At 06:15 PM 1/23/2008, Moose wrote:
>Thought I forgot, didn't you? ;-)
Nope, just thought you had bigger fish to fry. :-)
>Most of the interiors of the Hearst Castle were taken at 17mm, as well
>as several exterior shots.
I'm not personally into shooting interiors but those sure do look
nice. I didn't notice much in the way of distortion or weird
perspectives and the lighting/colors look wonderful. I assume you
cleaned them up with software? Do you mind listing all of the post
processing steps you used for one of them, #1273 for example?
> Several of the Pygmy forest shots are also
>with the 17-35, and give a whole different subject matter, very natural
>vs. very opulently man made.
Those I also like, especially #1203. Funny thing though is that I
think that #1173 shot with the telephoto is the best of the
group. Too bad about the out of focus stuff in the foreground.
>This is another nature shot at 18mm.
><http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/Shasta/slides/_MG_2144cr.html>
That one doesn't do as much for me as the others. With that scene
and wide of an angle I think you lose sight of what is supposed to
be the main subject in the picture. Did you by any chance take
another shot there with a longer focal length?
Thanks for the examples - I may have to reconsider having 24mm as my widest.
Later,
Johnny
__________________________
Johnny Johnson
Cleveland, GA
mailto:jjohnso4@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|