At 07:56 AM 5/28/2005, you wrote:
>I liked the lilac quite a bit. You must have used a fairly small stop to
>get the spray in good focus, but there is still reasonably good blur.
>
>I'll bet the original slides are corkers.
>
>Joel W.
Thanks Joel . . .
Yes, the slides look better than I could get from flatbed scanning cheap
4x6 prints of the slides. The detail level is reasonable and color
accuracy quite good, but it leaves them "flat" looking compared to the
projected slide . . . and to what I know Ilfochrome prints would look like.
The lilac shot was problematic. I knew it would be a depth of field
nightmare . . . as you guessed. Had to find a spray that didn't have
anything that close behind it and located one near the bottom of the
shrub. It was so close to the ground I had to invert the tripod center
post and mount the camera upside down suspended under the tripod. Composed
it so the film plane was parallel to the spray's stem to reduce the DOF
required. Even with the vari-magnifinder I was crawling on the ground to
compose it. Back-focused slightly from the front of the spray (using the
stem), bracketed the DOF with the three tightest lens apertures, and
prayed. It looked OK through the vari-magnifinder when using DOF preview,
but for slide projection and potentially large prints, it's still difficult
to see whether or not it's deep enough. It was one of the longer tripod
setups I've been through.
Thanks,
-- John Lind
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|