I just noticed that, in a side-by-side comparison, my modified version
seems to have a bit more contrast and saturation than CH's original. I
don't understand why since I altered nothing except cloning out the
orange and adding a black border for display. The only other thing I
can think of is re-saving as a JPEG twice but I don't know why that
would change contrast or saturation.
Chuck Norcutt
Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> So, I thought I'd show you what I meant. This is CH's flower sans the
> pesky orange in the background.
> <http://www.chucknorcutt.com/temp/CH%20Ling%20flower>
> This is his original
> <http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_2166.JPG>
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> But... if you clone those soft, dark green shadows over the top of the
>> harsh orange balls in the background you end up with a spectacular
>> image. I wouldn't throw it out. :-)
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>>
>> C.H.Ling wrote:
>>> Sorry to break yours and many people's dream, I found the bokeh problem of
>>> 90/2 for quite some time but was too lazy to do a more systematic test with
>>> the FF sensor. Anyway here are two shots I took with the 90/2 (most likely
>>> at F2.8 or F4), you will see what I mean:
>>>
>>> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_2164.JPG
>>>
>>> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_2166.JPG
>>>
>>> Due to the problem I didn't post any of the 90/2 shot in my 09 flower show
>>> gallery:
>>>
>>> http://www.accura.com.hk/OM/OMC/FS2009/FS2009.htm
>>>
>>> Fortunately, most of the shots I took in the show were with the 135/4.5
>>> this
>>> year. May be other than this specific focusing distance the bokeh of 90/2
>>> is
>>> good, I remember it do very well for people portrait.
>>>
>>> The 90/2 seems works better with the 4/3 sensor as I remember.
>>>
>>> A good news about the 90/2 as I have mentioned before, it has excellent
>>> edge
>>> to edge performance even wide open. Although it is very slight less in
>>> resolution than the 100/2 at the center but it beat the 100/2 for edges
>>> performance hands down. Same case happen to 50/2 vs 50/1.4.
>>>
>>> C.H.Ling
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Dawid Loubser"
>>>
>>> The 90/2.0 was "OK"?
>>> "OK" ?!?!?!?!
>>>
>>> The 90/2.0 is magical... mystical... übersmoothicalicious bokeh...
>>> Really, I have come to agree with Moose that it's really not the world's
>>> best lens at Macro magnifications, it is clearly optimised for
>>> near-macro. But in terms of smoothness, with near perfect bokeh
>>> (I have never managed to coax hard-edged out-of-focus highlights out
>>> of mine, always smooth gaussian-blurred circles) I find the bokeh of
>>> this lens impeccable.
>>>
>>> I have a back-log of about 200 photos with this lens to print in the
>>> darkroom,
>>> but with each one I get a better idea of its character. Complex
>>> optical design
>>> or not, it's bokeh is wonderful.
>>>
>>> As mentioned in my previous mail, not an EF 85/1.2L, no, but closer
>>> than anything
>>> else I've seen.
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06 May 2009, at 3:51 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
>>>
>>>> the 90/2 was ok.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
