Sorry, I guess I didn't make myself clear. I was not disparaging Jim,
or the E-510 or the 35/3.5 macro. I was only talking about the apparent
depth of field... that what appeared sharp in the far background (the
furthest extent of the DOF) on a small screen image would not be so
sharp on an 8x10 print. The size of your image is only 1129 pixels
vertically. When printed 8x10 the resolution (without interpolation) is
only 141 pixels/inch. At normal reading distance typical human vision
(not counting Moose) requires 300 pixels per inch such that we don't
discern the pixels. This image can't be printed larger than 4x5 to
accomplish that. That doesn't mean you still can't make a good looking
8x10 with interpolation but I believe the apparent depth and some of the
sharpness of the small image will be lost in the enlargement.
Chuck Norcutt
Jim Nichols wrote:
> Chuck, et al,
>
> I think the Cleome image would print well at 8x10 or larger. Here is
> a slightly larger crop, to show some of the OOF elements as well as
> the area in the original image. This was saved as a TIFF image,
> around 9MB, and should be viewed large by clicking on the box symbol
> at the top or bottom of the page.
>
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/OldNick/Cleome_+Another+Crop.tif.html
>
>
> I think that you are selling the E-510/ZD 35/3.5 Macro capability
> short.
>
> Jim Nichols Tullahoma, TN USA
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|