p.4 #2 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot
does this issue of the "sweet spot" on lens like the 300 2.8 and the 400 2.8 apply to more traditional "portrait" lens like the 85 L 1.2?
Am i understanding the 85 1.2 everybody raves about is even better when stopped down than at 1.2?
also, under the same exact shooting conditions and parameters in your camera, which lens is sharper, the 70-200 2.8 stopped at f4 or the 70-200 f4 at f4?
p.4 #4 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot
cm0rris0n wrote:
I can't see myself ever doing that for ethical, and I suppose, philosophical reasons. Besides usually heavy-handed photoshop work looks like heavy-handed photoshop work and I think it looks terrible.
Speaking of which, a local paper here had an image on their website that I found in poor taste along those lines ...
They clearly used photoshop to brighten the highlights under his cap but it turned out terrible giving him a bright white halo around his head. Perhaps someone thought he was an angel, but otherwise I think it looks tacky.
Edited by cm0rris0n on Apr 05, 2008 at 12:27 AM GMT
Edited by cm0rris0n on Apr 05, 2008 at 12:28 AM GMT...Show more →
Wow...that photo has quite a few dust bunnies visible in the bg
