I felt frightened when read what you wrote on diffraction - though I had
made an error during the scanning.
Fact is that the amount of diffraction you're seeing is a little less
than in the Provia.
Just found that the scan is a little too dark, and darkens the longer
and faintest strikes of light, those which cross the vertex of each
triangle and fade progressively. I could give a couple of possible
causes: 1- the exposure was long (I may have override 1/3 to gather
shadow detail, but don't remember) - ~10 sec. IIRC. I suppose it's not
possible to get to know the exact exposure time. 2- I must confess, I'm
not sure if I left the protective filter screwed. I seem to remember
that I thought I should take it out, I remember something in my pocket.
Most probably filter was out. Diffraction should be explained mainly by 1- .
And it will become more obvious after I match better the correct
exposure - _maybe a better color balance_ ... which leads to another
question:
I didn't trust my eyes only while doing curves and anything else: I
consulted my daughter, who has young cells and pigments in her retina -
she consistently told me that it was not blue enough ... I trusted her.
Now, it's obvious to me that some fair amount of my hatred magenta hue
is missing !, a very difficult color to tame for me (it falls into the
A, B, C triangle, named a non-spectral color. Am I right?).
So, the Provia has a significant amount of 'deeper purple'.
Why is it that at least two people have seen them too blue? - the word
metamerism comes to my mind, but I should better find out its exact meaning.
Found: "Making metamerism matches using reflective materials is more
complex. The appearance of surface colors is defined by the product of
the spectral reflectance curve of the material and the spectral
emittance curve of the light source shining on it. As a result, the
color of surfaces depends on the light source used to illuminate them."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamerism_(color)#Sources_of_metamerism>
Could it be so?
Fernando.
Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I'm still surprised to see that much obvious diffraction around the
> blades. I've never seen that before.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> Carlos J. Santisteban wrote:
>
>
>> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>>
>>> Very nice and also very interesting. I'm wondering why the moon is
>>> rendered with 6 diffraction spikes. It look more like it was taken with
>>> an Newtonian telescope with a 3 arm spider than the 21/3.5.
>>>
>> Because the 21/3.5 has a six blades diaphragm... and wasn't fully open -- I
>> believe f/5.6 is the optimal aperture on the tiny 21.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|