Yes I do know her name, but I more or less promised not to use it on
anything even remotely close to being posted on the web. I think the
"jpeg" artifacts were introduce when I was manipulating the image to try
to balance the color. The lighting was mixed to say the least,
daylight, tungsten and florescent, some little pinkish bulbs in a
chandler. The girl had a nice healthy, "for a Vulcan", green glow
around her face while her arm was a bit bluish and the the off white
portion of the door was somewhat pink. I'd like to say it was fun, but
it wasn't. I'm going to see how it looks in B&W without all of the
various correction layers...
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
So, after what seems like more than a year of photographing this woman,
have you learned her name?
This pic appears to be loaded with JPEG artifacts.
Good to know that you like the 20~35. Right now it's a toss-up for me if
that or the FA35/2.0 will be my next lens purchase. Both seem to be well
regarded. And while I don't care much for zooms, the short zoom is one
that is of greatest interest.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: P. J. Alling
I was going back over some shots from a while back, and came across this
one. It's another informal portrait. The web conversion doesn't do it
justice, you can count the eyelashes on high magnification. The FA20-35
is just incredibly sharp, and anyone who thinks that the *ist-D doesn't
produce sharp images hasn't really used the camera. Anyway here it is:
http://www.mindspring.com/~megazip/PESO_--_cnongrl4.html
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
