>
> Reading Ian's ongoing story of removing the fungus from his
> lens and seeing
> his photo of the affected element got me to thinking about
> the best way to
> go about determining the effect, if any, of fungus on a print.
>
> Over the last two years I've accumulated a supply of fungus
> infected OEM
> and 3rd party 35mm lenses, primes and zooms, in mounts for
> all of the major
> brands including Olympus. Some of the fungi are the small, circular
> looking kind, some are spider webby and other look like
> splotches. Some
> lenses have only one or two elements affected while others show more
> extensive damage.
>
> Would it be preferable to use color or b&w print film?
>
> Would it be better to take photos of a monotone surface?
> Something like an
> off white or gray piece of fabric or a wall painted in a
> neutral color? My
> thinking is there'd be no other "subject matter" to mask the fungus.
>
> What size print would be necessary to allow one to see the
> fungus? 4x6,
> 8x10, 11x14, larger?
>
> Would a small, medium or large aperture be better?
>
> With zooms would it be better to use the short, mid or long
> focal length?
>
> For zooms with a macro or close up feature would this setting
> show fungus
> better?
>
> Any thoughts, opinions, personal experiences appreciated.
>
I'd use transparency film as it's less likely to be "interpreted" (aka
stuffed up) by the printer. I also think it would be a good idea to have at
least part of the target as very high contrast, this will enable you to see
the effect of flare reducing the contrast.
...Wayne
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|