|
SW Tom - Take a gander
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. |
SW Tom - Take a gander
"Boater" wrote in message ... 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. PHILOSOPHY Only after 250X magnification in Paint Shop Pro. After knowing what is was I could make it out at 100X. |
SW Tom - Take a gander
"Boater" wrote in message ... 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. What windows? Eisboch |
SW Tom - Take a gander
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... 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. PHILOSOPHY Only after 250X magnification in Paint Shop Pro. After knowing what is was I could make it out at 100X. Hmmm. There actually are three words there, which I can see clearly at 80%. Most likely due to differences in software and perhaps video cards and monitors? Your guess? In any event, the lens seems pretty sharp to me. At 80%, even the mortar joints look pretty good. Here's some rooftiles on a different building but at the same distance (lens at 75mm, f/10): http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/9c7dc4d5.jpg |
SW Tom - Take a gander
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... 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. What windows? Eisboch *Those* windows... |
SW Tom - Take a gander
"Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... 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. What windows? Eisboch *Those* windows... *Them* windows? |
SW Tom - Take a gander
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... 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. What windows? Eisboch *Those* windows... *Them* windows? Them be the those. |
SW Tom - Take a gander
"Boater" wrote in message ... D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... 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. PHILOSOPHY Only after 250X magnification in Paint Shop Pro. After knowing what is was I could make it out at 100X. Hmmm. There actually are three words there, which I can see clearly at 80%. Most likely due to differences in software and perhaps video cards and monitors? Your guess? In any event, the lens seems pretty sharp to me. At 80%, even the mortar joints look pretty good. Here's some rooftiles on a different building but at the same distance (lens at 75mm, f/10): http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/9c7dc4d5.jpg Did you do your building viewing before jpeg compression? What was the file size and what format? |
SW Tom - Take a gander
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... 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. PHILOSOPHY Only after 250X magnification in Paint Shop Pro. After knowing what is was I could make it out at 100X. Hmmm. There actually are three words there, which I can see clearly at 80%. Most likely due to differences in software and perhaps video cards and monitors? Your guess? In any event, the lens seems pretty sharp to me. At 80%, even the mortar joints look pretty good. Here's some rooftiles on a different building but at the same distance (lens at 75mm, f/10): http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/9c7dc4d5.jpg Did you do your building viewing before jpeg compression? What was the file size and what format? No, I shot the photo and viewed it in jpeg. Before I cropped it, the file size was about 4200 x 2800 |
SW Tom - Take a gander
"Boater" wrote in message ... D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... 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. PHILOSOPHY Only after 250X magnification in Paint Shop Pro. After knowing what is was I could make it out at 100X. Hmmm. There actually are three words there, which I can see clearly at 80%. Most likely due to differences in software and perhaps video cards and monitors? Your guess? In any event, the lens seems pretty sharp to me. At 80%, even the mortar joints look pretty good. Here's some rooftiles on a different building but at the same distance (lens at 75mm, f/10): http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/9c7dc4d5.jpg Did you do your building viewing before jpeg compression? What was the file size and what format? No, I shot the photo and viewed it in jpeg. Before I cropped it, the file size was about 4200 x 2800 File size in kilobytes..The version on PhotoBucket is 900K |
SW Tom - Take a gander
"Boater" wrote in message ... 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. Who gives a **** about your pictures? |
SW Tom - Take a gander
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... 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. PHILOSOPHY Only after 250X magnification in Paint Shop Pro. After knowing what is was I could make it out at 100X. Hmmm. There actually are three words there, which I can see clearly at 80%. Most likely due to differences in software and perhaps video cards and monitors? Your guess? In any event, the lens seems pretty sharp to me. At 80%, even the mortar joints look pretty good. Here's some rooftiles on a different building but at the same distance (lens at 75mm, f/10): http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/9c7dc4d5.jpg Did you do your building viewing before jpeg compression? What was the file size and what format? No, I shot the photo and viewed it in jpeg. Before I cropped it, the file size was about 4200 x 2800 File size in kilobytes..The version on PhotoBucket is 900K 4.3 megs |
SW Tom - Take a gander
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. Tell whoever took the picture to invest in a level. Perhaps some work on depth of field would be appropriate. BTW, who took the picture? -- A Harry Krause truism: "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Narcissistic Hypocrite] |
SW Tom - Take a gander
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:46:30 -0500, Boater wrote:
