Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/12/30

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Re: Not a PAW...
From: Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:33:40 -0800
References: <003401c3cee6$306437a0$6501a8c0@CCA4A5EF37E11E> <5.1.1.6.2.20031230141757.044a3210@mail.brick.org>

JCB
Subject: [Leica] Re: Re: Not a PAW...


Ted said:
> >Hi Eric,
> >Sorry to disagree with you, but I think it's an "almost  perfect swishy
pan"
> >as I call this type of picture illustrating motion which I try when
shooting
> >some sports to capture the action.<<<

And JCB SUGGESTED:
> In a wedding, the MOST IMPORTANT person, place, or thing, IS THE BRIDE.
>
> I believe that ALL photographs in which the bride is dominant, the bride's
> head must be the "focus" of attention. Swishiness is good for the
> background, groom, brides dress, etc, but the pan should have the brides
> upper torso and head, or just her head, be the most in focus part of the
> big swish.
>
> If you miss this, then the shot is just a happysnap.
>
> The photo in question has the brides left hand, purse, midriff, and
> mid-trailing head dress in focus. This is the wrong stuff. Therefore, this
> is at best, a happysnap.<<<

Oh well I screwed one up again, but I didn't say it was perferct did I? So
once again I'll leave the bride stuff to the bride shooters and return to
the Olympics where I feel right at home doing swishy pans. ;-)

And yes I ALWAYS GET THE RIGHT ATHLETE! ;-) ;-)

And a parting question from us "happy snappers?" What's wrong with happy
snapping?

ted



- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> (RE: [Leica] Re: Not a PAW...)
Message from JCB <jcb@visualimpressions.com> ([Leica] Re: Re: Not a PAW...)