Group: rec.photo.digital
Digital cameras, scanners, printers, software, PhotoCD.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Why can't some people compose a picture through the viewfinder?
Why can't some people compose a picture through the viewfinder?
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
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
Re: Why can't some people compose a picture through the viewfinder?
In article <pkvd24tknc6f8a86ir2tffd1ejfmet6evs@4ax . com >,
Gary Edstrom <GEdstrom@PacBell . net > wrote:
> 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
First, why do you assume they were looking through the viewfinder? For all
you know, the person taking the picture didn't even know what a viewfinder
was and just pointed the camera in the right direction and pushed the
button.
But, to really answer your question, composing a picture in a viewfinder
really is an abstract skill. You look into the window and the stuff you're
looking at certainly looks straight. To visualize it as the camera sees
it, you need to mentally transpose the scene into another coordinate
system. The camera is tilted to the right, the image will be tilted to the
left. It's not as obvious as it may seem.
One of the difficult things about teaching a skill to other people is
remembering what it was like when you first tried to learn that skill.
In article <pkvd24tknc6f8a86ir2tffd1ejfmet6evs@4ax . com >,
Gary Edstrom <GEdstrom@PacBell . net > wrote:
> 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
First, why do you assume they were looking through the viewfinder? For all
you know, the person taking the picture didn't even know what a viewfinder
was and just pointed the camera in the right direction and pushed the
button.
But, to really answer your question, composing a picture in a viewfinder
really is an abstract skill. You look into the window and the stuff you're
looking at certainly looks straight. To visualize it as the camera sees
it, you need to mentally transpose the scene into another coordinate
system. The camera is tilted to the right, the image will be tilted to the
left. It's not as obvious as it may seem.
One of the difficult things about teaching a skill to other people is
remembering what it was like when you first tried to learn that skill.
Re: Why can't some people compose a picture through the viewfinder?
On 2008-05-11 07:20:15 -0700, Gary Edstrom <GEdstrom@PacBell . net > said:
> Why do some people seem to have such a problem composing a picture
> through the viewfinder?
Glasses sometimes make it hard to see the whole viewfinder. A lot of
people don't understand the meaning of those edge of picture markers
you see in rangefinders and point and shoots; they think that if it is
in the viewfinder it will be in the picture. People don't see the
distortion caused by the lens; their brains automatically correct for
it and they don't see it until the picture is printed.
People have a problem with paying attention to everything that does
appear in a viewfinder. They see the subject, but not the tree growing
out of his ear. They see the view, but not the power lines in front of
it. They see the landmark, but not the pile of unsightly trash around
the dustbin in front of it.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
On 2008-05-11 07:20:15 -0700, Gary Edstrom <GEdstrom@PacBell . net > said:
> Why do some people seem to have such a problem composing a picture
> through the viewfinder?
Glasses sometimes make it hard to see the whole viewfinder. A lot of
people don't understand the meaning of those edge of picture markers
you see in rangefinders and point and shoots; they think that if it is
in the viewfinder it will be in the picture. People don't see the
distortion caused by the lens; their brains automatically correct for
it and they don't see it until the picture is printed.
People have a problem with paying attention to everything that does
appear in a viewfinder. They see the subject, but not the tree growing
out of his ear. They see the view, but not the power lines in front of
it. They see the landmark, but not the pile of unsightly trash around
the dustbin in front of it.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
Re: Why can't some people compose a picture through the viewfinder?
On May 11, 9:20 am, Gary Edstrom <GEdst...@PacBell . net > wrote:
> 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
One reason is that we often see what we EXPECT to see. This is a
characteristic of human vision. The brain does not receive a
"photographic" like rendition of the external scene. There is a
fantastic amount of data compression in the human visual system. If
we think we are looking at a familiar object, we will see the
"object", not the pixels that make up the object. This is the origin
of so many optical illusions.
One result is that we do not see what we do not expect to see when we
look through the viewfinder. I myself have shot oh so many bad shots
because my brain ignored distracting objects that obviously must have
been in the viewfinder, but they were not what my brain was expecting,
so it tuned them out. Composing through a camera viewfinder is a
learned art.
In one of the examples given, everyone knows the horizon is level, so
it "sees" the image that way.
Now, unfortunately, because of some quirk of the vision system, it
does NOT do the same processing when viewing a print as it does with
the original scene, even when viewed through the viewfinder. This is
weird, in my mind, but true. Best example is when we see the scene
that has a non-normal color temperature. We do not notice that
coloration, but boy when we see a print, even a colorimetrically
accurate print, we really notice the color :-(
On May 11, 9:20 am, Gary Edstrom <GEdst...@PacBell . net > wrote:
> 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
One reason is that we often see what we EXPECT to see. This is a
characteristic of human vision. The brain does not receive a
"photographic" like rendition of the external scene. There is a
fantastic amount of data compression in the human visual system. If
we think we are looking at a familiar object, we will see the
"object", not the pixels that make up the object. This is the origin
of so many optical illusions.