D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... 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. PHILOSOPHY Only after 250X magnification in Paint Shop Pro. After knowing what is was I could make it out at 100X. Hmmm. There actually are three words there, which I can see clearly at 80%. Most likely due to differences in software and perhaps video cards and monitors? Your guess? In any event, the lens seems pretty sharp to me. At 80%, even the mortar joints look pretty good. Here's some rooftiles on a different building but at the same distance (lens at 75mm, f/10): http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/9c7dc4d5.jpg Harry, who took that one? -- A Harry Krause truism: "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Narcissistic Hypocrite] |
SW Tom - Take a gander
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "Boater" wrote in message ... 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. Who gives a **** about your pictures? Never mind that. I find it funny how he's sucking Tom again. You know, after Tom banned him permanently from Chuck's, and he came back here calling Tom all sorts of names. He even tried to make fun of Tom's low transom Ranger, which is also a low freeboard Ranger... WAFA doesn't get the difference between his boat and Tom's. WAFA is beyond pathetic. --Mike |
SW Tom - Take a gander
JohnH 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. Tell whoever took the picture to invest in a level. Perhaps some work on depth of field would be appropriate. BTW, who took the picture? D'oh. I took the photo. Yesterday. I was testing a lens, not looking for an art photo. The ground in the park area where I was is not even close to level. I have a new lens to try out, and I wanted to see what it could do on a building with some interesting units. I cropped out the bottom third of the photo...just more grass. |
SW Tom - Take a gander
JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:46:30 -0500, Boater wrote: D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... 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. PHILOSOPHY Only after 250X magnification in Paint Shop Pro. After knowing what is was I could make it out at 100X. Hmmm. There actually are three words there, which I can see clearly at 80%. Most likely due to differences in software and perhaps video cards and monitors? Your guess? In any event, the lens seems pretty sharp to me. At 80%, even the mortar joints look pretty good. Here's some rooftiles on a different building but at the same distance (lens at 75mm, f/10): http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/9c7dc4d5.jpg Harry, who took that one? I took that one, too...as I said, I've been testing a lens. So far, I'm pretty well pleased with it, especially considering its relatively low price point and speed. It is an f2.8 zoom, 28-75 mm. The portion of the roof tiles depicted here is a tiny portion of the entire photo. |
SW Tom - Take a gander
"Boater" wrote in message ... D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... 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. PHILOSOPHY Only after 250X magnification in Paint Shop Pro. After knowing what is was I could make it out at 100X. Hmmm. There actually are three words there, which I can see clearly at 80%. Most likely due to differences in software and perhaps video cards and monitors? Your guess? In any event, the lens seems pretty sharp to me. At 80%, even the mortar joints look pretty good. Here's some rooftiles on a different building but at the same distance (lens at 75mm, f/10): http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/9c7dc4d5.jpg Did you do your building viewing before jpeg compression? What was the file size and what format? No, I shot the photo and viewed it in jpeg. Before I cropped it, the file size was about 4200 x 2800 File size in kilobytes..The version on PhotoBucket is 900K 4.3 megs That could be the difference. |
SW Tom - Take a gander
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:31:33 -0500, Boater wrote:
JohnH 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. Tell whoever took the picture to invest in a level. Perhaps some work on depth of field would be appropriate. BTW, who took the picture? D'oh. I took the photo. Yesterday. I was testing a lens, not looking for an art photo. The ground in the park area where I was is not even close to level. I have a new lens to try out, and I wanted to see what it could do on a building with some interesting units. I cropped out the bottom third of the photo...just more grass. Oh. You're right. Sometimes the engineers will design a building to have the same slope as the ground beneath it. Do you *really* expect folks to believe you took a picture you're posting as your own? -- A Harry Krause truism: "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Narcissistic Hypocrite] |
SW Tom - Take a gander
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:33:50 -0500, Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote: On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:46:30 -0500, Boater wrote: D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... 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. PHILOSOPHY Only after 250X magnification in Paint Shop Pro. After knowing what is was I could make it out at 100X. Hmmm. There actually are three words there, which I can see clearly at 80%. Most likely due to differences in software and perhaps video cards and monitors? Your guess? In any event, the lens seems pretty sharp to me. At 80%, even the mortar joints look pretty good. Here's some rooftiles on a different building but at the same distance (lens at 75mm, f/10): http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/9c7dc4d5.jpg Harry, who took that one? I took that one, too...as I said, I've been testing a lens. So far, I'm pretty well pleased with it, especially considering its relatively low price point and speed. It is an f2.8 zoom, 28-75 mm. The portion of the roof tiles depicted here is a tiny portion of the entire photo. Oh Harry. You know it's just a matter of time before someone finds the picture on the internet. Plagiarism is your style. -- A Harry Krause truism: "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Narcissistic Hypocrite] |
