Lars,
I get so frustrated when I get a roll back and there are
some that are out of focus or any other of the millions of
problems that occur. I want that perfect roll where they all
turn out great - how often does that actually occur? Do
professionals get it right every time? If not, what percentage
of the time is reasonable to expect prints that are wrong (i.e.
3 pictures out of a roll of 24)?
I'm not talking about things like, the subject moved at the last
minute or Eyes closed. I'm referring to out of focus or blurry or
any one of those "operator errors"!
Thanks,
Kris
Thanks,
Kris
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 5:04 PM
To: INTERNET:olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: FW: FW: [OM] Now I remember why... (somewhat wedding
equipment off topic -
Sender: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Received: from zuiko.sls.bc.ca (Zuiko.sls.bc.ca [139.142.66.252])
by hil-img-2.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.10) with ESMTP id
RAA12956
for <KGarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 21 May 1998 17:04:07 -0400
(EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by zuiko.sls.bc.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA16851
for olympus-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 13:02:18 -0700
Received: from fw.sls.bc.ca (fw.sls.bc.ca [139.142.66.253])
by zuiko.sls.bc.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA16848
for <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 21 May 1998 13:02:11 -0700
Received: from mail.ic.dk ([194.255.107.174]) by fw.sls.bc.ca (8.7.6/8.7.3)
with SMTP id NAA27264 for <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 21 May 1998
13:02:52 -0700
Received: (qmail 5971 invoked from network); 21 May 1998 20:01:47 -0000
Received: from ic1.ic-local (HELO ic1.ic.dk) (192.168.65.12)
by ic4.ic-local with SMTP; 21 May 1998 20:01:47 -0000
Received: from munin by ic1.ic.dk with UUCP id AA10628
(5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx); Thu, 21 May 1998
21:58:33 +0200
Received: from munin.ping.dk (lhaven@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [192.168.1.32]) by
munin.ping.dk (8.8.0/8.6.9) with ESMTP id VAA01137 for
<olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 21 May 1998 21:31:14 +0200
Message-Id: <35648101.8BF14293@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 21:31:13 +0200
From: Lars Haven <lhaven@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Entirely unorganized
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.33 i486)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: FW: FW: [OM] Now I remember why... (somewhat wedding
equipment off topic -
References: <199805210910_MC2-3DC0-F769@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Charset: ISO_8859-1
X-Char-Esc: 29
Sender: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
KRIS GARREN wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> OR, maybe your thinking a little deeper when you say
> "meaningful"? I think right now I'm just absorbed in trying
> to learn the art of photography or should I say the technical
> aspect. I'm just so damn happy when a picture turns out the
> way I meant it to turn out<g>!
>
In that case you have achieved a lot! All the technical details
are not all that important when you get the picture you want.
With practice that happens more and more often, but even with
perfect technique there will always be surprises, both positive
and negative.
> Thanks,
>
> Kris
>
Regards
Lars
--
Lars Haven <mailto:lhaven@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> aka <lhaven@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
"When writing about women, one must dip one's pen in a rainbow"
D. Diderot
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|