One result is that we do not see what we do not expect to see when we
look through the viewfinder. I myself have shot oh so many bad shots
because my brain ignored distracting objects that obviously must have
been in the viewfinder, but they were not what my brain was expecting,
so it tuned them out. Composing through a camera viewfinder is a
learned art.
In one of the examples given, everyone knows the horizon is level, so
it "sees" the image that way.
Now, unfortunately, because of some quirk of the vision system, it
does NOT do the same processing when viewing a print as it does with
the original scene, even when viewed through the viewfinder. This is
weird, in my mind, but true. Best example is when we see the scene
that has a non-normal color temperature. We do not notice that
coloration, but boy when we see a print, even a colorimetrically
accurate print, we really notice the color :-(
Re: KILL-FILE Re: Why can't some people compose a picture through the viewfinder?
Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
> Gary Edstrom wrote:
>>
>> What is so hard about looking through a viewfinder? It seems so trivial
>> to me.
>
> One reason is that we often see what we EXPECT to see. This is a
> characteristic of human vision. The brain does not receive a
> "photographic" like rendition of the external scene. There is a
> fantastic amount of data compression in the human visual system. If
> we think we are looking at a familiar object, we will see the
> "object", not the pixels that make up the object. This is the origin
> of so many optical illusions.
>
> One result is that we do not see what we do not expect to see when we
> look through the viewfinder. I myself have shot oh so many bad shots
> because my brain ignored distracting objects that obviously must have
> been in the viewfinder, but they were not what my brain was expecting,
> so it tuned them out. Composing through a camera viewfinder is a
> learned art.
I wonder if some people naturally see things correctly in the
viewfinder. I'm not one of those people, it has taken me training.
--
Paul Furman
w w w .edgehill . net
w w w .baynatives . com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
> Gary Edstrom wrote:
>>
>> What is so hard about looking through a viewfinder? It seems so trivial
>> to me.
>
> One reason is that we often see what we EXPECT to see. This is a
> characteristic of human vision. The brain does not receive a
> "photographic" like rendition of the external scene. There is a
> fantastic amount of data compression in the human visual system. If
> we think we are looking at a familiar object, we will see the
> "object", not the pixels that make up the object. This is the origin
> of so many optical illusions.
>
> One result is that we do not see what we do not expect to see when we
> look through the viewfinder. I myself have shot oh so many bad shots
> because my brain ignored distracting objects that obviously must have
> been in the viewfinder, but they were not what my brain was expecting,
> so it tuned them out. Composing through a camera viewfinder is a
> learned art.
I wonder if some people naturally see things correctly in the
viewfinder. I'm not one of those people, it has taken me training.
--
Paul Furman
w w w .edgehill . net
w w w .baynatives . com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Re: Why can't some people compose a picture through the viewfinder?
Gary Edstrom wrote:
> 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
What will you do with this information?
--
Frank ess
Gary Edstrom wrote:
> 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
What will you do with this information?
--
Frank ess
Re: Why can't some people compose a picture through the viewfinder?
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@PacBell . net > wrote in message
news:pkvd24tknc6f8a86ir2tffd1ejfmet6evs@4ax . com ...
> 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
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@PacBell . net > wrote in message
news:pkvd24tknc6f8a86ir2tffd1ejfmet6evs@4ax . com ...
> 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
Re: Why can't some people compose a picture through the viewfinder?
Ali wrote:
> 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@PacBell . net > wrote in message
> news:pkvd24tknc6f8a86ir2tffd1ejfmet6evs@4ax . com ...
>> 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
>
I have had many similar experiences. And with an SLR no less.
It blows my mind!! I will compose the picture, mark an X on the ground
where to stand, set all the controls and tell the shooter to just make
sure that everyone is in the picture before pressing the shutter button.
I emphasize that what you see on the screen is what will appear on film
(circa 1988). But what do I get?.....Nice shots of the group's shoes,
but nary a complete head shot of anyone!!! Unfortunately, in the old
days, with film cameras, you had no way to tell how the picture would
turn out. Some irreplaceable memories were lost because some people just
can't compose, even in an SLR viewer.
Bob Williams
Ali wrote:
> 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@PacBell . net > wrote in message
> news:pkvd24tknc6f8a86ir2tffd1ejfmet6evs@4ax . com ...
>> 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
>
I have had many similar experiences. And with an SLR no less.