SW Tom - Take a gander
JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:31:33 -0500, Boater wrote: JohnH 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. Tell whoever took the picture to invest in a level. Perhaps some work on depth of field would be appropriate. BTW, who took the picture? D'oh. I took the photo. Yesterday. I was testing a lens, not looking for an art photo. The ground in the park area where I was is not even close to level. I have a new lens to try out, and I wanted to see what it could do on a building with some interesting units. I cropped out the bottom third of the photo...just more grass. Oh. You're right. Sometimes the engineers will design a building to have the same slope as the ground beneath it. Do you *really* expect folks to believe you took a picture you're posting as your own? D'oh. The building was on relatively flat ground. The park area where I was standing was hilly. Even a former "combat engineer" in the Army should be able to figure that out, eh? As I have stated here many times, what the right-wing turds like you think or believe matters not to me. You should do the world a favor and turn yourself in at the local Soylent Green Fish Food franchise. |
SW Tom - Take a gander
On Nov 4, 8:35*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... 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. Who gives a **** about your pictures? The asshole whines like a friggin' baby if Scotty proudly posts a pic or movie of the Mouse MXing, JohnH posts pics of places he's visited etc. but then HE can do it. |
SW Tom - Take a gander
On Nov 4, 9:31*pm, Boater wrote:
JohnH 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. Tell whoever took the picture to invest in a level. Perhaps some work on depth of field would be appropriate. BTW, who took the picture? D'oh. I took the photo. Yesterday. I was testing a lens, not looking for an art photo. The ground in the park area where I was is not even close to level. I have a new lens to try out, and I wanted to see what it could do on a building with some interesting units. I cropped out the bottom third of the photo...just more grass.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Please post the exif data. |
SW Tom - Take a gander
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. |
SW Tom - Take a gander
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 07:26:57 -0500, Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote: On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:31:33 -0500, Boater wrote: JohnH 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. Tell whoever took the picture to invest in a level. Perhaps some work on depth of field would be appropriate. BTW, who took the picture? D'oh. I took the photo. Yesterday. I was testing a lens, not looking for an art photo. The ground in the park area where I was is not even close to level. I have a new lens to try out, and I wanted to see what it could do on a building with some interesting units. I cropped out the bottom third of the photo...just more grass. Oh. You're right. Sometimes the engineers will design a building to have the same slope as the ground beneath it. Do you *really* expect folks to believe you took a picture you're posting as your own? D'oh. The building was on relatively flat ground. The park area where I was standing was hilly. Even a former "combat engineer" in the Army should be able to figure that out, eh? As I have stated here many times, what the right-wing turds like you think or believe matters not to me. You should do the world a favor and turn yourself in at the local Soylent Green Fish Food franchise. We got from your (maybe) inability to hold a camera, to my Army background, to politics in one post. Not in to changing the subject, are you? WAFDS! -- A Harry Krause truism: "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Narcissistic Hypocrite] |
SW Tom - Take a gander
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. |
SW Tom - Take a gander
On Nov 5, 11:47*am, 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.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Oh, I'm sure your lens will have such nice bokeh that it must actually defy the laws of physics....... Yours, but no one elses.... But, seeing how most of your pictures are blurred because of movement, and usually out of focus, the bokeh won't matter much. |
SW Tom - Take a gander
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. :) |
SW Tom - Take a gander
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
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. :) My limited experience with *deliberate* "bokeh" was when I used to do a lot of "head shots" with my 35mm film camera and my 105mm f/2.5 Nikon lens. If you focused properly and opened up the lens, you'd get a nice portrait with the background in soft focus around your subject. For about a year, I did a feature for one of the union news services in which I interviewed an AFL-CIO exec council member. When possible, I'd drag the union prez over to the park down the street from the AFL-CIO (the park across the street from the front of the white house), where there was a nice park bench and interesting foilage. I had no lights other than a flash, so I always wanted to go outdoors where lights were not an issue. The lens was a real gem, always one of my favorites. |
SW Tom - Take a gander
