> Practitioners become
>keenly aware of the properties of their tools.
> Ever look at Weston's prints ? The main portion of his work was
>done with a decidedly 'inferior' lens for its day. If you read Ansel Adams
>he was mortified that Edward Weston continued to use the lens and
>even offered him a better one (EW refused). How are Weston's prints
> *= Doris Fang =*
>Ps. Funny, one thing you didn't correct that is glaringly wrong
>is the equation of low-contrast with lack of sharpness. It is not true.
>Most people mistake high contrast for sharpness.
>Read Gary Reese's tests, and you come across the "high contrast at the
>expense of sharpness" statement often.
Take a look at this
This guy set out to do studio photography on the cheap (interesting in
itself) but the really interesting thing is that he used a Canon QL17 for
most of these shots! (Maybe not even the GIII version). He has no reason to
lie - he owns an M6 too but loves the Canon. He obviously 'knows this tool'
- I could pick a few holes but I'd love to do this well with a little
rangefinder. Like most professionals, he's more interested in lighting,
tripods and film choice than gear. You can do this well with an RD or SP -
betcha! Most expensive item in his studio - the backdrop! Check out the
rest of his site - it's great.
As to contrast - Photoshop increases it by degrading the image selectively!
Hmmm. Go Doris - rant on!
< 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 >