Dunno what's wrong with me that I see 3 as much superior to 4 although
less so to 9.
Chuck Norcutt
Bob Whitmire wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2009, at 1:21 AM, Moose wrote:
>> <snip>
>
>> Today I decided to try some different approaches to the problem.
>> Anyone
>> with sharp eyes is invited to peruse a bunch of alternatives and
>> give me
>> their opinions. Those who can't MF focus anymore may see little
>> difference between some (most?) of them.
>> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Foliage/DownTexture.htm>
>>
>> Any help appreciated.
>
>
> Some pretty subtle distinctions there, Your Mooseness. My old eyes
> couldn't quite make out some of them, but I seemed to be partial to 4
> and 9, though I must add that fiddling with that level of subtlety
> would drive me someplace out beyond the back of distraction. I've
> actually come to the conclusion that complex foliage is the devil's
> own to get just right, even in a large print, never mind reduced for
> web viewing. And lord knows there's a whole damn lot of foliage here
> in Occupied Canada. Maybe one needs a Hasselblad and some good black
> and white film and wet darkroom prints to get foliage just right. I'm
> thinking about using Vaseline on my lenses when taking leaf pictures
> this year. <g>
>
>
> --Bob Whitmire
> www.bwp33.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/
|