Moose agreed with me:
>Ah, that explains it. Thanks. If I just take more pictures, will I up my
>odds of finally stumbling across a good one?
Less is more.
>Looks to me like a shot taken by someone with a good eye for
>composition, regardless of what camera(s) he used to or currently uses.
>But I may be prejudiced by the many excellent compositions with which he
>has blessed us.
So true. His pictures are a bit more pleasing to the eye than what some of
us foist upon the world. But to the point, I have found that the tool
(camera, lens, film, etc) tends to show us something which guides us to a
specific style of composition. That picture is one of which I would say is
more in tune with the types of compositions I'm inclined to make with the OM
gear, but not the digital gear. Part of it is viewfinder, but part of it is
how the optics (and viewfinder) present the subject to the photographer.
This concept did not originate with me, but by the late great Herbert
Keppler. I can't take credit for it, except for remembering that he wrote
about it in the late '70's. Back in the days when his articles had 12 "Go
to Page ..." jumps.
AG
http://www.zone-10.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|