Daniel Mitchell wrote:
> Ideally, of course, I'd learn the skill of taking good photos that
> also remind me of where I was -- but that's harder.. I think the problem
> is that the cause of a lot of non-technically-good photos is too much
> extraneous stuff in the background, the classic snapshot look -- but
> it's very difficult (I find) to exclude extra background stuff but still
> leave enough there to remind me where I am; I can isolate a particular
> element of the location, but the trick is then getting that bit of the
> location _on its own_ to also give the sense of being there.
I have a similar problem. It may be a reflection of the way we see
things in life. I find it relatively easy for my brain to focus on
objects or patterns -- the eye-catching stuff. The dramatically-lit
Ansel-Adams-like panorama often escapes me. But, then, detail has
been my life, so I don't find that unusual. :-)
My interim solution has been to take a wider shot as well as the
closeups or macros. My Winter Solstice Exchange shot
(http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/~bj/solstice/2004/2004.htm) is a
closeup that, to me, represented the abstraction of that structure
from the usual. I also took longer shots to provide context for the
closeup, since it would be difficult to get the big picture (no pun
intended) from just the closeup.
Given that Dean was planning to take a 21 and a 28, _if_ room was a
problem (maybe it isn't), I'd opt for a macro lens instead of two
wide lenses so close to each other (apertures notwithstanding). But
the ideal Zuikoholic response would be to take all of them anyway. :-)
Steve
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|