Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: OM 180/2.8 bokeh praised at RFF

Subject: [OM] Re: OM 180/2.8 bokeh praised at RFF
From: "James N. McBride" <jnmcbr@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 23:38:40 -0700
A freckle on Heide Klum's butt would be a thing of beauty.

/jmac

-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Walt Wayman
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 10:49 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: OM 180/2.8 bokeh praised at RFF


Hell, it took me five minutes to find out where it was. That ain't no big
deal. PWP fixes that in an instant. Anyway, it's no more a problem or
distraction than if there were a new freckle on Heidi Klum's butt.

Walt

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

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> C.H.Ling wrote:
> > To me, the result is totally unacceptable, the thickness of "gap" is
> > irregular.
> Easy there, pardner. If you want perfection, you need another lens or to
> do some pixel level work. In the context of even a very large print, any
> person who had never seen the CA would never see anything wrong. It just
> looks like the chrome piece isn't evenly in the body aperture on a cab.
> Cabs in HK are all undamaged? The shadow and bright reflection on the
> chrome piece suggest it may actually have been pulled out and slightly
> bent, making a thicker shadow where it has pulled slightly away from the
> body quite natural. Who can tell? There is also a subtle increase in the
> shadows within the Toyota logo that I  don't think even a gallery goer -
> without the original for comparison - would ever notice.
>
> In the context of an art print, I would do something more careful and
> detailed. In this one, I was just trying something that would handle the
> CA in a way that made it a non-issue in the context of the subject
> without any detail work.
>
> > There is no different in term of overall quality,
> A matter of opinion, and it's your image, so you win by definition.
> Nevertheless, to my taste, something that looks like shadow is, while
> not perfect, better that an obviously wrong color.
>
> > I would just save the time of such manual touch up.
> This wasn't manual, I never touched a brush, clone, eraser or other
> detail tool. If I had, you may be sure the shadow would have been of
> even width.
>
> > This is just an example, I think the
> > most popular problem people seen is color fringe on the leaves with
white
> > sky as background just like the Canon 24-120 IS L photo in dpreview.
> I agree that that is where it is most often an obvious problem, but
> that's not what you presented. I'm pretty pragmatic, and suit my work to
> the specific problem and context at hand. The context here is a very
> small part of a very complex image.
>
> > How long you think it will take to correct such photo?
> Not much longer than your sample, the way I did it. How it would look is
> something, on the other hand, I don't know without trying. Probably not
> very good.
>
> > I perfer to get a lens like the DZ7-14 which is free from this problem.
> >
> I certainly agree!
>
> Moose
==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================



==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

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