Well I have to break my silence. No excuse for it in the first place. I
heartily agree with everyone else about this photograph. It's gorgeous.
It's bookmarked (for inspiration and just plain delight). I'd be
button-popping proud to have made an image like this.
Regards,
John
----- Original Message -----
From: <frieder.faig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] Other ultra-wides?
> On Wed, May 10, 2000 at 09:14:45AM -0700, Jan Steinman wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, hand-held, overcast shadow, Kodak Gold 100. My guess is that it
> > was wide-open, with perhaps 1/15th of a second or so, but that's on a
> > tape somewhere I haven't transcribed.
> >
> > Of course, "hand held" means I was lying on my belly, propping my
> > elbows on the ground and pressing the camera to my face, so there was
> > a tripod, of sorts. :-)
>
> Wow, what a photograph.
>
> Now it causes me into more surprise, because my calculator says,
> that the 2.0/21 cranked to close focus with an additional 7mm
> extension tube is about 1:2 scale-ratio. So youre having pretty much depth
of field for an
> f/2 macroshot.
> In any case a pretty fine work for a handheld photo at all.
>
> Frieder Faig
>
>
>
> < 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|