Re: Haha; Good times revisited

[Steve Shapiro <sgshiya@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

There is nothing that can compare to a contact print from a well balanced
negative.

Hoha, hoho
ss
-----Original Message-----
From: YDegroot@xxxxxxx <YDegroot@xxxxxxx>
To: panorama-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <panorama-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sunday, November 22, 1998 8:41 PM
Subject: Good times revisited


I am not sure that anyone said that a Linhof 617 is an inferior camera.
After
all, it has a Schneider lens, that could be used on a 4x5 camera. What some
may not know is that Linhof only picks the best of the Schneider crop.
Anybody
knows that a lens with the Linhof name stamped on it is a better piece of
optical glass.

Some people laugh at the idea of a 'sawed off" 5x7 camera. I think such
thinking is foolish. The 617 format makes it possible to squeeze out more of
a
lens, because an image circle may not be enough for a 5x7, is too miuch for
a
4x5, and a 6x17 format is just a perfect maximizing of the lens' capacity.
Who
can be against that?

Image quality cannot be an issue here. What some people fuss about is field
of
view. I find that disucssion so hopelessly flawed,  because it takes an
external, materialistic view of panoramic photography. OK, I am willing to
call my Linhof 617 a wide field camera, instead of a panoramic camera. BIG
DEAL! Who cares? Panoramic ameras who do more than 120 degrees are also wide
field cameras.

And so we can run around in endless discussion circles. Circles of external,
technical, material points.

After all, even a picture of the starry sky, taken with a 50,000 mm lens (if
there was such a thing), is actually a really wide field camera, because it
takes in millions of miles of stars. Ponder that! Even a googool mm lens
would
still be a wide field.

Even a panoramic macro can be considered a wide field, if you change points
of
view (e.g. to that of an ant, or even smaller).


Haha.