wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> It sort of demonstrates my feeling that bokeh is an over rated
> characteristic unless there are really gross differences like between a
> mirror lens and a refractor.
I mostly agree. I'd like to also mention that just because we prefer one of
these photos over the other one, that doesn't mean one has to be labeled as
"bad". There are things I like about the Zuiko shot (I see the browns as
warmer,
especially the tree) and things I like about the other one ( I like the
greater DOF sharpness) and the Zuiko's out of focus areas certainly seem to be
more
out of focus. (A good thing). So while I like one shot because some things are
sharper, I like the other shot because some things are more out of focus.
Kind of contradictory, I know.
But neither one has "bad" bokeh, that's for sure. Bokeh, to me, has always
been more important after seeing a shot that had bad bokeh, if you get what I'm
trying to say. Bad bikeh jumps out at you, and good bokeh is more subtle.
George S.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|