90/2.8 Tamron macros.  I
>couldn't tell any real difference.  Now, since the bokeh subject has
>reared its fuzzy head again, and because the 90/2 Zuiko is said by many to
>have the most wonderful bokeh, I'm putting up a couple of shots, one taken
>with each lens.  About the only things these lenses have in common is that
>they both have nine-blade diaphragms.
>
>These are straight scans, with no sharpening or other adjustments
>whatsoever, of a deliberatly chosen "difficult" subject in fairly harsh
>lighting.  For some reason, although scanned at 2700 d.p.i. before being
>JPGed down to 800 pixels wide, they look kinda "soft."  I promise, though,
>that they are equally sharp and have oodles of detail.  But anyway, I'm
>doing this only for the bokeh, so "soft" don't much matter.
>
>If anybody can see any difference, I hope they'll 'splain it to me.  I
>guess I'm just not all that sensitive, because bokeh has never been that
>important to me.  Unless it's really bad and/or the subject is really
>boring, I usually don't even notice it.
>
>http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-724214.html
>http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-724215.html
>
>Walt, the bokeh clod
>
>--
>"Anything more than 500 yards from 
>the car just isn't photogenic." -- 
>Edward Weston
>==============================================
>List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
>List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>==============================================




==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

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