ML Archiv: Re: [OM] Why an OM-3?

Subject:	Re: [OM] Why an OM-3?
From:	Henrik Dahl <hdahl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Sun, 5 Aug 2001 17:27:39 +0200

As I have mentioned before, bracket only work for still objects, in many
case not... even for portrait. Think about one's expression in the eye can
be changed in one tenth of a second.

C.H.Ling



Exscuse a foreigners question, but what does "bracketing" mean in english?
Henrik Dahl
Stockholm, Sweden



< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: [OM] Why an OM-3?, (continued) Re: [OM] Why an OM-3?, C.H.Ling Re: [OM] Why an OM-3?, Parzival Herzog Re: [OM] Why an OM-3?, Henrik Dahl Re: [OM] Why an OM-3?, andrew fildes Re: [OM] Why an OM-3?, John Hermanson Re: [OM] Why an OM-3?, Skip Williams Re: [OM] Why an OM-3?, johnsonpa RE: [OM] Why an OM-3?, Chip Stratton RE: [OM] Why an OM-3?, James N. McBride Re: [OM] Why an OM-3?, C.H.Ling Re: [OM] Why an OM-3?, Henrik Dahl <= Re: [OM] Why an OM-3?, Mickey Trageser Re: [OM] Why an OM-3?, Henrik Dahl Re: [OM] Why an OM-3?, Jim Couch Re: [OM] Why an OM-3?, Walt Wayman

Previous by Date:	Re: [OM] OT? Leica F1.0 Link?, Henrik Dahl
Next by Date:	Re: [OM] Why an OM-3?, Mickey Trageser
Previous by Thread:	Re: [OM] Why an OM-3?, C.H.Ling
Next by Thread:	Re: [OM] Why an OM-3?, Mickey Trageser
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]