Natural light was the right choice for the photo but not necessarily for
a test conducted over a long period of time.
Dr. (sometimes) Flash
On 1/30/2012 10:23 PM, Joel Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012, at 07:43 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
>> Yes, nice shots. My newest orchid book given to me appeared to use
>> flash again with dark backgrounds.
>> Many of the images would not survive a Moose analysis.
>>
>> I enjoyed the test and commend it. (keep up the testing) I do
>> believe you pitched the lenses hanging curve balls with the
>> magnification and f stop.
>> I am surprised the maestro of shallow dof (you know who you are ;-)
>> ) didn't cry foul and was surprised by his comment.
>> With no background or foreground considerations, rendering differences
>> will be subtle especially at smallish apertures.
>>
>> Ruminating about rendering nuances indeed can get expensive but is
>> greatly enjoyable and not to be tread upon indiscriminately. ;-)
>>
>> A beef with no Bokeh, Mike
>
> I think they must have to use flash for those books. A bit like mug
> shots. Dr Flash may demur, but it's not attractive to me. I guess Dr
> Flash would know how to make it attractive.
>
> What would you like me to try next?
>
> Shallowest I generally go with big flowers is f8 (rarely) with film/FF.
> F11 is barely adequate. I would routinely go with f16. If filling the
> frame, there is still plenty of bokeh to be had. Bugs me to see a good
> bit of the flower out of focus. That said, I always enjoy seeing the
> maestro of shallow DOF's work. It usually seems like poetry to my prose.
> Another guy whose work we don't get to see enough in Bill Barber's.
> Vive le difference as we say here in New France.
>
> Joel W.
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|