iorewdestination.blogg.se

This is true for all of the arts, not just photography.

Between two photographs of equal power the more technically refined photograph may be technically better but a technical quality is only worthwhile if it backs up a photograph that is emotionally expressive, expresses a strong idea, and a strong aesthetic sensibility behind it. Quote I think a photographer's time is generally better spent making themselves aware of the interaction of color and light, framing and composition, working on seeing life, and their shooting technique as opposed to dwelling on the aspects this program seems to measure. The product is still a bit unrefined, but the developer has obviously put a lot of thought (and work) into it. Inexperienced users might tweak their lens for best results at one focus distance, without realizing that they worsened the performance at other distances.īut for those who stand to benefit from AF fine tuning, I think FoCal represents a genuine advance over tools like LensAlign and SpyderLensCal. Even with prime lenses, the magnitude of the improvement obtained from AF tuning may not be significant for some users. The user needs to choose a compromised value for the lens, or needs to reload different values depending on situation. For some lenses (especially zooms) the optimum adjustment value can vary with focal length, or subject distance, or possibly even aperture. When I wrote that the significance of the fine tuning process is debatable, I was really thinking about the practical benefits and limitations. It might be more realistic to use a randomization of initial positions. But, in an automated sequence, the same defocus method will be used for all points. It defocuses by changing the Fine Tune value to its near or far extreme values, or by physically moving the lens focus setting to near or far extremes. In the "Pro" version of the program, you can choose the defocus operation that is used before each measurement.