Hi C.H., Fernando and all,
From: "C.H.Ling" <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Part of the problem may be came from scanning but I think the extreme
>contrast of the scenes also responsible for that, contrasty scenes look
>dramatic but not easy to capture with slides.
Negative film (either colour or B&W) has the broader capture range... but
you have to limit it severily while printing! But still there's a lot of
room for dodging and burning-in. Slide film captures much less, but when
seen properly projected, they capture a bit more than any print. Scanning
does of course reduce the dynamic range of slides.
>I'm not always has problem with blew highlights as long as it is not on the
>subject.
YES! I agree! That's why histograms are meaningless to me -- I look at my
subject, not the statistics.
From: Fernando Gonzalez Gentile <fgonzalezgentile@xxxxxxxxx>
>Anyway, now I have the 300 mm ?/4,5 and 2X-A - but somewhere above
>400mm might suffice. Since I mainly use RDPIII, an 1.4X-A would be a
>great instrument. OTOH, there are becoming so rare that I doubt it's
>worth the investment.
Tamron had a 1.4x teleconverter, but in the Adaptall line -- only for a
selection of their Adaptall lenses, altough the combo would fit any SLR. And
they had no thing like a 300/4.5 -- just the famous 300/2.8... and a scarce
(and very well regarded) 400/4.
Maybe a fastish 200mm with a 2X-A... how would perform the Zuiko 180/2.8 +
2X-A? (360/5.6 equiv.)
>BTW, if I wanted to photograph fishes inside a bowl - with T-32s, a 24
>or 21mm .... any advice?
I did use a 21mm with an "ave de rapiña" in Senegal... <
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuiko21/3559445285/in/set-72157618724568792/>
Cheers,
--
Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas
IES Turaniana (Roquetas de Mar, Almeria)
<http://cjss.sytes.net/>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|