I didn't adjust the saturation during post but I am shooting a stop or
more underexposing and did tweak highlight and shadow recovery a bit.
maybe a square crop on stumped will solve the white sky issue, which I
hadn't really noticed until you mentioned it, does this look better
<http://thattimeoflife.smugmug.com/gallery/11039951_NUphX#1067787391_UtSrt-L-LB>
Does this one also look over saturated?, this wasn't tweaked except by
whatever default aperture applies. It had been raining when stumped was
taken and this one on Luc.
<http://thattimeoflife.smugmug.com/LATEST-NEWS/LATEST-NEWS-2010-Gallery/10978535_ZJJDw#1067776450_y4jQf>
A pal at work has just upgraded to a 60D ( I am sure I have seen that
swivel screen somewhere ) and is waiting for a 24-105 to arrive so I
will see how that compares to the 35-80/2.8 as it would be nice to have
autofocus, but I must say after an initial nonchalance when the 35-80
first arrived I have discovered that its certainly a very special lens.
On 02/11/2010 15:57, Ken Norton wrote:
> Ian, Roots is quite interesting. Stumped has the dreaded white sky
> which I seems to always have to fight too. Both seem just a touch
> intense on the color saturation, though.
>
> Would I have been able to identify either picture as having been taken
> with the 35-80? Of course not. But I can see where that lens was used
> to great effect.
>
> I'm using the 35-80 quite a bit lately on full-frame predigital
> cameras. In fact, last night I scanned a roll taken with this lens
> where there are a number of pictures where the image sharpness is only
> limited by the film itself.
>
> 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/
|