On Mon, Jan 30, 2012, at 07:43 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Yes, nice shots. My newest orchid book given to me appeared to use
> flash again with dark backgrounds.
> Many of the images would not survive a Moose analysis.
>
> I enjoyed the test and commend it. (keep up the testing) I do
> believe you pitched the lenses hanging curve balls with the
> magnification and f stop.
> I am surprised the maestro of shallow dof (you know who you are ;-)
> ) didn't cry foul and was surprised by his comment.
> With no background or foreground considerations, rendering differences
> will be subtle especially at smallish apertures.
>
> Ruminating about rendering nuances indeed can get expensive but is
> greatly enjoyable and not to be tread upon indiscriminately. ;-)
>
> A beef with no Bokeh, Mike
I think they must have to use flash for those books. A bit like mug
shots. Dr Flash may demur, but it's not attractive to me. I guess Dr
Flash would know how to make it attractive.
What would you like me to try next?
Shallowest I generally go with big flowers is f8 (rarely) with film/FF.
F11 is barely adequate. I would routinely go with f16. If filling the
frame, there is still plenty of bokeh to be had. Bugs me to see a good
bit of the flower out of focus. That said, I always enjoy seeing the
maestro of shallow DOF's work. It usually seems like poetry to my prose.
Another guy whose work we don't get to see enough in Bill Barber's.
Vive le difference as we say here in New France.
Joel W.
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users:
http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|