In a message dated 1/25/01 9:15:21 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< To me, you don't "compose" a photograph. The photograph composes itself
and then you recognize later which photographs were successes.>>
You must now find a better word for what we do, if not "compose." We *never*
deliberately point the camera at something and just shoot. We always look
thought the viewfinder, if for no other reason than to see what's there. Once
our noses press into the camera, we begin to "edit" the scene, if not
compose. We eliminate everything that does not, as you suggest "compose
itself."
> Lots of potentially honest photographs are ruined by intentional
> "composition." >>
Way too philosophical for me.
We take series of images of scenes we like, changing perspectives, distance,
shooting a landscape one moment, macro the next.
We hover over a flower for its detail, or stand and contemplate designs in a
bridge pylon. We orbit a bevy of flowers, stopping to "edit" what we've seen.
But we *never* just point and shoot, at least not we "serious" photographers.
*You* seem to think acts of deliberation are wasteful, or even destructive.
Some of us find the act of composition peaceful, inspiring even, the act of
editing or composing being in and of itself most times cathartic, serene,
Zen.
How then can or could "contemplation" or any act of introspection,
photographic or not, be harmful, particularly since the "ruination" you say
is a sign of asperity is not evident?
How then, can you infer that an act of quiet creation vis-a-vis
"composition," (composing) be, at the same time, harmful?
Mafud
Zawadi Imaging & Media Company
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
