>
> Lovely portrait, and sharp; but with a file comprising nearly 500kb, it
> SHOULD be full of detail.
>
I kept the size larger than normal. Being a vertical, it kinda messed up
with my normal sizing for web-display. Compression is set low too because I
didn't want the background to get JPEG artifacts.
> I agree with Nathan; if her right eye is examined with the magnifying glass
> of
> FastStone, and even without it, it seems to have a curve of reflective
> tiny
> bubbles on it. I've never seen that kind of artifact in a pic before.
>
I'm not sure what you are seeing--but it might actually be a reflection in
her eye of the interior lighting on the opposite wall of the church. I'll
look at the original again tonight to see what went wrong. One problem is
the E-1's hyper-aggressive AA filter. It takes some aggressive sharpening to
correct for that and when I downsized only about 50%, I resharpened again to
correct for that and I realize now that I used my standard resharpening for
a much smaller file. Besides, the point of the photo was to show off the
sharpness of the lens along with the bokeh characteristics and a bit of the
3Dness. To do so I felt that I needed to present the picture much larger
than normal and it's quite a bit larger than I normally display.
Regardless, it's impossible to judge ultimate image quality based on a
downsized and jpeg'd web image. It was meant for illustration purposes
only. Mackenzie wasn't feeling too well either and she was a trooper for
putting up with me.
BTW, ISO 200, 1/40, handheld, approximately 50mm and F2.8. She was lit by a
yellowish stained-glass window and the interior florescents were kicking out
a sickly green. It was just a quick and dirty shot that I took two minutes
to shoot, edit and post.
To bring it all full-circle, though...
The 35-80 F2.8 is simply an astounding lens and capable of far more than I'm
usually able to do with it. Just look at the fuzzy soft penumbra in the
bokeh--no hard edges or bubbles. Look at how the bokeh continues to expand
as distance increases--newer zooms (especially the 14-54) limit just how
spread out the blobs get and instead invert the blobs causing donuts or
balloons.
Consider for a moment that according to the test grades for this lens, I
photographed my daughter at about the worst possible aperture and focal
length. If it's this good wide-open, imagine what it's like stopped down a
touch.
Nearly every color photo on the www.zone-10.com website taken in Colorado
this year was taken with the 35-80 F2.8. Granted, it's impossible to judge
image-quality from a 800 pixel-wide jpeg, but it does indicate that the lens
is fully capable of producing images that exceed expectations in landscapy
shots.
We have found that some Zuikos which are exceptional on the OM bodies aren't
quite so hot on digital. The 100 F2.8 is an example of this. The bokeh is
wonderful on film, but harsh on digital. The 200 F4 is a poor performer on
film, but terrific on digital. The 35-80 F2.8 is a lens which is world-class
on either.
It does have some "issues", though. I used the lens on the E-1 while
shooting high-school football. Fine most of the time, but when shooting
across the field when the opposing field-lights are visible in the frame,
the flare just trashes the shot. It's as flare-hungry as I've ever seen in a
lens--but in fairness, it may also be a characteristic of just this one
sample.
A fellow list member made it possible for me to use and enjoy the lens and
it has been the most-used lens on the OM system this past year and is almost
more used on the E-1 than the 14-54. The drool-kit as shown in the bedroom
scene is only possible thanks to others and I am doing everything I can to
make sure it is used, used and used. I haven't been shooting much this year
because of work schedule, but even that is relative. According to my income
taxes for 2009, it actually was a pretty busy year with the cameras--and of
the revenue generating photography, film was used for over half the shots
used!!!! So the reality is, for 2009, the 35-80 was my most profitable lens
and the E-1 just barely eaked out first place in revenue over the OM-3Ti.
Digital? What's that?
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|