Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/11/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]More or less what I wrote B.D., not particularly fruitful. Nathan, I don't smoke that much , it must have been fog. But I'm not going to cheat and post something that was shot on a fogless Tuesday ;-) Thanks for looking, and your comments Douglas B. D. Colen wrote: >I'd say that a fog picture has to have something interesting about it, but >that something interesting doesn't have to be sharp if it's obvious that >it's fog we're looking at. This one doesn't quite have it - It's pleasant to >look at, but I find myself asking, 'what's your point?' > > >On 11/28/05 12:08 AM, "Nathan Wajsman" <nathan.wajsman@planet.nl> wrote: > > > >>Hi Douglas, >> >>A successful fog picture needs to have something sharp in the foreground >>to make it clear that it is fog and not, say, faulty development. Your >>scene is nice, but you would need some of GeeBee's inflatable ducks or >>swans in the lower part of the picture to make it a successful image. >> >>Cheers, >>Nathan >> >>Douglas Sharp wrote: >> >> >> >>>The wednesday walk along the canal was not particularly fruitful this >>>week. >>>http://gallery.leica-users.org/New-Old-Pictures/MG_3321_edited_2 >>>The blobs are ducks and seagulls, not spots on the picture. >>>Douglas >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Leica Users Group. >>>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > >