Steal one of her nylons, stretch it over the end of the 14-50 and forget
about it. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
Ken Norton wrote:
> I delivered some 8x10 prints to a customer last night. Portraits taken
> with the L1 with 14-50, flash lit, yada yada... Results were cropped a
> bit.
>
> I'm having a justification problem. The resulting prints are TOO
> sharp. I'm not talking about edgy, I'm talking almost over-the-top
> edgy. For portraiture it crossed over a line. The E-1 pictures has a
> natural sense of smoothness to them which gives the impression of
> softness even when brutally sharp, but this combination using the L1
> and 14-50 lens definitely went beyond what I feel is "sellable".
>
> I can dumb things down, that's a given. You can't make something sharp
> that isn't, but you can soften that which is too sharp. No problem
> there. But what I'm questioning is the need for "more/better" in this
> regard. What does more pixels give me? What is to be gained if I have
> to dumb the picture down anyway? It's not that I'm complaining--heaven
> forbid I do that, but I'm noting that I've possibly reached a point of
> sufficiency and blown past it in portraiture.
>
> I've noticed in other photographers' portraits this over-sharpened
> look--typically caused by hyperventilating USM, but usually the lenses
> lack the edginess to make it look critical-sharp and not
> mega-post-processed. The ONLY sharpening applied to these portraits
> was demosiacing sharpening during RAW conversion. I almost always send
> my images off to Millers with no additional sharpening as they apply a
> touch of sharpening in the print process. (The E-1 shots in the same
> batch of prints from the same exact printer were fine).
>
> It looks like the E-1 with 14-50 seems to be about the best
> combination for portraiture because the excessive sharpness/contrast
> of the lens is sufficiently countered by the WWE AA filter. The wimpy
> AA filter in the L1 just seems to make this setup too hairy for
> portraiture without processing to dumb things down. The E-1/14-50
> combination really does give the look I got from medium-format Mamiya
> cameras--sharp, but comfy. The Portra films always did a nice job of
> "smoothing out the wrinkles", but the L1 gives the photos that
> industrial look.
>
> So, to my question...
>
> When my CDFO makes note of the over-sharpness in the prints, how can I
> justify to her the necessity of getting some new uber-camera? See my
> situation? I foolishly bought that E-1 years ago and now I couldn't
> get rid of it even if I wanted to.
>
> BTW, speaking of new cameras. Last night I spent some quality time
> with the new E-PL1. Honestly? I like it a lot more than the E-P1.
> This is one slick little camera. But it just lacks that "gotta have
> it" characteristic. I think the buttons are among the better feeling
> and the overall layout is halfway logical. I just can't get used to
> the sound of the shutter and the lag. When taking pictures with these
> Pen cameras, I find that shutter-lag just long enough that the camera
> feels one beat behind the rest of the marching band. On my shortlist?
> No. Disappointed? No. That screen is very nice, but way low on
> pixel-count. Time for Olympus to get with the program.
>
> AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|