> > From: Chris Stoddart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/11/11 Fri AM 09:39:01 GMT > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Re: SV: Any reason not to buy a *istD? > > On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, mike wilson wrote: > > >> close to where Brandt presumably was with the camera. The the fall-off and > >> vignetting would then mimic how your eyes would have seen the real thing. > >> I also suspect this is not an effect you could duplicate easily with a > >> 600mm lens? > > > > The Pentax 600/4 has noticeable falloff, wide open. > > No, I meant working in combination with the perspective of the picture. > Presumably if he's close with a 6x7 he's shooting with something in the > 'standard lens' sort of focal length? The falloff shown in some of those > pictures is obviously done post-processing, but then when combined with a > standard lens perspective and shown at effectively life-size, you'd in > some ways mimic the feeling of reality? In contrast, a picture taken > standing XXX metres away with a 600mm lens you wouldn't have the same > effect because of compression? You'd just end up with what some here > might already have called a nice picture ruined by softening and falloff > :-)
Got you. I thought you were referring specifically to the falloff. I need to learn to read more carefully. > > Of course that could be utter bollox (tm). Personally, standing anything > like that close to a cow elephant with her calf and firing a 6x7... no > thanks! > I think there is a site somewhere detailing a chap's efforts to picture heffalumps close up by disguising his wunderkam as a turd. Of course, they were far too smart to fall for that and did a Mexican hat dance all over his gear. Too sad. m ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
