I think that's part of the problem: the changes are for the most part
very subtle, and my tired old eyes are not sure what the distinctions
are, and whether they are worse, the same or better.
--Bob
On Mar 25, 2009, at 1:28 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Dunno what's wrong with me that I see 3 as much superior to 4 although
> less so to 9.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> Bob Whitmire wrote:
>> On Mar 25, 2009, at 1:21 AM, Moose wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>
>>> Today I decided to try some different approaches to the problem.
>>> Anyone
>>> with sharp eyes is invited to peruse a bunch of alternatives and
>>> give me
>>> their opinions. Those who can't MF focus anymore may see little
>>> difference between some (most?) of them.
>>> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Foliage/DownTexture.htm>
>>>
>>> Any help appreciated.
>>
>>
>> Some pretty subtle distinctions there, Your Mooseness. My old eyes
>> couldn't quite make out some of them, but I seemed to be partial to 4
>> and 9, though I must add that fiddling with that level of subtlety
>> would drive me someplace out beyond the back of distraction. I've
>> actually come to the conclusion that complex foliage is the devil's
>> own to get just right, even in a large print, never mind reduced for
>> web viewing. And lord knows there's a whole damn lot of foliage here
>> in Occupied Canada. Maybe one needs a Hasselblad and some good black
>> and white film and wet darkroom prints to get foliage just right. I'm
>> thinking about using Vaseline on my lenses when taking leaf pictures
>> this year. <g>
>>
>>
>> --Bob Whitmire
>> www.bwp33.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|