On Nov 5, 5:18*pm, Boater wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: 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. * :) My limited experience with *deliberate* "bokeh" was when I used to do a lot of "head shots" with my 35mm film camera and my 105mm f/2.5 Nikon lens. If you focused properly and opened up the lens, you'd get a nice portrait with the background in soft focus around your subject. For about a year, I did a feature for one of the union news services in which I interviewed an AFL-CIO exec council member. When possible, I'd drag the union prez over to the park down the street from the AFL-CIO (the park across the street from the front of the white house), where there was a nice park bench and interesting foilage. I had no lights other than a flash, so I always wanted to go outdoors where lights were not an issue. The lens was a real gem, always one of my favorites.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Liar WAFA |
SW Tom - Take a gander
On Nov 5, 5:18*pm, Boater wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: 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. * :) My limited experience with *deliberate* "bokeh" was when I used to do a lot of "head shots" with my 35mm film camera and my 105mm f/2.5 Nikon lens. If you focused properly and opened up the lens, you'd get a nice portrait with the background in soft focus around your subject. For about a year, I did a feature for one of the union news services in which I interviewed an AFL-CIO exec council member. When possible, I'd drag the union prez over to the park down the street from the AFL-CIO (the park across the street from the front of the white house), where there was a nice park bench and interesting foilage. I had no lights other than a flash, so I always wanted to go outdoors where lights were not an issue. The lens was a real gem, always one of my favorites.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Pfffttt... .more bull****.. you should start your posts with "Once upon a time..." |
SW Tom - Take a gander
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:18:36 -0500, Boater
wrote: My limited experience with *deliberate* "bokeh" was when I used to do a lot of "head shots" with my 35mm film camera and my 105mm f/2.5 Nikon lens. When ever this subject comes up, it's inevitable that Kim Kirpatrick's name pops up as a superior example of how to properly induce bokeh into a photo. http://www.kimkirkpatrick.com/ He works in the DC area. I had to look him up to find his website, so I cheated slightly. :) |
SW Tom - Take a gander
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:18:36 -0500, Boater wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: 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. :) My limited experience with *deliberate* "bokeh" was when I used to do a lot of "head shots" with my 35mm film camera and my 105mm f/2.5 Nikon lens. If you focused properly and opened up the lens, you'd get a nice portrait with the background in soft focus around your subject. For about a year, I did a feature for one of the union news services in which I interviewed an AFL-CIO exec council member. When possible, I'd drag the union prez over to the park down the street from the AFL-CIO (the park across the street from the front of the white house), where there was a nice park bench and interesting foilage. I had no lights other than a flash, so I always wanted to go outdoors where lights were not an issue. The lens was a real gem, always one of my favorites. Who gives a schitt about your lenses, Krause? -- A Harry Krause truism: "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Narcissistic Hypocrite] |
SW Tom - Take a gander
JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:18:36 -0500, Boater wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: 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. :) My limited experience with *deliberate* "bokeh" was when I used to do a lot of "head shots" with my 35mm film camera and my 105mm f/2.5 Nikon lens. If you focused properly and opened up the lens, you'd get a nice portrait with the background in soft focus around your subject. For about a year, I did a feature for one of the union news services in which I interviewed an AFL-CIO exec council member. When possible, I'd drag the union prez over to the park down the street from the AFL-CIO (the park across the street from the front of the white house), where there was a nice park bench and interesting foilage. I had no lights other than a flash, so I always wanted to go outdoors where lights were not an issue. The lens was a real gem, always one of my favorites. Who gives a schitt about your lenses, Krause? I want to know if blew out all of the highlights when he took his 'Portraits"? |
SW Tom - Take a gander
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 20:42:30 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:18:36 -0500, Boater wrote: My limited experience with *deliberate* "bokeh" was when I used to do a lot of "head shots" with my 35mm film camera and my 105mm f/2.5 Nikon lens. When ever this subject comes up, it's inevitable that Kim Kirpatrick's name pops up as a superior example of how to properly induce bokeh into a photo. http://www.kimkirkpatrick.com/ He works in the DC area. I had to look him up to find his website, so I cheated slightly. :) Just drop the camera and the lens get bokehed. Easy. LOL!!! True. |
SW Tom - Take a gander
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 20:42:30 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:18:36 -0500, Boater wrote: My limited experience with *deliberate* "bokeh" was when I used to do a lot of "head shots" with my 35mm film camera and my 105mm f/2.5 Nikon lens. When ever this subject comes up, it's inevitable that Kim Kirpatrick's name pops up as a superior example of how to properly induce bokeh into a photo. http://www.kimkirkpatrick.com/ He works in the DC area. I had to look him up to find his website, so I cheated slightly. :) Just drop the camera and the lens get bokehed. Easy. Another f*ing keyboard full of coffee! -- A Harry Krause truism: "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Narcissistic Hypocrite] |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com