Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Legacy lens for copy work, a little more explaination

Subject: Re: [OM] Legacy lens for copy work, a little more explaination
From: Rick Beckrich <rbeckrich@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:02:29 -0500
I've been happy with the OMZ 50/3.5 mac on my E-1. Here's an out-of-camera,
resized only shot:

[image: Peter Max I].
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
This
email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Bill Barber via olympus <
olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Perhaps I should have provided a bit more explanation about what I am
> doing.  I , along with 7 others, have recently opened a gallery in the
> tourist town of Gruene, TX.  Most of the art work is two dimensional.
> Several of the artist would like to make smaller copies of their original
> art pieces and need digital files of there work.  Briefly, the set up I use
> is Tota lights at 45 degrees from the art work, with polarizing filters in
> front of the lights, lights and cameras at mid-point of of art work with
> everything level and polarizing filter on camera.  Capture in raw and
> converted to tiff. White balance corrected. Currently using e-5 and could
> use Sony NEX 7. Although I have a variety of lenses native to the digital
> cameras, it occurs to me perhaps an OM prime might offer better results
> without the compromises of a zoom lens.  Yes, I know I can test the various
> OM options and thought perhaps others might have some specific suggestions.
> My choices in the OM line might include the 50mm f2 macro, 50mm f3.5 macro,
> 85mm f2, 100mm f2, 100mm f2.8. Also could use the Tamron SP 90mm f2.5.  As
> noted by Moose, there is an issue with the set up causing problems. My
> concern is with lens distortion rather than the mechanical set up.  Bill
> Barber
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Olympus Camera Discussion <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sun, Dec 20, 2015 1:05 pm
> Subject: Re: [OM] Legacy lens for copy work
>
> On 12/20/2015 9:40 AM, Jim Nichols wrote:
> > Bill,
> >
> > I'm certainly no expert, but I have done a little of this type of work,
> strictly for my own use.
>
> I have done quite a lot, most recently helping a friend prepare slides for
> University art classes he taught. Longer ago,
> I actually had a huge, custom designed/made camera built and a room built
> around it to make 4x5 slides from flat
> originals from tiny to maybe 8x10 feet. I also conceived of, helped
> design, had built and installed custom projectors to
> rear project these slides on 6x7' screens at several magnifications. I
> mention this to give my credentials for knowing
> that centering and film/subject/projection alignment is THE KEY!
>
> > I think any lens 50mm or longer will work.
>
> Yup. The reason not to go shorter is that one enters retrofocus optical
> design territory, which is always less suited to
> this use. In particular, a lot of them have field curvature at closer
> distances. The 21 mm OMZs, for example, have quite
> a lot of that.
>
> > But, more important than the lens is the alignment of the subject matter
> and the plane of the sensor, or film, as the
> > case may be. To minimize distortion, the subject and the sensor must be
> perfectly parallel, and the lens should be
> > level with, and centered on, the center of the subject.
>
> Yes! Bill, it may be just the way you wrote the question, but it sounds
> like you are confabulating two quite different
> types and causes of distortion. Unsquareness, or perspective distortion,
> is near 100% caused by centering and alignment
> failure in the taking. Other lens non-linearity is solved by using lenses
> specifically designed for flat copy work.
>
> The OMZ 50/3.5 is just excellent in this regard, as is the Tamron 90/2.5
> macro lens. I used these two extensively.
>
> > I find that small errors in alignment can be corrected in most photo
> editing software, but at the expense of slightly
> > distorting the subject.  It is better to get the alignment right when
> taking the photograph.
>
> True today, and I do a lot of that. Near perfection may be reached even
> with pretty bad originals. This,
> <
> http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Brooklyn/Things/All%20Things/slides/_MG_3244corcr.html>
> for example, is the skylight
> over this stairwell. <
> http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Brooklyn/Things/All%20Things/slides/_MG_3243.html>
> Absent
> board(s) to put across the railings at the top, and permission from the
> guards, there is no way to take it straight on.
>
> But when I was making lots of slides, it had to be right in the camera. I
> used an enlarger base and upright, converted
> to hold cameras, checked with levels for alignment. A wide range of
> original sizes and limited travel are why I used two
> lenses regularly.
>
> With originals too large for that kind of set-up, I found the floor and a
> tripod with lateral extension useful. For
> something on the wall, levels and tape measures are your friends. Getting
> the camera/lens right vertically is fairly
> easy with them. Horizontal is trickier, and most often depends on a good
> eye.Even the slight lean forward from the
> vertical of a hung picture can make a difference, so watch that, too.
>
> Then again, if this is digital, or to be scanned, small errors are easily
> corrected without noticeable image IQ
> deterioration.
>
> Lighting is the other big issue. Unless working to enhance surface
> texture, lights on both sides at 45° to the subject
> seem to work best.
>
> I know little about 4/3 lenses. For µ4/3, the 80/2.8 Macro is da bomb, but
> at 160 mm eq. may not work for all
> situations. In any case, most all µ4/3 lenses (except the 80/2.8?) depend
> on correction of optical distortion in
> firm/software*, so you are never looking at the actual lens output unless
> using a converter such as DxO, with correction
> turned off, RAWTherapee, DCRaw, etc.
>
> Been there, Done Moose
>
> * This is an intentional part of the overall design, letting linear
> distortion go a bit to allow better correction of
> other things that can't be corrected later.
>
> --
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz