I really don't care for that bokeh. It's harsh and distracting. I think I'll
stick with my silvernosed 50/1.4.
-Mickey
----- Original Message -----
From: "C.H.Ling" <chling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] shooting at f1.2 or f1.0
> I have used very mild unsharp mask, here is the original version without
> unsharp mask:
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/50-12-o.jpg
>
> Technical details:
>
> Film: Kodak Ektapress 100 (PJ100) negative
> Lens: Zuiko 50/1.2 wide open 1/250s.
> Nikon LS4000 - scan at 3000dpi and resample to 800pixel horizontal
>
> C.H.Ling
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Garth Wood" <garth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> > At 09:25 AM 12/5/2002 -0500, Skip Williams wrote:
> > >CH,
> > >
> > >What's up with the bokeh in that picture?! It looks horrible. Look at
> the
> > >OOF highlights to the left/down of the girl. Why would the OOF spot
have
> a
> > >hotspot _inside_ the blurred circle? ALso, the large OOF spots
> left/above
> > >are pretty harsh.
> > >
> > >Could you take another picture with OOF stuff all around the subject?
> >
> >
> > To translate, C.H., I *think* Skip meant "out of focus" for "OOF."
> >
> > And I *think* that some of the odd "OOF" artifacts come from application
> of the Unsharp Mask. I've certainly seen some weird stuff using that
> procedure...
> >
> >
> > Garth
> >
> >
>
>
> < 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 >
|
