On 10 Oct 02 at 12:54, Harrison Mcclary wrote:
> I guess if I ever had to shoot in that range then yes I'd use my 1n...but
> in 20 years as a working pro there have been 0 times I have shot in the
> 15 to 14 range. The widest lens I had till my 16-35 was a 17...and it
> was only very recently added....actually was added when I got a D30......
>
> How often are these extreme wide angles really needed? Do they really
> make good photos with impact or do they get too much info inthe frame to
> be read quickly? I tend to think the second it more true for most photos
> shot with extreme wide lenses.
Think art, lines and graphics/b&w'ish-view, instead of journalistic
info in each grain/pixel....;))
Also think blow-up to poster format, instead of a silly monitor
screen (even a data-beamer/projector of hundreds of thousands of
dollars/euros won't deliver the same quality as a 24x36mm slide, not
to mention medium- or large format (think 6x12cm Noblex images in
either Noblux or Leitz Diaskop 4x5" projektor).
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
