shouldn't one consider first *what kind* of photography is he after? i mean, the #2, "big dot in the middle of the viewfinder"... of course, the center spot where the lens is the best is there only to be ignored! har!
i propose a different metric of quality of any picture: MTTC -- mean time to trash can. amazingly, lousy snaps of cute babies seem to do much better (on average) than wonderfully composed and thought over artful shots of rocks and trees (1) want to "improve photography"? make it last! of course, if you shoot for money, it's a totally different game. the game making money, which has little to do with "art" or anything else for that matter. best, mishka (1) i have a bagful of snaps dating 60+ years back, and none of them is anything even remotely fit any of the rules that guy proposes (2) (2) i am sure that the folks in those prehistoric days of '40s did take pics of cool rocks. but none of them mattered enough to survive. unlike cute baby pics On 5/15/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.lenswork.com/lwq58s.pdf > > An article by the editor of Lenswork magazine. 1500K PDF article which > includes sample photos and other articles from the current issue of the > magazine, which I highly recommend. > > Some comments in the article may make for interesting and spirited > discussion. > > > Shel > >
