It is the equipment, that is why we old timers always get superior
photos. Those new fangled cameras just ain't no good atall.
As proof or this, with the old cameras, you wind up saying, "I can't
figure out how to use this camera". With the new ones, you wind up
saying, "This camera is stupid". So with the old ones, since it is
obviously your problem you go through the hard headed process of
learning. With the new ones you trade it in on a smarter camera, which
being smarter than the photographer makes him remember the scene so he
can recall it later because. I mean why would a smart camera bother
producing a nice photograph just so that dumb photographer wouldn't have
to remember things...
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Kenneth Waller wrote:
It's easy to blame bad photography on the equipment.
William Robb
Boy, isn't that the truth.
Kenneth Waller
----- Original Message ----- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: Portraits
----- Original Message ----- From: "Roman" Subject: Portraits
My recent experience with *istDL shooting portraits and lenses from
EXIF spec. shows images are about 0.7EV underexposed. Shooting in RAW
it is easily corrected with UFraw but I wonder if lenses are to be
blamed. Should I perhaps use center-weighted metering instead of Spot
for these large objects like portraits. Oh, and eyes are always need
to be corrected to expose full magic in them.
It's easy to blame bad photography on the equipment.
William Robb
