Brian Swale wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Chris wrote
>> Well for one thing, the OM 50 f 1.8 has horrid Bokeh, while Leica lenses are
>> usually better in that regard. The Leica 50mm f2 Summicron R is the only
>> Leica
>> 50 that I have personally used and it's far superior to the Olympus lens. I
>> Like
>> the OM-4T much better then the Leica R4 that I had. I hated the ergonomics
>> of
>> the R4 so much I sold it and bought another OM-4T but I miss that Summicron.
>>
>> Here's a photo taken with the OM 50mm f1.8, shot at aperture of f4.
>> http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/marys-bar/photopages/marys-
>> bar15.htm See how harsh the out of focus areas are?
That seems a matter of interpretation. I suspect it's a film and/or
processing problem, not a lens problem.
Reason I say that is, there seems to be little latitude in the B&W,
between deep
shadows and highlights.
To me, the bokeh doesn't seem untoard.
>> Here's one with the Summicron, shot I think at f4 or 5.6.
>> http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/grandpa/photopages/dog1.htm
>> Look at the out of focus area outside the window, see how smooth it all is?
In this shot, you have very little depth of field at all.
The window highlights are all blown out (no detail in the whites) and
the scene in general is not very contrasty at all, compared to the shot
above.
No bokeh to judge, as it's nearly all in focus. Therefore you can't
compare this shot to the one above.
All just my amateur opinion...
keith whaley
> The main differences I see between these two shots are ( AG can tell us the
> proper developer jargon)
>
> 1) the smoothness of, and degree of, gradation from black to white;
> 2) the detail of the white areas and whether or not the detail has been
> blown
> out.
> 3) and as ( I think it was Chuck who pointed out) the distances from camera
> to offending background are different between shots AND as we all know,
> bokeh is affected greatly by how "fussy" the background is.
> 4) I also think the sunlight was muted in the snow? shot and very much not
> muted in the salon shot. The range of exposure values between the shots
> was quite different. ( Adams's Zone system applies). ( is that " ' " right?
> :-)) )
> The lighting for the snow shot has come out very soft.
>
>
> ALSO
>
>>From what I have read in Ansel Adams books but never personally put into
> practice :-(( these aspects of quality are affected greatly by choice of
> film,
> manner of development of film (including choice of developer chemicals),
> choice of enlargement paper, choice of developer chemicals for the
> enlargement print.
>
> So, I suppose to be *really picky* a reasonable test would have half the
> shots taken on one camera and the film then transferred to the other camera
> for the remaining shots. This evaluation would probably require a static
> interior setup that removes any chance of altered sunlight etc making
> uncontrolled differences, since the shots could not be taken nearly
> simultaneously.
>
> Or, two rolls of film, two cameras, expose at the same time at the same
> settings and develop on the same spool at the same time..
>
> Picky :-) But, to be fair, these matters must be taken into account. IMHO.
>
> Brian
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|