It blows my mind!! I will compose the picture, mark an X on the ground
where to stand, set all the controls and tell the shooter to just make
sure that everyone is in the picture before pressing the shutter button.
I emphasize that what you see on the screen is what will appear on film
(circa 1988). But what do I get?.....Nice shots of the group's shoes,
but nary a complete head shot of anyone!!! Unfortunately, in the old
days, with film cameras, you had no way to tell how the picture would
turn out. Some irreplaceable memories were lost because some people just
can't compose, even in an SLR viewer.
Bob Williams
Re: Why can't some people compose a picture through the viewfinder?
On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:54:25 -0700, Bob Williams
<mytbobnospam@cox . net > wrote:
>Ali wrote:
>> 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.
My wife is famous for photographing feet. Most of the pictures she
takes result in headless figures and a good view of the lower body.
I think this is because she first used those cameras with the
plunger-style shutter release. It took more force to release the
shutter in old-style film cameras. So, she mashes down the shutter
release button on my digital, and this pushes the whole camera down.
There's also the tendency of the inexperienced to frame the image in
the viewfinder or screen, and then to look up and at the target before
actually snapping. This often results in the camera being moved
downward in opposition to the chin moving up.
P&S digitals are lightweight little things. Camera movement is
exaggerated compared to SLRs. I notice that my wife does better with
my Nikon d40 than she does with my Nikon Coolpix.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:54:25 -0700, Bob Williams
<mytbobnospam@cox . net > wrote:
>Ali wrote:
>> 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.
My wife is famous for photographing feet. Most of the pictures she
takes result in headless figures and a good view of the lower body.
I think this is because she first used those cameras with the
plunger-style shutter release. It took more force to release the
shutter in old-style film cameras. So, she mashes down the shutter
release button on my digital, and this pushes the whole camera down.
There's also the tendency of the inexperienced to frame the image in
the viewfinder or screen, and then to look up and at the target before
actually snapping. This often results in the camera being moved
downward in opposition to the chin moving up.
P&S digitals are lightweight little things. Camera movement is
exaggerated compared to SLRs. I notice that my wife does better with
my Nikon d40 than she does with my Nikon Coolpix.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Re: Why can't some people compose a picture through the viewfinder?
tony cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:54:25 -0700, Bob Williams
> <mytbobnospam@cox . net > wrote:
>
>> Ali wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> My wife is famous for photographing feet. Most of the pictures she
> takes result in headless figures and a good view of the lower body.
>
> I think this is because she first used those cameras with the
> plunger-style shutter release. It took more force to release the
> shutter in old-style film cameras. So, she mashes down the shutter
> release button on my digital, and this pushes the whole camera down.
>
> There's also the tendency of the inexperienced to frame the image in
> the viewfinder or screen, and then to look up and at the target before
> actually snapping. This often results in the camera being moved
> downward in opposition to the chin moving up.
>
> P&S digitals are lightweight little things. Camera movement is
> exaggerated compared to SLRs. I notice that my wife does better with
> my Nikon d40 than she does with my Nikon Coolpix.
>
>
I think some of this sort of thing can be blamed on inexperienced people
letting the camera pivot down slightly from the pressure on the release.
Thanks to the slight delay between push and click in most digitals, the
camera has stopped moving when the exposure happens. A while back I was
in a position that required me to use only my right hand on the camera
and I had to make several exposures before I got a good one. They were
all sharp, but the framing was off; I knew this because I looked at each
one on the LCD and saw that the camera had shifted down until I finally
got a good one. I can't remember what was occupying my left
hand--probably holding some obstruction back. One of the many-splendored
things about digital is that it cost me nothing but a little bit of
battery charge and I could see the problems immediately, not when I got
home and processed the film. Let's hear it out there for digital!
Allen
tony cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:54:25 -0700, Bob Williams
> <mytbobnospam@cox . net > wrote:
>
>> Ali wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> My wife is famous for photographing feet. Most of the pictures she
> takes result in headless figures and a good view of the lower body.
>
> I think this is because she first used those cameras with the
> plunger-style shutter release. It took more force to release the
> shutter in old-style film cameras. So, she mashes down the shutter
> release button on my digital, and this pushes the whole camera down.
>
> There's also the tendency of the inexperienced to frame the image in
> the viewfinder or screen, and then to look up and at the target before
> actually snapping. This often results in the camera being moved
> downward in opposition to the chin moving up.
>
> P&S digitals are lightweight little things. Camera movement is
> exaggerated compared to SLRs. I notice that my wife does better with
> my Nikon d40 than she does with my Nikon Coolpix.
>
>
I think some of this sort of thing can be blamed on inexperienced people
letting the camera pivot down slightly from the pressure on the release.
