I was just thumbing through the new Sports Illustrated, a part of their 50th
anniversary series, that devotes a large section to a history of their photos.
Aside from the fact that it is a remarkable collection of fine photography even
to a non sports fan, I noticed something else.
There were a lot of photos, most of them, to be specific, that lacked one or
more elements that many of us consider essential to making fine photography.
First, there was a uniform lack of what most of us would consider critical
sharpness. And B, there tended to be grain. Buckets of it, in fact, in many.
And did I mention that many photos were made with lenses that were not all that
resistant to flare? NOt only that, but many of the great ones were in COLOR!!!.
Did any of that detract from the fact that most all of the photos were
remarkable examples of the art, and fit for most any museum? Not for a minute.
Food for thought, no?
There was one other thing, though. It seems to me that photographers of
football and basketball are taking photos from a greater distance, with monster
"my p***s is bigger than your's" lenses. I'm not sure I like the result. I know
that the "not good enough not close enough" this was applied to war photos, but
it may also apply to wars on the field.
Bill Pearce
__________________________________________________________________
Introducing the New Netscape Internet Service.
Only $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|