Re: Are you kidding?

[Clayton Bennett <cjbennett@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Panamanians --

Here's the short version: Strong words don't help weak arguments.

Here's the long version:

George S. Pearl wrote an interesting follow-up to the recent posts about
definitions of panoramas, comparisons among vastly different cameras, and
whether one can "draw a line" between authentic panoramic images and mere
imitations. I'd like to give him, and others on the list, an update.

> Clayton says he is leaving the list because of some rough words some of you
were saying about his camera. I hope he doesn't leave just because of
something so small.

First, you can drop the idea that I'm touchy, or that I have any personal
stake in how others feel about the XPan. Erickson, Nathan, and anyone else
can choose to dislike the XPan, and can dislike me while they're at it.
Doing so won't hurt my feelings or change the way I see the camera I use.

In fact, I first left the list because I'm not interested in arguments
carried on at the schoolyard level. It doesn't matter which side I might
take, or the ages of anyone involved; if it amounts to nothing more than
gibes and taunts, I have no time for it.

> Everyone has their right to their own opinion on equipment.

Depends whom you ask. Apparently, Erickson and Nathan believe that everyone
else is entitled only to _their_ opinions.

> It really isn't that big of a deal folks as long as you define what you are
doing.

If you review the messages in this thread, you'll notice that those of us
who prefer to take a broader view of panoramic photography (both meanings
intentional) have done just that. Two list members don't like the
definitions the rest of us have made or adopted, and have decided to declare
all methods but their own invalid.

Guess what, fellas? You're in a staggering minority, and no insults or
posturing from you will change that -- especially when you can't back up
your contentions with basic mathematics.

> The FORMAT of a panorama has always been a long skinny thing of SOME DEGREES
of coverage.

Care to say how many?

> As to how you got to that FORMAT picture really doesn't matter...

Again, that depends on whom you ask. When I look at Gildas Le Lostec's work,
I can assume he has used his own cameras. But I don't care. If he had used a
Casio 320x240 fixed-focus digital camera and achieved the same results, I
would like the images the same amount. I can appreciate the technical
aspects of photography without judging an image by the gear used to make it.

> ...but what really ticks us rotational camera users off is when people say:
"Oh yeah, I'm a Panorama Photographer TOO...I've got that little switch on
my plastic Drop-o-Flex Disposable camera that lets me do the same thing..."
Well, it isn't the same thing by a long shot!

Did I say that? No. Did Joel Seaman say that? No. Did Clyde Soles say that?
No. Did Curt Miller say that? No. Did Kevin Frest say that? No. Did Dave
Balfour say that? No. Did Don Roberts say that? No. Did Paul Andrews say
that? No. Did Alan Zinn say that? No. If you can show me where anyone on
this list has suggested such a thing, I'll be surprised and impressed.

> People like Bob Erickson have major investments in Curkut Cameras, and are
shooting in a different league than the guy with the " 35mm panoramic
snapshot camera". They have not only a large investment in the specialized
equipment that sweeps past anything that little 35mm camera could do, but
they have years and years of training and experience producing outstanding
examples of their craft.

His league is defined by the camera he bought? If that's so, any yahoo with
the budget for a Leica becomes a peer to Henri Cartier-Bresson.

The proof is really in the results, isn't it? For a remarkably uninteresting
set of "true" panoramic images, I recommend the web site
<http://members.tripod.com/cirkut8/>. Yes, it's Robert Erickson's site.

The only thing that distinguishes his images from the thousands of
throw-away ballpark snapshots I used to see in commercial lab work is the
fact that they were taken with (to use your words) "specialized equipment
that sweeps past anything that little 35mm camera could do." So what?
They're boring at best.

> When people just lump all of the pan shooters together no matter if they have
a disposable panorama camera or a #10 Curkut they are shooting with, it
seems to be an insult to these people. (I feel sort of the same way about
this, but I understand exactly what you are saying about the USE of a camera
etc. to provide the IMAGES that YOU want to make as a photographer.)

No one whose messages I've read on this list has done that. Why go to so
much trouble to infer ignorance and arrogance where others have shown none?

> What I am saying is that when someone has spent years and years and thousands
of dollars working to perfect doing something, and every time he shoots a
picture... just with one shot the film and processing cost more then some of
the other guy's 'panorama cameras' have cost, it is sort of a low cut for
them to be implying they are in the SAME LEAGUE, on the same team, are
panorama photographers TOO!  I think this is the major issue here.

Well, no, it wasn't even a question until you brought it up. If you're
right, though, and it really is the major issue here, then we have a couple
of list members with fragile egos, little demonstrable talent, and poor
enough judgment to spend too much time and money on something that brings
such disappointing results.

> It is called "feelings", and we all have them.  There IS a BIG difference in
shooting a rotational type camera to achieve outstanding results. It is not
like just pointing your 35mm (insert camera name here) and snapping the
shutter.

Show me the "outstanding results" and I'll take you more seriously. I've
mentioned Le Lostec a few times because he isn't just someone who uses
panoramic cameras. For that matter, he's more than a designer and builder of
original cameras, which impresses me to no end by itself. He deserves
repeated mention because he makes beautiful and interesting photographs.
That's a world of difference from the superwide snapshots I've seen from
Erickson.

