Has she forgiven you yet?
The main problem with full fish portraits is avoiding that look - the
one that says - 'the lens is 5cm from my nose - what ARE you doing?'
Then there's the difficulty of keeping your own feet out of it, hey
Wayne?
I think that your example is deficient in the internal paintwork - I
haven't seen other users complain and that effect would certainly
cause complaint! Looks like reflection from the edge of the front
element back on to the film due to poor element edge paint. Or none.
It is repairable in Photoshop - at the same time as you are masking
out the edge effects (and your feet) - but it isn't acceptable. Too
late to return it?
AndrewF
On 05/06/2005, at 4:53 PM, Wayne Harridge wrote:
> Here's an image which demonstrates this lens's weaknesses pretty well
> (warning 1.4Mbyte file):
>
> http://lrh.structuregraphs.com/images/cn35-817-17-a.jpg
>
> You can see the flare at the bottom of the frame from the bright
> sky. Note
> also that on a 35mm frame it's not exactly a circular image, a
> small amount
> is cropped from the top & bottom (evidently the lens was originally
> designed
> for some strange Russian camera which had film the full width of
> standard
> 35mm but without the sprocket holes).
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
