Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Nature Photography

Subject: [OM] Re: Nature Photography
From: hiwayman@xxxxxxx (Walt Wayman)
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:29:06 +0000
As much as I might wish to bask in the glow of Chuck's generous praise and 
claim for my own such an astute observation, I cannot in good conscience do so. 
 The quote regarding the angle of coverage is by Ken Norton, from his 
surrebuttal to my rebuttal to the apparent consensus that this photograph is 
genuine.

I do, however, have one good eye, and the other one's fair to middlin'.  And I 
remain unanimously unconvinced about the genuineness off the picture, lens 
angles and sensor sizes and such nothwithstanding. 

Walt

--
"Anything more than 500 yards from 
the car just isn't photogenic." -- 
Edward Weston

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Walt's got a good eye.  The horizontal coverage of a 10.5mm lens on an 
> APS size sensor is 110 degrees.
> 
> Chuck Norcutt
> 
> Jez Cunningham wrote:
> > Of course the EXIF data can also be faked but it says it was taken
> > with a D70 with the Nikon 10.5mm lens.
> > The last edit was done with PS Elements...
> > br
> > jez
> > 
> > On 7/9/06, AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> >>Photoshop Walt wrote:
> >>
> >>>3. This photograph was taken with a very wide-angle lens. This
> >>has a very large bearing in the apparant discrepency. In fact,
> >>the coverage appears to be 120 degrees horizontal. (based on the
> >>size/position of the primary and secondary rainbows).
> 
==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

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