I'm not sure I'd make the same claim for a crack as I just did for the
fungus blotch but I'd not be surprised if the Weston story is true. A
crack would be worse than the surface blotch since rays from adjacent
areas would be trying to pass though the cracked area under the surface.
But if you removed the glass from the cell and blackened the edges of
the crack I think it would certainly be worse than a surface blotch but
the lens might still produce a pretty good image. A little contrast
loss but not much else.
Chuck Norcutt
ScottGee1 wrote:
> On 4/11/07, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I don't think so. You've gotta remove the fungus to get a look
>> underneath. If the coating was damaged I'd put some black ink in the
>> etched areas. Assuming the fungused area was no more than 5-10% of the
>> total surface area of the element I betcha you couldn't tell an image
>> from it from one taken with pristine glass.
>
> I continue to look for confirmation of a story I recall reading (in a
> book or magazine) years ago. What I remember was that Edward Weston
> made a number of his most famous images with a lens that was
> *cracked*. Can't google up any references to it so it makes me think
> I imagined it but for the fact that I'm not that clever.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|