At 300mm the moon will be 1.5mm diameter on the film and about 12mm on
an 8x10" print. Probably not impressive yet. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
Fernando Gonzalez Gentile wrote:
> Thanks for looking and commenting, Chuck :-)
>
> Learned lots of thing while doing it, now I can make use of gradient
> layers among other things.
> At the moment, I started to do from scratch the one I had submitted to
> the Landmarks event.
> It's so badly scanned that I repent of having trusted the well renowned
> photographer who charged I don't remember how much, for doing it.
>
> Live and learn, that same photographer was the one who sold me the 4000,
> when he bought the 5000.
> Now I have one, and have learned a LOT from his carefulnesses.
>
> How do you think a tight shot of Moon and Mars would look like with my
> hopefully oil-free 300/4,5 ?
>
> ;-)
>
> Fernando.
>
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> Very nice and also very interesting. I'm wondering why the moon is
>> rendered with 6 diffraction spikes. It look more like it was taken with
>> an Newtonian telescope with a 3 arm spider than the 21/3.5.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|