Brian Swale wrote:
>
> Thanks Larry, yes it was overcast except for the little shag shot where you
> can see the sun was shining.
>
> However, there are other factors at play as well (photos don't lie, right?);
> (a) I can't remember just now ( but those of you with quick access to the Oly
> viewer can tell as Irfanview was used with the "preserve data" switch on) I
> may have had exposure compensation on to under-expose thus preserve
> detail in the white feathers of the geese;
>
Nope, no compensation and the histogram is nicely centered.
> (b) the photo of the gull was taken into the light. The white feathers of
> this
> species are bright white.
>
That's what I thought, and what I tried to correct in my alternate version.
> (c) I *did* massage the photos with curves in Irfanview. This will have had
> effects. In particular, I brightened the shag to bring out detail as far as
> reasonable, in the dark feathers, trying at the same time to avoid blowing
> out
> detail in the white..
>
> The Zuiko 500/8 does have less contrast,
The Zuiko is actually the contrastiest of the mirror lenses that Modern
Photography tested
<http://brashear.phys.appstate.edu/lhawkins/photo/mp-cat-tests.txt>.
> and I think it is therefore necessary to use a little trickery to overcome
> this.
I wouldn't call it trickery. I'd call it compensation. One of the joys
of the digital darkroom is the ability to compensate for equipment
weaknesses. I have the Sigma 600/8 shown in the review summary right
after the Zuiko. The extra focal length and excellent resolution seem
like a big bonus to me and the lesser contrast is easy to deal with in post.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|