On 3/7/2011 12:26 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> Lovely shot - could it be a combination of soft light, very tight DOF and
>> really good bokeh rather than 'subtle lighting'?
> Andrew, all those things may have contributed, but the lens definitely didn't
> stand in the way of the photographer achieving the final result.
Huh? Without some idea of whether and what proportion of other lenses might
have got in the way, that's just meaningless
puffery. Practicing your spin in case you get a job in PR or politics?
I'm with Andrew on this one. We've recently seen a lot of close-up images taken
with relatively long lenses, from Mike's
Bigfoot to Jim's Telyt-R, with a lot of nice bokeh. And is the glow the lens,
or the photographer's skill/luck with the
light?
And shouldn't the stamens in the center be sharper, not as a matter of art or
technique, but from such a great macro lens?
Absent a comparison shot with another good lens, but not the King Lens . . .
Ain't Buying It Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|