I'd prefer to use a shift lens too but I had to sell the Zuiko 24/3.5 in
order to afford the 5D. One day maybe I'll get another but I haven't
really noticed much of a resolution problem with moderate software
perspective correction. Of course, I'm also not trying to make gigantic
prints from those images.
Chuck Norcutt
On 6/12/2012 5:32 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> 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/
|