> Seems to me that the quality of the photograph (which is very good) has
> more to do with the photographer's choice of excellent light followed by
> positioning of said Mona Lisa within the light. But, no, I didn't see
> any PanaLeica mystique. :-)
Thanks, Chuck.
Chuck does end up perfectly illustrates my point about this entire
discussion. When putting up a sample photograph, the "blame" for the
trait is placed on something else. In this case, the lighting. Well,
you could be right. But if I used a more subtle photograph then you
probably wouldn't see it without my pointing it out and even then
you'd be tempted to say that it either is just in my head or it's a
normal thing or it has other causations--and you would be just as
right.
I guess that what I'm suggesting is that for some intangible reason I
get this trait more often with the 14-50 than I did with any other
lens. The 35-80, which is similar, yet different, also seems to make
my life easier in getting this kind of image. I could show you dozens
of photographs that have that "edge" to them.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|