To me, a genuine old geezer, except as the equivalent of a 4x6
snapshot, it?s a grand waste of time, this looking at photographs
on my little TV -- I mean my computer. I can tell more, even
with my unaided, 60-something-year-old eyes, from a 35mm contact
sheet than I can from the most super-duper, high-res scan on a
computer monitor.
I shoot transparencies; I look at them through a high-quality 10X
loupe; I project them; I make occasional Cibachrome -- oops,
living in the past again -- Ilfochrome prints. I just don?t
think quality can be assessed from anything you can show me on a
computer screen. It?s kinda like looking at the world through
the wrong end of a telescope, and not a very good one at that.
I could be wrong.
Walt
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 09:49:03 -0800
>>Personally I see a good deal of difference in the
>>Bokeh of the two lenses and like Skip I definitely
>>prefer the APO f2.
>>
>>Mark (guess I'm not a Ludditie) Lloyd
>
>Can you enlighten on the definite difference you see?
>--
>Winsor Crosby
>Long Beach, California
>
>
>< 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 >
|