Chuck wrote:
> I liked P6084032_03 best (#5 in the series). But it bothers
> me a bit when I'm looking at it since it looks like the
> filaments of the stamens are overexposed. But it's an
> illusion since measurement tells me they are not
> overexposed. Not sure why the illusion but it
> persists for me.
This was a challenge to me when processing the images. To the
naked eye they're somewhat translucent. I took some severely
underexposed images (I miss OTF exposure control) and they
appeared grey and lifeless in those shots.
Not the best pictures in the world--and I was having a nasty
little fight with my ballhead and the breeze, but I thought that
they illustrated the bokeh potential of 4/3 rather nicely.
If Olympus were to introduce a 100/2 macro in the DZ mount I'd
be rather tempted--especially if it could do it without
extension. The ancient 100/2.8 was never optically corrected for
macro and the extension is so severe that the viewfinder image
gets pretty dim.
The light was fading so fast and the last two shots were getting
into "near darkness" while the zephers were picking up. Between
the fading light and the lens change, the 50/3.5 shot was a near
impossibility to get the WB matched.
As to the "saturation", believe it or not, but I actually backed
the saturation off--between WB and curves, the images turned
near-nuclear.
Below each shot I did list the technical details (lens, f-stop,
shutter speed).
AG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|