At 11:21 PM 4/8/2003 -0700, Moose wrote:
I agree with Wayne, strange - and distracting. I don't know anything
about the 50/1.2, but I know this isn't what I'd call good bokeh. Maybe it
should be decided that it was a different lens?
...
This is actually very interesting. At first, I thought Wayne is just giving
me sh*t, so to speak :-), because when I look at the picture, while the
bokeh is not as creamy smooth as the 90/2, it is quite decent. Since CH and
Moose also chimed in, I then realize that I was looking at the 8x10 output
from the Kodak 8500 Dye Sub printer, and not the web JPG!
Looking at the original scan, it does look harsher than what comes out of
the 8500, but still better than the original web JPG. I used a Photoshop
action to "webify" an image and I think in this case, the last step of
slight sharpening may have sharpen the background a wee bit much. I deleted
that step and upload a new version. Since I always use ICE when scanning,
which makes the image a wee bit softer, I always use slight sharpening on
the output stage.
http://www.dragonsgate.net/pub/richard/img007_new.jpg This still looks
harsher than the original UN-webify version in Photoshop and much harsher
than the 8500 output. I have no idea why.
here's the old one
http://www.dragonsgate.net/pub/richard/img007.jpg
// richard <http://www.imagecraft.com>
<http://www.dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo>
On-line orders, support, and listservers available on web site.
[ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all previous
replies in your msgs. ]
< 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 >
|
