On Jul 5, 2010, at 4:27 PM, Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Seems to me that the quality of the photograph (which is very good) has
>> more to do with the photographer's choice of excellent light followed by
>> positioning of said Mona Lisa within the light. But, no, I didn't see
>> any PanaLeica mystique. :-)
>
>
> Thanks, Chuck.
>
> Chuck does end up perfectly illustrates my point about this entire
> discussion. When putting up a sample photograph, the "blame" for the
> trait is placed on something else. In this case, the lighting. Well,
> you could be right. But if I used a more subtle photograph then you
> probably wouldn't see it without my pointing it out and even then
> you'd be tempted to say that it either is just in my head or it's a
> normal thing or it has other causations--and you would be just as
> right.
>
> I guess that what I'm suggesting is that for some intangible reason I
> get this trait more often with the 14-50 than I did with any other
> lens. The 35-80, which is similar, yet different, also seems to make
> my life easier in getting this kind of image. I could show you dozens
> of photographs that have that "edge" to them.
Ken,
It's an amazing lens and I can see why you are taken with it. I look forward
to seeing you sometime In the flesh and I'm hoping you'll have it with you.
Joel W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|