On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 11:29:14 -0500, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 11:00:41 -0500, Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nope, no filter other than a UV. I really don't feel like paying > (what seem to me to be) exhorbitant prices on eBay for little teeny > 39mm filters, although I would like a yellow or orange filter for that > camera, just to darken skies just a bit on sunny days. Mind you, I > rarely have that camera pointed in a direction that the sky's in the > frame anyway <g>. I spent a week at the beach last summer with HP5+ and ended up with lots of photos of the sea blending with the sky and the clouds. :( I probably could have used a filter for that situation. Of course, removing the sky from the frame may have helped. <g> > > In terms of the composition, I actually don't mind the car over there. > I kind of feel that seeing only one car is a stronger statement that > the storm kept cars off the road than if there were no cars at all. > I'm not criticizing your critique, BTW, just given my POV. It's not the car itself. It's the headlights. For whatever reason, not sure how to explain it, they just don't "do it" for me. The two little bright spots tend to pull my eye away from the woman. Personal aesthetics, I guess. I agree with your statement, however. > > I have to say, though, I snapped the pedestrian's photo, paying more > attention to where she was in the frame than anything in the > background. There were so few pedestrians on the sidewalks that day, > and I could see that the wind was gusting just then, blowing her hair > just so, and I felt that it was her or (maybe) no one. Overall, I really like the composition.
-- Scott Loveless Born free. Taxed to death.
