helimat wrote:
👆🏻 An excellent example of 'pop', as opposed to subject isolation, which as Bobby mentioned, is prevalent in most of the images posted lately
That's one of a bunch of reasons that I'm so happy with the GFX. I can get a ton of "pop" without blurring the background excessively. It's mostly due to the GF lenses though, but now and then I use a few adapted lenses that also sort of do what I want.
Edit: Don't know why but when I upload images at 2048 pixels width, they look much larger than that on my screen, and also pretty blurry. Once I click on it to fit the screen it looks reasonably good though.
Edit 2: Maybe it isn't larger, but my browser (chrome) is doing a poor job interpolating pixels compared to "preview". The drawbacks of high res screens...
Edit 2: Checked with my job computer with standard rez screen and it looks absolutely crap unless I open the image in a new tab and view it at native size. Weird.
helimat wrote:
👆🏻 An excellent example of 'pop', as opposed to subject isolation, which as Bobby mentioned, is prevalent in most of the images posted lately
That's one of a bunch of reasons that I'm so happy with the GFX. I can get a ton of "pop" without blurring the background excessively. It's mostly due to the GF lenses though, but now and then I use a few adapted lenses that also sort of do what I want.
Edit: Don't know why but when I upload images at 2048 pixels width, they look much larger than that on my screen, and also pretty blurry. Once I click on it to fit the screen it looks reasonably good though.
Edit 2: Maybe it isn't larger, but my browser (chrome) is doing a poor job interpolating pixels compared to "preview". The drawbacks of high res screens...
Jun 26, 2021 at 06:10 PM
Previous versions of Makten's message #15634085 « which lens has the most 3D POP? »
It's mostly due to the GF lenses though, but now and then I use a few adapted lenses that also sort of do what I want. 