> Brian Swale [mailto:bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] wrote:
> A prime example of the artifacts from a digital machine can
> be seen in the "real" enlargement of my bunny friend.
http://www.nothingrhymeswithorange.com/gries/Asides/OM-2002/SWAL.htm
> The fur on the shoulders of the little lady is out of focus,
> and the digital machine has reproduced each out-of-focus hair so
> that the end is all feathered out; as though the hair has
> repeatedly bifurcated to end up looking like a miniature feather
> duster.
I am fortunate enough to have received the "real" enlargement, and
I can see precisely what Brian refers to (this doesn't take away
from what is a wonderful image "in the flesh"). It's interesting
(to me) that this occurs in the out-of-focus areas alone, as the
sharp areas are certainly cuttingly so. I wonder if any "efforts"
that might be automatically built into the digital processing at
the developers might only perform work on "out of focus" areas,
perhaps making a (incorrect) presumption that they are not "out
of focus", but "unsharp".
What Brian hasn't mentioned here because it was irrelevant to his
point was that, with the naked eye, you can look at the eye of
the rabbit and see Brian himself lying down on his side to take
the photo, the house behind, and the fence on the right. It's not
a glaring reflection, but if you look closely it's obvious and
clear (and I mean the opposite of "offensively so"). Now, is that
sharp or what?! I believe this *may* have been mentioned about the
100/2 before though :-) (which couldn't be taken advantage of
without the photographer's "technique" of course).
Oh, and that "bokeh" that someone Robert Gries previously mentioned
about the image is even sweeter in the "real" image.
Cheers
Marc
Sydney, Oz
< 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 >
|