Hi Acer (and others),
A bit of a late reply, but I didn't see any further mention of an answer in
the other digests, so:
I think it's the bright light source (sky) that goes bad. The general
tree-limbs/grass/etc isn't so bad.
Yes, that seems to have a lot to do with it. The pictures you took were
lovely, but for the harsh bokeh which is somewhat disturbing.
The ADITL3 was cropped top part to remove the sky-gone-awry-bokeh.
I see, so that picture suffered from the same problem...
If anyone has 'em, I'd like to see more bokeh pix of bright (sky) to see
how it is.
Well, check this out:
http://www.web-wizards.com/cgi-bin/show_picture.cgi?country=holl&num=2
and compare it to:
http://www.web-wizards.com/cgi-bin/show_picture.cgi?country=holl&num=3
Both pictures were taken on the same day, using the same lens (the
65-200/4), and of similar subjects (leaves with sky in between). The former
picture has terrible bokeh in the background, whereas the bokeh in the
latter picture is much nicer. Go figure...
Actually, I remember some other shots of this session to have bokeh that was
_so_ terrible that I just couldn't believe it when I saw it. I might scan
one of those pictures some day and title it "The king of bad bokeh" :)
I really wonder how my 100/2 (which I didn't have at that time) or the
135/2.8 would have rendered the bokeh in these pictures.
Cheers!
Olafo
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
< 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 >
|