Agreed, I just had to poke at you a bit. :-)
Regarding the girl in the crowd; actually I WAS in the street, walking with the
parade and she was a spectator.
Skip
>
>Subject: [OM] Re: Tamron 80-200 f 2.8
> From: Mike <watershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 20:33:59 -0800
> To: 1 Olympus Digest <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>>
>>
>>These two portraits were taken with the 135/2.8, a SC lens. I don't see any
>>cardboard cutout here.
>>
>Skip, Perhaps I should explain what i mean. It seems to me that the
>longer the lens the more foreshortening and the less the apparent
>distance to the background. For example in the photo of the girl
>watching the parade I do see that lack of depth characteristic of a
>longer lens. Clearly the person behind her seems much closer than we
>know him (?) to be. A 50mm lens would have tended to separate the girl
>from the background. Now the 135 worked pretty well in this case where
>you can isolate a subject from a distance. Obviously a 50 wouldn't have
>gotten this photo because you would have been out in the street and run
>over by the horses :>) Actually a 135 is my lens of choice for a travel
>lens for this very reason. But for a formal portrait i think 85 is
>about max. Any more than that and the foreshortening in the depth of
>the human body starts to become apparent. Now I am not fanatical about
>this and always say use what works. I do especially like the portrait of
>mom and daughter.
>
>mike
>
>
>The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
>To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
>List Problem"
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|