Re: Are you kidding? NOPE.

["George S. Pearl, FEPIC,CEP,CQDE" <alps007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

# 1... a 35mm camera is a snapshot kind of camera when you compare it to a
curkut camera. You just pick up the 35mm camera to you eye and go 'snap'! I
don't think there is anything at all wrong with that. It is made to be quick
and versatile. It is great at what it does. I have seen some mighty great
looking shots from the XPan that will make a Widelux say Uncle, but just
because the Widelux is a swing lens camera does that make it more panoramic
or better? I don't think so, just different. I you NEED 140 degree coverage
for you shot to be perfect, then the Widlux will be the gear to use or
something like it. If sharpness is what you are after with a panoramic
format, then the XPan might be the tool of choice.
If you need to see all of the way around you at one time, maybe a Roundshot
should be pulled out of the camera bag. One camera will never do it all, but
they all can shoot in the panoramic format.

#2. I am NOT referring to just people who have been chatting on this list,
but rather people in general. I shoot a lot of groups with rotational
equipment. When 'people' from the group (not this list) come up to you and
start telling you that they do the same thing with their little 35mm
switch-a-roo panorama camera, it does not go over too well. It isn't the
same thing. PERIOD.

#3. I am all for images. I have seen some really outstanding panoramic
pictures taken with a pinhole oatmeal box camera that for art image sake
blow away some of the long curkut shots you have spoken about. The curkut
shots are usually more static since by their very nature the equipment takes
a great amount of time to shoot. But, unless you have ever shot a group or
unique curkut shot under trying conditions, you really don't understand what
a great curkut shot is. Sometimes I just marvel at the way it was taken to
get the results they did. These pictures sometimes don't look very exciting
without knowing the whole story.

#4. The degrees of coverage that defines a panorama picture I think was
something that the IAPP did 'rule' on some time back. I might be wrong, but
it does seem to me that we have covered this area once before and it was
settled. Someone on the list might remember a couple of years or more back?

#5.  I am not in any way saying what you shoot or how is somewhat less
somehow than me or any one else. I believe that everyone see a picture in a
different way in what is important to them. If you are an art person, you
might really go crazy over the Le Lostec pictures he posted. (nice pans Le),
But if you are more technical, it might not interest you at all. I shoot
groups. I know when I see a great group curkut shot because that's what I am
into, just like you know when you see a great art picture. It is all
panorama, but just different divisions. I have seen a lot of artsy pan
pictures that never made a dime, but if you like it for art then great!

#6.  It would be nice if we could just get back to talking about panorama
photography now. Thank you.

George S. Pearl, QPP


----- Original Message -----
From: "Clayton Bennett" <cjbennett@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <panorama-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 24, 1999 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: Are you kidding?


> 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
>