Hmmm . . . I'm at work and it's probably bad enough that I'm accessing
personal email, but now I'm *really* afraid to follow this link . . .
ScottGee1
On 10/5/05, Bill Pearce <bs.pearce@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I'm with Walt!
>
> Bill Pearce
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Walt Wayman" <hiwayman@xxxxxxx>
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 11:37 AM
> Subject: [OM] Re: DIGITAL ZUIKO 50/2, is good for portrait?
>
>
> > There's a background? Guess I need to look again. Couldn't get past the
> > gorgeous foreground.
> >
> > Walt
> >
> > --
> > "Anything more than 500 yards from
> > the car just isn't photogenic." --
> > Edward Weston
> >
> > -------------- Original message ----------------------
> > From: Andrew Dacey <adacey@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> On 10/5/05, David Irisarri <div2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> > SORRY HERE IT´S THE LINK
> >> >
> >> > http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=15525
> >>
> >> Personally, there's something about the distracting background that
> >> bothers me. I'm not sure if it's that I'd like to see it a bit more
> >> blurred (such as if the lens could open to 1.4) or if it's the quality
> >> of the bokeh that's bothering me. Fortunately, the distracting
> >> foreground MORE than makes up for it :-). I really like the separation
> >> of her from the background while still having her seem to be part of
> >> the scene.
> > ==============================================
> > List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> > List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> > ==============================================
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|