I feel I'm being insulted: anal retentive: what does that mean? A touch of not enjoying this list is beginning to creep in. What the ### am I doing wrong?
I do not disagree with what you're saying, just that I've encountered plenty of situations where tripod use is out of the question. Otherwise we'd all be tripoding along, wouldn't we. :-) Paul Delcour > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 09:05:23 -0600 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Tripod use > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:22:00 -0400 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Delcour" > Subject: Re: Tripod use > > >> Try using a tripod in a crowded room where you're supposed to catch in a >> flash what's goin gon and the light's really low and you have no flash. >> You're overreacting I feel. When possible a tripod used of course > improves, >> but when going candid it's out of the question. Besides, as with the >> discussion on lenses I wonder whether all this extra sharpness is needed > of >> desired. Not always, so a tripod doesn't always improve the picture quaily >> by adding sharpness. >> >> If the image is stunning, nobody will question the technique. > > See, I knew some anal retentive would come up with an example of this. > > It doesn't matter, all you are doing is compromising your picture, and > limiting what you can do with it. > I have shot in precisely the situation you described. I chose to use a solid > tripod. It was a professional decision. It allowed me enough personal space > to work. > > Regarding your last statement, if the image is stunning, you used good > technique, but more importantly, you also had a good concept. > Nothing is worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy concept. > Except perhaps a just ever so slightly fuzzy picture, just enough to make it > unviewable, of a sharp concept. > > William Robb >
