>> |
Anonymous
>>99722 >If i can hold a 0.4" shot steady enough to not get any blur then 1/125 really shouldnt get any
The point was you were telling him to get a tripod for something it wouldn't have helped with and that a simple look at the EXIF data (or the nature of the blur) would've told you that. The point was that you were offering criticism in a very inattentive manner.
>so if its not blur its a shitty camera either way its ruining the shot.
Once more, it had to be some glitch; the A-series normally produces much better results than that. That's why everyone (including you) tells people looking for a really cheap manual camera to get one.
And the blur went away easily when someone resized it and post-processed it properly. You probably couldn't get a great physical print out of that file, but for display on a computer monitor it's fine once dealt with.
>I said the rest of the stuff because I belive that following those guides will help produce a BETTER SHOT
I don't think you have a personal thing to prove, no, and I do believe you think those things will make a better shot. I strongly disagree, and I'll touch on why in a minute.
>SURE there are decent shots taken at eye level but its so common to see something from that perspective so experimenting with different ones is good.
Experimentation for its own sake is useful for the artist, but usually doesn't end up with good art. Strange angles might be aesthetically interesting, but unless they're really used right (Nachtwey's gallery shows some amazingly perfect examples of them being used right, too) the style overwhelms the substance and the content and takes all the impact out of the photograph. It's the same reason most of the great photographers use/used primarily normal lenses, or lenses only a little bit wider/longer: they don't draw attention away from the content of the work to the "oh, hey, look how wide and distorted that is!" or "oh, hey, look how compressed that is!"
|