At 08:40 PM 5/28/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>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
Wow, I had no idea, but I'm not surprised. This sort of subject is all
about backgrounds, isn't it? Anyone can get a reasonably sharp flower
photo, but the background usually has some sort of problem, particularly
because most flowers, being three-dimensional, are not as pleasing if shot
with a really shallow DOF. IMHO of course! :)
Joel W.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|