On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:47:11 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:03:45 -0500, Boater
wrote:


http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/29737c6c.jpg


This was shot handheld, no "VR," at 56mm, f9 at 1/200th from a
considerable distance, and cropped. See if you can read the words just
below the center top row of windows...

Relatively inexpensive lens, too.

Very sharp. They gray sky and gray building didn't help out any, but
overall, crisp.

Pretty good for a handheld shot at that distance.

This was the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. I haven't shot anything with the lens
wide open yet. I'm hoping it has nice bokeh.

I have had a long running "discussion" about bokeh and the relative
value of induced bokeh vs "faux" bokeh with my pro buddies which pops
up every once in a while when we're dissecting images.

My position is that bokeh is strictly aperature induced at the camera
- basically how exact the spherical component of the shutter is in
relation to the spherical component of the lens and, of course, the
speed of the medium and shutter. The "hard" position is that it
depends on the temper of the glass, how it's ground and it's surface
structure. Probably the most accurate is in the middle.

I really don't want to get into another "discussion" of the relative
merits of either argument other than to say that in my opinon, the
subject is not clearly understood by most amateurs and even the pros
have problems truly understanding the whole concept. :)