Regarding Nat'l Geo photos, I don't look at the mag as often as I did years
ago. But I did notice in a series on caves and rock formations in the
American West a couple of years ago some significant softness and
distortion
at edges and corners. I just assumed it was the lens.
Departing shot: I was thinking that maybe it was a flaw in the optics of
the cameras used, but I'm starting to think that National Geographic is
using some cheeseball scanner and not removing the film from the mounts.
I'm getting sick and tired of seeing blurry corners of so many of the
shots
in the magazine now. Anybody else seeing this too? Or am I being too
picky?
The fellas (& ladies) at Nat'l Geo used to be my idols when it came to
peerless photography... not so anymore. I'm beginning to think some of
their "Pros" are beginning to rely on their Ni-not-an-OM-kon F5's auto
features a bit too much. When I look bakc at the 70's & 80's issues, the
photo work seems a cut above their mags of today. Either that, or like you
said-- cheeseball scanner. Hard to believe they wouldn't have top notch
equipment, though.
I'm pretty sure it's not just my paranoia as my eye for the art improves.
And that's my 2 cents worth.
-Mike
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail 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 >
|