Hi Moose,
Plenty of food for thought there. I wouldn't take issue with any of the points
that you made very eloquently.
I'm just glad that I am in love with the telephoto range rather than the
digital process :-)
Thanks for looking.
--Graham
----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:45 AM
Subject: [OM] Re: Church update : Welford & Woodford (OT gear)
> geebee wrote:
>> http://www.geebeephoto.com/Northamptonshire_Churches/M-Z/pages/Welford.htm
>>
> Nice additions. Not quite as good IQ as your usual. I assume these are
> with the Panny superzoom. The noise in Welford_1 and "different" blown
> highlights in 3 are a giveaway. The film handles highlights with a
> smoother roll-off, less blooming.
>> http://www.geebeephoto.com/Northamptonshire_Churches/M-Z/pages/Woodford_1.htm
>>
> Woodford_1 is a great composition and you sure got the sky and light!
> Wow! The 16:9 format is perfect for the subject. Certainly an
> interesting roof line.
>
> Woodford_3 is nice, but feels like the centre is bulging toward me.
> Barrel distortion? It also illustrates a general problem with the
> exterior shots. the close wall has pretty good sense of detail
> definition in the stone, but in the farther back parts, the detail seems
> to lose the sense of definition. In the tower and steeple, there are
> only intimations of underlying detail.
>
> Woodford_5 is possibly the worst of this effect in color, but it is
> there to one extent or another in all the exteriors of both churches.
>
> Woodford_2 is odder, with the church itself distinctly lacking in
> definition. I wonder if this is a single channel conversion, which drops
> definition from the other sensor points. I'd guess green channel from
> the foliage, but the sky makes me less sure. There's also what appears
> to be an odd texture in the tree on the left, which I assume is noise.
>
> Again, the composition is up to your usual high standards, and you have
> done well with the limited DR in all but those shot where it just can't
> be done. But in case you were wondering whether the difference from the
> film is noticeable in small web images; yes, it is.
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|