There also is substantial loss of sharpness/resolution in the
perspective corrected version--perhaps related to not enough pixels to
manipulate. Reminds me of the advantage of using a shift lens--I enjoy
that way of working anyway. Also it reminds me I almost always like the
Zuiko 24/2.8 rendition better when there is an expanse of sky with
clouds compared to the lens corrected/profiled Canyon
24-105--distortion and all. Not sure why.
Shifty Mike
>I like the increased tonal distribution, but actually liked the skewed
>perspective better.
--Bob
On Jun 12, 2012, at 6:06 AM, Moose wrote:
> I'm not sure. I think the problem is that Chris' signature style* of
high
> contrast suppresses highlight and shadow
> detail. With the visual attraction/distraction of the unsquare forms
> 'corrected', there just isn't much for the eye to
> engage with.
>
> Changing the tonal distribution to bring up detail in the building
surfaces
> improves the corrected version a lot, to my
> eye.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Crawford/ward-corp2.htm>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|