> The difference in the two type of people shooting a scene is the 35mm shooter
says, SNAP!, "ALL DONE....that took about 3 seconds to take that "panorama",
now I'm going home." ....... In the meantime, the Curkut artist hasn't even
gotten his camera out of the case yet due to the time it took to lug all of
the heavy equipment up to shoot the same scene.

You know, that really makes it sounds as if the Cirkut user is only
concerned about fiddling with equipment, and may even consider the exposure
the least interesting part of the undertaking. If someone wants to spend
lots of time and money on every shot, that someone should think ahead to
decide what subjects merit such elaborate treatment, and should be as well
prepared for taking the shots as for lugging gear around.

> The degrees of coverage will be more with the Curkut, and it may be a sharper
image, but the guy with the snapshot "panorama" camera might have gotten the
whale jumping out of the water for a great shot, while by the time the
Curkut camera guy got his equipment set up, the water was iced over and
there were Eskimos ice fishing instead! It is to each his own here. It just
depends on what type of image the photographer is trying to capture here as
to what type of equipment will do the BEST JOB!...BUT...

But whose problem is that? If the Cirkut user is trying to get the same
kinds of images as the 35mm user, then _he_ is the one with the wrong gear.

> There are two different things going on here, and for certain two different
degrees of coverage with the cameras being used. It seems to me that by
grouping everyone into one boat called panorama, there is a rift formed for
the above reasons I have stated.

Only if the "serious" panoramists are too upset by others using the term.
Fact is, I don't care if the XPan format is called "jumbo" or "double-wide"
or "megaframe" or anything else. If your identity depends that heavily on
the angle of coverage your camera provides, you have far more to worry about
than what somebody chooses to call a 35mm image that's wider than usual.

> So, when I hear from some person that he can do panorama pictures too with his
little plastic camera and that switch or whatever, I just smile and then
pull out some 48 inch pictures for them to see. End of discussion....

Because of the quality of your images, or merely because of the size? Some
of us are less impressed with volume and more with tone.

> They get the picture Loud & Clear when they see my pictures verses their
pictures which I never get to see for some reason).

In other words, you seem to be comparing the members of this list who use
smaller formats with drugstore amateurs who don't understand what you do.
That's hardly a flattering -- or accurate -- comparison.

> We just need to think about defining what we are doing just a bit more. That
is why I earned the QPP rating from IAPP. I think it helps to define what I
do is a little bit more than that guy with the disposable "panoramic"
camera.

As would any professional designation you earn through an accredited
program. Still sounds as if you're defending something weak against an
imagined affront.

> You should stay on this list Clayton and so should all of you touchy other
Claytons!

Cute. But not very.

> I like to hear your thoughts, and am very happy that you like your camera and
what it does. Maybe one day you will be the lucky guy that snaps that
panorama of that whale jumping out of the water! Don't mind what those other
guys are saying about your snapshot camera, just go out and make some great
shots with it!

I can do without the condescension. As a former newspaper photographer, I'm
perfectly capable of making high-quality images with a 35mm camera. And you
don't make yourself look any better by dismissing well-made 35mm equipment
as "snapshot" cameras.

If, by switching the film plane width from 36mm to 65mm on my XPan, I
somehow threaten "serious" panoramists, tough. That's not my goal -- or my
problem.

And, by the way, how would luck determine whether I got the shot?

> Come to the next IAPP world meeting and enter your pictures into competition.
Get some blue ribbons! It's the images that count the most. You know what
your abilities and limitations are with the camera you choose to use for the
job at hand.

Yes, I do. So you and others can stop making assumptions about both.

> It is just a tool. Panorama is just a format. There are people of all kinds
and abilities with equipment of all sorts and we should all be respectful of
everyone and what they are doing.

I didn't look at the header. Did you also send this message to Erickson and
Nathan? Do you think this shows in your own comments?

> Good luck with your picture taking...show us that whale!

What makes you think I'm interested in shooting whales? Have you asked what
kinds of subject matter have earned me two solo shows this year, or which of
my series from Africa have been used by the United Nations, or whether I've
taken fogbound football shots that made the cover of the sports section?

Here's why I rejoined the list: Several other members wrote to me and
encouraged me to continue participating. Most of them said they sent
messages that arrived from Erickson or Nathan straight to the killfile. That
was the only way, they wrote, to keep the conversation constructive and
pleasant. So now I've done the same. If only I could do the same with the
noise of jets overhead now that the new runway is open...

I welcome any comments about photography, especially panoramic photography.
And I'm interested in the opinions, knowledge, and experiences of fellow
photographers. But I have no time for jerks. I don't need to prove anything
to them, and don't care what they feel they need to prove to me.

Final note to Erickson and Nathan, whose messages I won't see any more:
There's more to photography than equipment. Just thought you might like to
know that, in case it ever comes in handy.

-- Clayton Bennett, untouchy, unretouched, and unrepentant
cjbennett@xxxxxxxxxx