Thanks to the slight delay between push and click in most digitals, the
camera has stopped moving when the exposure happens. A while back I was
in a position that required me to use only my right hand on the camera
and I had to make several exposures before I got a good one. They were
all sharp, but the framing was off; I knew this because I looked at each
one on the LCD and saw that the camera had shifted down until I finally
got a good one. I can't remember what was occupying my left
hand--probably holding some obstruction back. One of the many-splendored
things about digital is that it cost me nothing but a little bit of
battery charge and I could see the problems immediately, not when I got
home and processed the film. Let's hear it out there for digital!
Allen
Re: Why can't some people compose a picture through the viewfinder?
Give my wife a camera and her IQ drops about 50 points! We were in Africa
about a year ago and we separated for some reason. I gave her a camera and
asked her to take photos while on her side trip. "Sure I did!" was her
reply when I asked she if she took any photos. Turned out that she FOCUSED
the camera a number of times and never actually took any photos.
"Allen" <allen@nothere . net > wrote in message
news:482894d2$0$30149$4c368faf@roadrunner . com ...
> tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:54:25 -0700, Bob Williams
>> <mytbobnospam@cox . net > wrote:
>>
>>> Ali wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>> My wife is famous for photographing feet. Most of the pictures she
>> takes result in headless figures and a good view of the lower body.
>>
>> I think this is because she first used those cameras with the
>> plunger-style shutter release. It took more force to release the
>> shutter in old-style film cameras. So, she mashes down the shutter
>> release button on my digital, and this pushes the whole camera down.
>> There's also the tendency of the inexperienced to frame the image in
>> the viewfinder or screen, and then to look up and at the target before
>> actually snapping. This often results in the camera being moved
>> downward in opposition to the chin moving up.
>>
>> P&S digitals are lightweight little things. Camera movement is
>> exaggerated compared to SLRs. I notice that my wife does better with
>> my Nikon d40 than she does with my Nikon Coolpix.
>>
>>
> I think some of this sort of thing can be blamed on inexperienced people
> letting the camera pivot down slightly from the pressure on the release.
> Thanks to the slight delay between push and click in most digitals, the
> camera has stopped moving when the exposure happens. A while back I was in
> a position that required me to use only my right hand on the camera and I
> had to make several exposures before I got a good one. They were all
> sharp, but the framing was off; I knew this because I looked at each one
> on the LCD and saw that the camera had shifted down until I finally got a
> good one. I can't remember what was occupying my left hand--probably
> holding some obstruction back. One of the many-splendored things about
> digital is that it cost me nothing but a little bit of battery charge and
> I could see the problems immediately, not when I got home and processed
> the film. Let's hear it out there for digital!
> Allen
Give my wife a camera and her IQ drops about 50 points! We were in Africa
about a year ago and we separated for some reason. I gave her a camera and
asked her to take photos while on her side trip. "Sure I did!" was her
reply when I asked she if she took any photos. Turned out that she FOCUSED
the camera a number of times and never actually took any photos.
"Allen" <allen@nothere . net > wrote in message
news:482894d2$0$30149$4c368faf@roadrunner . com ...
> tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:54:25 -0700, Bob Williams
>> <mytbobnospam@cox . net > wrote:
>>
>>> Ali wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>> My wife is famous for photographing feet. Most of the pictures she
>> takes result in headless figures and a good view of the lower body.
>>
>> I think this is because she first used those cameras with the
>> plunger-style shutter release. It took more force to release the
>> shutter in old-style film cameras. So, she mashes down the shutter
>> release button on my digital, and this pushes the whole camera down.
>> There's also the tendency of the inexperienced to frame the image in
>> the viewfinder or screen, and then to look up and at the target before
>> actually snapping. This often results in the camera being moved
>> downward in opposition to the chin moving up.
>>
>> P&S digitals are lightweight little things. Camera movement is
>> exaggerated compared to SLRs. I notice that my wife does better with
>> my Nikon d40 than she does with my Nikon Coolpix.
>>
>>
> I think some of this sort of thing can be blamed on inexperienced people
> letting the camera pivot down slightly from the pressure on the release.
> Thanks to the slight delay between push and click in most digitals, the
> camera has stopped moving when the exposure happens. A while back I was in
> a position that required me to use only my right hand on the camera and I
> had to make several exposures before I got a good one. They were all
> sharp, but the framing was off; I knew this because I looked at each one
> on the LCD and saw that the camera had shifted down until I finally got a
> good one. I can't remember what was occupying my left hand--probably
> holding some obstruction back. One of the many-splendored things about
> digital is that it cost me nothing but a little bit of battery charge and
> I could see the problems immediately, not when I got home and processed
> the film. Let's hear it out there for digital!
> Allen
