P3D Re: Holga vs. Hassy, for instance!

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

In Tech-3D Digest 518

ddd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (when are you ever going to use your real name?) said:

> I respectfully offer that your classifications of 'art' 
> need a bit of expanding.

My classification of art doesn't need expanding, just a better (or 
another) explanation for those that don't seem to understand what I 
am trying to say. You somewhat hit on it with the following:

> The only difference between the two is that a 
> photographer must initially work with Reality in the 
> form of true light & shadow to form his Art, and the 
> painter may use only what his imagination can concoct.

My "definition" of art is when an image is created by a person 
through their own means. My definition of "photography" is when an 
image is simply captured by a piece of equipment. Art is an 
interpretation of the image and a photograph is a recording of the 
image.

As I stated in previous posts, this line can be blurred when a 
photograph is manipulated by hand such as the Polaroid print that 
is scratched while it is in the process of being developed.

And as I also stated in previous posts a photograph can be every 
bit as unique, beautiful, thought provoking, and emotional as any 
piece of art.

> Eric G.:
> > > I have shot a few stereo pairs with my Holga (a 13 buck toy 120
> > > camera) which I am often complimented on. The dream-like quality
> > > of the images would be impossible to duplicate with "great"
> > > equipment!
> 
> You:                  
> > I must totally disagree with this. If the dream-like quality is the
> > result of poor optics, then all you need do is use filters, gels, or
> > vasoline on great equipment to duplicate the effect. If it is the
> > result of poor metering, then over or under expose your film. There
> > isn't anything that a $13 Holga can do that a $6,000 Hasselblad
> > couldn't do just as "poorly".
> 
> To which I replied:
> Mr. Kessner, you could not be more wrong.
> The visual qualities of *any* inferior camera are *easily* discernable
> to those working with that medium, and therefore, also to a discerning
> viewer. You simply *cannot* fully and perfectly duplicate *all* the
> aspects of, say, a Holga with a high-quality system.
> 
> Those two statements of yours seem to contradict each other; please
> correct me if I misunderstand. Otherwise, I stand by my reply.

Let me try this one last time. Every piece of equipment has its own 
feel and characteristics whether it is being compared to two totally 
different pieces or two of the same so a complete and perfect 
duplicate is an impossibility. Because there are so many factors 
that lead to a final image I do not think it would be possible to 
duplicate the same shot even with the exact same equipment.

However, it is very possible to create the same overall look and feel 
of an image taken with an inferior piece of equipment by using a 
superior piece and special equipment and/or techniques. I am no 
expert in this field so don't ask me to provide a physical example. 
But I point to the people who do photo restoration of antique photos 
and film, duplicating missing parts and features that blend perfectly 
into the original.

> I offer that 6 channel Dolby/THX with a freq. response of 10-40KHz
> sound coming out of a '57 Chevy convertible would indeed be inferior
> to an AM radios sound, in that the AM is correct for that car. The
> same is true for my personal vision; e.g.- should I wish to convey an
> antique emotion and use an old Crap-O-Flex to express it.

One last time again. You are confusing what is most pleasing and 
desirable to you to what is superior. The quality and superiority of 
anything is based soley on its own measurable merits and not how 
it is liked or disliked by any one individual.

In optics the piece that can pass an image with the least amount of 
distortion of ANY kind is the most superior. This in no way implies 
that it is the best for every use.

> And still, but,...
> I agree that in all practicality, superior equipment yields superior
> results; but the finest resolution & sharpness are not always what is
> most desired in a finished print. Sometimes a blur is a statement in
> itself! : )

With this statement I must assume that we are finally in agreement.

> And I truly believe that a beginning photographer should strive for
> ultimate sharpness & perfection, but there is IMO more to the Art of
> Photography than simply 'technical perfection'.

I agree here. We have come full circle to my original statement that 
started all this:

"Superior equipment will improve a stereo photographer's images" 

but I quickly now add:

"Unless a specific choosen result from inferior equipment is 
desired"

That's all for now,

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


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