Hum -- yesterday I sent a message about a 24mm lens I 'tested'. I guess I
asked the question in the wrong way -- what I had asked was
"should I keep this lens" - I should have asked "Why aren't my pictures sharp."
Is it my technique, the lens, the film, developer or expectation. For example
I took a picture of the washington monument (actually several) but one was
from several thousand feet away (so it occupies about 1/10th to 1/15th
the vertical frame). In this picture the focus was infinity -- it was at f/8 at
1/500 of a second. As a 'snap' shot (4x6 print) I would have expected it to be
crystal sharp -- it wasn't. Now I can't figure out why. Note this wasn't a zoom
and crop -- it was just a 4x6 that the 1hour lab produced that I was looking
at.
In another shot -- I took a picture of an ambulance. It covers about 1/2 to 1/3
of the frame. I can't read the logo on the driver side. Shouldn't I be able to?
Pictures of things near (approx 1 to 20 feet) look sharp (i.e., I find the
4x6 print pleasing -- not sure they would look as nice as an 8x10).
Are my expecation too high for colour film ? Is the lens soft ? Is kodak gold
200 and 100 just not capable of producing the sort of image i'm looking for ?
Do 1 hour photo just do a lousy job of developing the film (grain was rather
ughly -- I know in b&w many photo shops produced yucky grain vs home
developing)
The picture was printed using that new digital to photo paper process ritz
uses. Could that be the reason the images are soft? I looked at the negatives
but it was hard to tell with the loop they had. I have a nicer loop but it
is at my parents house many days away.
By golly someone here must know the answer!! I sure don't.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|