P3D Re: "Good and Bad" Equipment

["David W. Kesner" <drdave@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tech-3D there has been an on-going discussion of the merits of 
"superior" equipment and its ability to improve a stereo 
photographer's ability to take superior images. It has prompted 
discussions of the definition of "superior" and the differences of 
artistic qualities versus technical qualities.

This discussion has has gone beyond the scope of Tech-3D and it 
was suggested that we move it to Photo-3d. So here is my 
response to a post and a note to say that all further responses will 
be addressed only to Photo-3D.

In TECH-3D digest 517 Brian Reynolds says:

>The highest, biggest, fastest,
> etc. isn't always best for the job.  There can be perfectly valid
> reasons why the sharpest, best resolving, least distorting lens may
> also be the worst for the specific application.

Once again I guess I have to state that I never said the most 
"superior" equipment is always the best. If you are after a specific 
look or feel then only a specific set of equipment will work - no 
matter how "inferior" it is.

However, there is a problem in your next senario:

snip
>  I could set up my 4x5 camera with a
> Caltar II (re-badged Rodenstock) lens to take a picture of the
> computer screen, but I think I'll get better results by using a
> pinhole instead.
snip
> If I use my lens I'll get a very good
> reproduction of my computer screen, including the dot mask and
> individual pixels.  By using a properly selected pinhole I believe
> that I'll get just enough blur to hide the dot mask and individual
> pixels.
snip

And I say if you want "just enough blur" then all you have to do is  
defocus your 4x5 or shoot with a soft filter or put a piece of Saran 
Wrap over the screen *{;-). The control you would have in exposure, 
contrast and everything else is so superior to the pinhole that I can't 
image you would even want to try this other than for the sake of 
knowing that you could.

> The application is to produce sound that I like.  If I like the sound
> from the car radio better than the sound from a high end home stereo,
> or a professional concert system, then the car radio is superior for
> that application (producing sound I like).

Once again we are confusing what we like with what is superior.

> There are many who think that the Nikon F5 is the best 35mm camera
> system made.  It pains them when I mention that my $40 Lubitels
> (Russian plastic Medium Format TLRs with glass lenses) can produce
> much better prints than any 35mm camera.

Wait a minute. On one hand you are disagreeing with my statement 
that superior equipment makes superior images and now you are 
agreeing with it.

> The Nikon (or just about any
> 35mm camera) produces better resolution on film, but since the bigger
> Lubitel negatives don't have to be enlarged as much to get the same
> size print they can produce sharper prints from softer negatives.

You just said that the sharper prints from better resolution film from 
the medium format camera is superior to the 35mm camera. It 
sounds to me like you just agreed that "superior" equipment 
produces better images.

> Equipment does not take photographs, people do.  Buying "better"
> equipment will not improve anyone's photography if that person does
> not understand the basics of photography

I disagree here. If you give a person who has never shot an image 
before two cameras: a disposable 35mm and a Nikon F5 and ask 
them to take the same picture with each camera them image from 
the Nikon will be superior. This is not to say either image will be any 
good when compared to any other image, just to each other.

> From the perspective of being able to take good pictures it doesn't
> much matter what equipment you have if you don't understand how a
> photograph is taken and what your equipment is doing.

I totally agree that you must have a good understanding of 
technique and equipment to improve your images. You can never 
have too much knowledge.

> Someone who
> understands the photographic process is not limited by equipment.

I think the better way to word this would be: someone who 
understands the photographic process can use their equipment to 
its limits. You are still limited by the equipment you use.

> Ansel Adams is know for having made great B&W prints of landscapes
> with large format negatives, but he also took very nice portraits with
> 35mm cameras.  "Obviously" an 8x10 camera is "superior" to a 35mm
> camera, but he was able to use the "inferior" camera to take good
> pictures.  It all depends on the application and the abilities of the
> photographer.

Once again I will state that any equipment has the ability to produce 
a great image. However in your own words the 8x10 made "great" 
prints while the 35mm made "very good" or just "good" pictures. If 
the same image was taken with "superior" and "inferior" equipment 
and no special "effect" was desired then the "superior" equipment 
will produce a better image. Do you really believe that there is a 
35mm image that is superior to an identical Ansel Adams 8x10?

That's all for now,

David W. Kesner
Boise, Idaho, USA
drdave@xxxxxxxxxx


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