--- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Isn't photography suppose to be an art rather than > an exact science?
.02/2: Aspects of the equipment used oin photography *are* an exact science. Things like rules of third, etc. also converging lines, etc. can also be argued to have "scientific basis" (not neccessary but can be argued). Things like composition, lighting, choice of focus, metering and others that spring from the mind/vision of the photographer are artisitic in nature. > Given a similar circumstance, I would shoot more > vertical too not because > it is posed/spontanious/formal/informal, but only > because if the > composition of an image look better. .02/2: One would think that because it is a "scientific fact" that the species has evolved such that humans are much more "taller" than they are "wider", it is natural to assume why the portait mode is so called :) - Harman __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
