At 4/8/2023 01:28 AM, Moose wrote:
>On 4/4/2023 10:38 AM, Wayne Shumaker wrote:
>>>These lenses were not designed to be bubbly; it's a result of compromises in
>>>optical design that emphasized other qualities. As a result, the bokeh is
>>>not easily predictable. Take a look at these two
>>>photos:<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Olympus_List/Posts&image=_DSC0514-16cr.jpg>
>>>
>>>For the first, I used the frame around the window pane as frame. Then, I
>>>decided to take a straight shot, so moved closer, maybe about 18 inches. In
>>>both cases, the flower is fine, just as though I cropped no. 1. But the
>>>bokeh is very different.
>>I can't see a great difference other than due to the magnification. If you
>>crop the other one, wouldn't they be similar?
>
>Not to my eye. I didn't quite match mag, as the angles aren't identical, so I
>would have lost the lower bokeh on one.
><http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Lenses/135mmLensBokeh/CulminarBokeh2.htm>
>
>Not to say one is good and the other not. At the original sizes, I like both,
>with the OoF window frame in the first. At this, almost matched size, I prefer
>the softer, smoother bokeh, simply because it doesn't pull my eye away from
>the subject.
I see what you mean.
I'm finding it tricky to always know what will work. Chimping on the camera
does not always tell the whole story. A lot of my shots have multiple distances
in the image. I like this rendering but could not tell you that I anticipated
it when I took the photo:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/bP4iPSrRsL7zqXKBA
or this one
https://photos.app.goo.gl/smGEHGYqasSpaE9X9
Cosina 58mm F1.2
WayneS
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
