The first one looks just a little too dark for me. The second one may
be a touch too saturated but not very much. Regardless, I love the
shot. If it were mine though I'd crop it to conform better to the rule
of thirds horizontally such that it looks more like the thumbnail.
On 11/2/2010 12:35 PM, SwissPace wrote:
> I didn't adjust the saturation during post but I am shooting a stop or
> more underexposing and did tweak highlight and shadow recovery a bit.
> maybe a square crop on stumped will solve the white sky issue, which I
> hadn't really noticed until you mentioned it, does this look better
> Does this one also look over saturated?, this wasn't tweaked except by
> whatever default aperture applies. It had been raining when stumped was
> taken and this one on Luc.
> A pal at work has just upgraded to a 60D ( I am sure I have seen that
> swivel screen somewhere ) and is waiting for a 24-105 to arrive so I
> will see how that compares to the 35-80/2.8 as it would be nice to have
> autofocus, but I must say after an initial nonchalance when the 35-80
> first arrived I have discovered that its certainly a very special lens.
> On 02/11/2010 15:57, Ken Norton wrote:
>> Ian, Roots is quite interesting. Stumped has the dreaded white sky
>> which I seems to always have to fight too. Both seem just a touch
>> intense on the color saturation, though.
>> Would I have been able to identify either picture as having been taken
>> with the 35-80? Of course not. But I can see where that lens was used
>> to great effect.
>> I'm using the 35-80 quite a bit lately on full-frame predigital
>> cameras. In fact, last night I scanned a roll taken with this lens
>> where there are a number of pictures where the image sharpness is only
>> limited by the film itself.
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/