I'll think it twice, then. I'm not a dogmatic person.
Just today, while scanning the Ektachromes I had done at the
Sainte-Chapelle, Palais de Justice, ile de la Cité, - Paris; I found one
that certainly improved when I cropped it. It's the third one of these
three.
Of course I wish I had a wider Zuiko at the moment, but when I was 31 I
could only afford the 28mm ƒ/2,8 - and it was impossible to get the
second one with a wider perspective (I was at the opposite corner, at
ground level and against the wall, IIRC), so as to correct its
perspective today using photoshop and cropping it a little bit.
1- <http://www.flickr.com/photos/fernando_gonzalez_gentile/3558037671/>
-- link to 1280, link to view on black
2- <http://www.flickr.com/photos/fernando_gonzalez_gentile/3558035619/>
-- same links, wish I could correct perspective without cropping.
3- <http://www.flickr.com/photos/fernando_gonzalez_gentile/3558839092/>
-- same links, improved by cropping a large black area at its right.
Hope you like them.
:-)
Fernando.
Sue Pearce wrote:
> I have yet to read it, but I have a friend that spent his career as a
> photojournalist, and has a degree in applied art. He retired from the paper
> and is now teaching photography at a local art school.
>
> He told me once that he had never seen a photo that couldn't be improved by
> cropping, and I generally agree with him.
>
> Bill Pearce
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fernando Gonzalez Gentile" <fgnzalez@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 2:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [OM] DPReview on the "standard lens"
>
>
>
>> Chuck, just finished reading it.
>>
>> It gives me a perfect reasoning to justify my reluctance of cropping my
>> photographs ... (see first comment, below the article - if I understood
>> it right).
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Fernando.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>>
>>> Ummm. Did anyone actually read the reference I posted? The definition
>>> of a standard lens as a geometric reference was the whole point of the
>>> article.
>>>
>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>
>>>
>>> Carlos J. Santisteban wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I agree with AG -- 50mm is too narrow as "standard" for me....
>>>>
>>>> There's no magic with the 50mm focal. I think the definition of a
>>>> "standard"
>>>> lens is a confrontation of subjective, artistic views and technical
>>>> reasons; 43.3mm is just a geometric reference.
>>>>
>>>>
>> --
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>
>>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.37/2131 - Release Date: 05/24/09
> 07:09:00
>
>
--
Dr. Fernando González Gentile M.D.
Av.L.P.Ponce 1526B - 11600 Montevideo, Uruguay.
Phone: +598 2 7084858
Fax: +598 2 7087396
<fgnzalez@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|