Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] 90/2.0 vs 135/3.5 for distant landscape

Subject: Re: [OM] 90/2.0 vs 135/3.5 for distant landscape
From: Jan Steinman <Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:05:50 -0800
> From: Joel Wilcox <jsjvypbk@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> One variation on this discussion I recall had to do with whether the
> 100/2 was too sharp to be suitable for portraiture.  In the case of my
> face, no lens is quite unsharp enough to suit me.

You can do lots of things to soften a too-sharp lens, but not as much  
to sharpen a too-soft lens.

Put some nose-oil or ear-wax on an old filter. (Or in Joel's case,  
peanut butter. :-) Try using a slower shutter speed. Or bump the  
enlarger while printing. Or post-process in a Photoshop or equivalent.  
Or squint.

By comparison, the techniques to sharpen overly-soft images are more  
difficult and have less satisfying results.

My general philosophy is get something better than you need, as  
entropy is on the side of it becoming merely adequate at some time in  
the future. Life is too short for soft lenses!

:::: Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is  
the merger of state and corporate power. -- Benito Mussolini
:::: Jan Steinman <http://www.Bytesmiths.com>


-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz