>That depends on how you define "better." IMHO, the reason for
preferring MC is flare control. The SC lenses may have some endearing
qualities, but shooting into the sun does not bring them out... :-)
Funny how, in the old SC days, flare was often used as a creative element.
I was getting wordy, and deleted a paragraph I wrote on "what is flare."
The flare I find "a pox" is general reduction in contrast. This is
different from sharp reflections, often called "iris flare" or
"ghosting," which I agree, can be an effective compositional element.
>To paraphrase Garth, it's easier to reduce contrast and sharpness
after the fact than to add it, regardless of whether your darkroom
uses chemistry or pixels...
True up to the point of just how do you add FLARE in the darkroom-
chemically or digitially?
Darkroom: smear vasoline on your enlarging lens -- or preferably on a
filter placed in front of it.
Digital: a small bit of Gaussian Blur combined with about -10 contrast.
Live: I've made "soft focus" images by letting a strobe flash
directly on the front element of the lens. Use a sharp angle
(perpendicular to the focal axis) to avoid iris ghosting, or put the
strobe closer to the focal axis (but still out of the frame) if you
want some iris ghosting.
But hey, please don't take it as a personal attack if you have SC
lenses! I've done LOTS of great stuff with SC glass! But really,
flare is easier to add or simulate than it is to get rid of.
--
: Jan Steinman <mailto:Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
: Bytesmiths <http://www.bytesmiths.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 >
|