On 3/1/2013 6:48 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Travel/NorthEast_2012/Maine/Coastal_Maine_Botanic_Garden&image=_9140191oofm.jpg>
> Moose, I know that all things are supposed to be equal and I'm just
> blowing smoke most the time, but the moment that image started drawing
> on the screen I knew that it was taken with an Olympus. It had an
> unique look which I instantly recognized.
That's certainly impressive, considering what I did to the poor thing. Far more
an exercise in colors and textures than
an accurate representation of the subject.
I guess I could tell it's not a Canon, at least not the ones I've used, but to
pin it down as Oly is, I think, beyond me.
I do like the general Oly 'look'. JPEGs right out of the camera with default
settings are often very nice. This
particular one, although on a sunny day, was in the shade, the end of the falls
where the interesting stone was. So it's
a little flat, compared to my memory and other shots at the same time and
place. And more blown highlights than necessary.
Would this have cried out 'Olympus' to you?
<http://danielmitchell.net/sg/index.php?gallery=Places/Washington_Trip_2012/14_Aug_02&image=P8020784.jpg>
Image Abuser Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
