>Jim Davis wrote:
...I guess polarizers are not about making
natural looking photos then?...I don't believe our eyes do any kind of
polarizing effect.
Jim,
Photography isn't always about recording things the way they look to our
eyes; it's more about projecting a vision of the scene and capturing your
vision on film. In reality, you may see beautiful flora next to a mountain
pond against a mottled sky. From any one angle, you may not be able to
capture that with the camera without glare or with the reflection of the
mountain you want, and your audience can't jump in and walk around your
photo. To capture this vision, you have to use the tools you have available
to you. So many people are disappointed in their photo's because they don't
capture what they felt when they were taking the photo. Anything that helps
up capture what we experienced and share it with the audience is something
that contributes to our photography. Just as in painting, an artist is not
limited to what he or she see's, the photographer attempt to manipulate the
image to what he or she envisions. After all, silhouettes, motion blurs,
etc. are not what we see, but they are expressions of what we want to show.
If you don't want to use these tools, that's okay too, but please understand
that even Ansel Adams used filters and did a lot of manipulation of his
images to get them to what he envisioned.
Cheers, JD
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
