Hi, Sunday, January 2, 2005, 8:36:23 PM, Jens wrote:
> Thanks very much, Jon - and Bob. > I agree - about the judge. > He was a complete "printing fettishist" - he obviously didn't care what was > in the photograph - as long as it was very well printed! I agree, that well > printed (and of cource) exposed, photgraphs can look pretty convincing. Like > this one: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/2695269/in/set-68002/ > It is actually a rather boring/dull shot, but it still looks so very good, > just because the exposure (and hopefully printing) is just right. BTW - this > was made with a SMC-A 2.8/20mm fully open (2.8)! there are certain types of photograph where it is important for them to be technically faultless - architecture is one of those. I have some photos of the castles in Gondar, Ethiopia which are surprisingly similar in composition to yours, but which are not so technically skillful, unfortunately, and they just look dull. -- Cheers, Bob
