Looking at the shot of the top down SSR this morning, I am reminded again of
the faults of wide angle lenses and their inherent distortion. This shot was
taken from a distance of approximately 15 feet with an E-1 and 14-54 ZD lens at
17mm, or, in 35mm terms, 35mm. While it was taken with the camera positioned
about even with or just ahead of the front of the vehicle and angled slightly
toward the back, the difference in the distance between the front and the back
couldn't have been more than four or five feet, but that was enough for some
obvious wide-angle deception.
http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/media/192375/site1077.jpg
Notice anything strange about the wheels? I posted the shot in a hurry
yesterday and didn't notice it then. The front wheel looks considerably larger
than the back, when, actually, the opposite is true: front wheel=21 in./rear
wheel=22 in. A photograph may be worth 1000 words, but sometimes not all those
words are true. Next time, I'll move back further and get into the normal or
tele range.
And only today did I notice the reflection of the back yard barn in the rear
fender. I wish I were a better photographer. :-[
It's raining today, so I can't get out and play. That's why I'm here.
And to answer Johan's question: I'm an old hotrodder. I like to go briskly and
with alacrity, so those horsepowers are important.
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
