Re: Kodak vs. Realist

[P3D Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxx>]

Dr. George A. Themelis wrote:

> Has he also seen the pictures that come out of these cameras???

I've only spoken with Jess a few times, but it seems he has done quite a
bit of stereo (and plano) photography over many years. My understanding
is that his interest in repairing these cameras stemmed from his being a
user and wanted to get the best out of them. He is an extremely nice
fellow and very generous about talking with and helping out anyone with
camera questions. His number and address can be found on the products
and services list; I'd recommend him to anyone as a wonderful and
knowledgeable 3D resource.

> If I want an opinion about camera's features, I will
> ask Ron Zakowski, Jess Powell, or other well-known camera repairmen.  If I
> want an opinion about the pictures that come out of these cameras, I will
> ask someone who is using a lot of cameras and/or who participates in SSA,
> PSA, a local stereo club, or other groups of people who share stereo images
> (Expo, etc.)

Terrific, George! Learn from whomever you feel can best advance your
knowledge in your current areas of interest. Those areas of interest
will likely change and grow as we each change and grow with the craft.
For me, I find I can learn from lots of different folks who have a
variety of photographic, artistic and technical interests.

> The technique, choice of subject
> matter, imagination, daring experimentation, and good photography skills
> can blow out of the water the average Joe with the sharpest stereo camera
> in the world.

No question about it, technique wins over hardware every time. And while
they go hand in hand, we were discussing hardware this particular go
'round.

> I never developed a "sharpness" anxiety that many appear to  have. 

Except with your viewers. 8-)

> I am a
> Realist fan shooting happily with my 3.5 or 2.8 without any inclination to
> get a Realist Custom (unless if I find a bargain!) because I know that
> there is only a slight difference between the Custom and a 3.5, a
> difference that I cannot utilize personally.  The sharpest camera in the
> world will not make me a better stereo photographer!

Of the stereos I've seen at various shows over the years, many (if not
most) people use stereo photography to make a visual recording of a
particular place in time, a visual reference which which to remember a
particular moment. They are not attempting to be overly artistic, they
are not contriving elaborate lighting set-ups, or re-proping or art
directing a scene. They are working as location photographers attempting
to capture a pleasing rendition of the reality of the moment. For this
type of work, a good lens for the job is one with good resolution and
sharpness which is relatively well corrected against visual distortions
and which gives good contrast. For the most part, this is what most of
the lenses on most of the stereo cameras I am acquainted with seem to be
designed to achieve; some more successfully than others and subject to
individual tastes.

When I discuss lens performance, it is with this assumption in mind.

Deviating from this, all types of different lenses could be used to
enhance all types of different artistic effects. In fact, going to the
extreme to illustrate the point, you don't need lenses at all as the
recent thread on pinhole stereo noted! I myself have been esperimenting
with MF stereo pairs shot with a Holga "toy" camera, featuring a
maniscus plastic lens just chocked full of all kinds of distortion.
Brought them to the last Stereo New England meeting and had lots of
people very interested in the possibilities of this inexpensive tool.

But the majority of the crowd didn't want low resolution, rectininear
distortion, chromatic abberation, or any of the fun things the Holga
gives you for your $15, they wanted a reasonably sharp, contrasty camera
like a realist, kodak, revere, etc. For these people and the kind of
photography they are interested in doing, I can safely say that the
(apparently) sharpest camera in the world _will_ give them results
closer to what they are trying to achieve, and _will_ move them closer
to their definition of what a "good photoghrapher's" chromes look like.
In other words, it will make them "better photographers" by their own
definitions. That's where they are, and I respect that.

As for me, I shoot portraits with wide open lenses, use selective focus
within my shots, shoot from high angles, low angles, dutch angles, and
commit many similar crimes against 3D humanity. Some people like it,
others don't. I'm still learning and growing. And for me, that means
keeping an open mind with regard to lenses, cameras, techniques, and
various points of view from other enthusiasts no matter there they are
on the photographic learning curve...


Eric G.


------------------------------