If you look again at my post, Ken, I wrote, "That's an abnormal
picture for you, Nathan: ..."
I suppose the implication was that each aspect bothered me, but I
wrote it as an explanation why I would not say anything positive about
the photo, and how it was different from any of the other photos of
Nathan's that I had seen.
The noise is an aesthetic distraction (and detraction), but Nathan's
motives for taking a photo in those circumstances do balance that
detraction.
Chris
On 15 May 2009, at 18:49, Ken Norton wrote:
> What part of the noise in that picture bothers you? I'd say
> absolutely
> nothing. I think the imaging noise in integral to the success of the
> picture.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|