>>>the way to the sharpest pictures possible is with<<<
Except that that phrase is meaningless--"the sharpest pictures
possible"--because it is not definable. Do you mean the highest
resolution of fine detail? Highest local contrast? Best boundary
separation? Best subjective sense of clarity? No has adequately defined
"sharpness." It's been proven that viewers pick as the most visually
pleasing--subjectively most sharp--pictures that do not quite meet the
definition of technical performance. And a lot of it has to do with
tonal properties and lighting.
Technique can be taken to fairly extreme lengths. For instance, ground
vibration is measurable. Do you propose to take your pictures in a place
where ground vibration is minimized, or do you intend to damp it?
I'd certainly recommend a camera with a small leaf shutter.
If you want to pursue this, I'd recommend a book called _Image Clarity_
by John B. Williams. It's a practical book--not a textbook--but it will
give you an idea of the extent of the problems.
It's better just to take pictures, improving your technique when and
where you can, and not worry about it otherwise. Most people who pursue
these exercises in "best possible" techniques never raise their level
very far. Ask me--we get portfolios from them all the time. <s>
--Mike
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|