LOL, it's true!
I have given my camera to people to take a group photo with me in it (not
by
choice, as I prefer to be behind the camera) and all but one occasion they
have not turned out very good. Prime lens, so no zooming to do, told them
where to stand, I set the camera up so all they had to do was stand still,
put the heads in a certain position and press the button, fool proof (or
so
I thought)! The one time it turned out well was with a total stranger.
So
if you're that person, thanks.
On one occasion, I forgot to take the continuous shoot off and I ended up
with a burst of 5 photos, with a group of four all in the bottom right
hand
1/4 of the photo and of course nicely focused on the background! I can't
believe how they got it so wrong. It was on a wideish lens and they must
have used their own foot zoom when I went to join the photo. Who would
frame a group photo in the bottom left hand quarter?!? I didn't have the
heart to say anything, just deleted it afterwards.
"Gary Edstrom" <GEdstrom@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:pkvd24tknc6f8a86ir2tffd1ejfmet6evs@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Why do some people seem to have such a problem composing a picture
> through the viewfinder?
>
> Last year, I finished scanning every one of my father's approximately
> 5,000 transparencies dating back to 1951. During the process, I had a
> chance to really look at each picture in detail, although I had seen
> them all before.
>
> While my father was pretty good at composing pictures, there would be
> times he would hand the camera to someone else so that he could get in
> the picture too. More often than not, the picture would be VERY poorly
> composed. I have one where the camera was tilted at about a 30 degree
> angle, and you only see my dad's head down in the lower-left corner of
> the picture. This was not just a one-shot blunder...all of the pictures
> in the group are similar, although not as bad. The rest were
> recoverable after rotating and cropping the image.
>
> What is so hard about looking through a viewfinder? It seems so trivial
> to me.
>
> Gary
|
