C.H., thanks a lot for looking and commenting. Could not answer before,
it's been a busy day and still not finished.
Yes, it is obviously big and obstructive - so big in fact, that I
couldn't move it.
And stubborn too: it wouldn't move no matter how sweet I spoke to it.
Perhaps deaf, but it wouldn't say either ;-)
Agree, it's not a good composition, it's only the best I could find
after I saw the hole in the 'ombú' trunk, and the oblique lighting was
changing too quickly. As always, I learn something from your words: this
time you lead me into investigating how do painters (the whole
Impressionism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressionism> would be
worth looking at) cope with focus in landscapes ... seems to me they
don't care about it: they can put everything in focus, always.
Not true, OOF and other techniques for achieve three-dimensionality were
invented since Renaissance painting ...
Cheers,
Fernando.
**
C.H.Ling wrote:
> In most cases I have no problem with front OOF object but this time.... it
> is just too big and obstructive.
>
> C.H.Ling
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fernando Gonzalez Gentile"
>
> First one I had the time to scan:
>
> Tripod mounted Zuiko 300mm ƒ/4,5 @ ƒ/8, Olmpus OM 4 on MultiSpot mode,
> MLU and Diaphragm prefire, Winder 2, Eyecup 1.
>
> Velvia 50 - aRGB
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/fernando_gonzalez_gentile/3699897721/
> -- link to 1280, link to see on black.
>
> Yes, I preferred ƒ/8 (maybe it's ƒ/11 and I didn't check right ... ) to
> get some roughness in the tree at the front - at ƒ/4,5 there was no
> detail, and even the green leaves were oof !.
>
> Opinions, advice, comments are welcome.
>
> :-)
>
> Fernando.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|