T3D Re: TECH-3D digest 511

[Bob_Maxey@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

>>Don't believe it! It ain't so! Here's a couple of many examples:
>>
>>Some of the finest portraiture ever done was shot with technically
>>"inferior" lenses; that is, lenses with poor resolution away from the
>>center, only moderate or poor resolution in the center, relatively flat
>>contrast, relatively low optical correction (plasticity). They have been
>>celebrated for decades and I can assure you would NOT be improved if they
>>were shot today with modern materials!

What is great to one person is not so great to another. I think also when
discussing this topic, everyone needs a base line. If everyone's definition
of "Technically Perfect" is different, the discussion goes no where. Also,
some of the finest portraiture was done with high end optics, too. and some
real bad photography is done with expensive lenses, so there you go.

In one of my Kodak Paper Sample Books there is an image of a chemist behind
a table full of lab gear. Lots of glass. If you glance at the image, it
looks so tack sharp you fear cutting your eyes. If you study the image, it
becomes apparent that it is really not that sharp. The reason it appears
sharp is because of the subject matter-glassware, in this case. Image
contrast is well controlled, it is printed on F surface paper and is well
made. So I can see where sharpness is not the only thing that can
contribute to the appeal of an image.


>>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!

For the average photographer, I would think the use of a cheap plastic
camera is out of the question. You might like the result, but cheap is
cheap. For me, I crave extremely fine grain and sharpness, with the ability
to control my apertures. So for me, a cheap camera is out of the question
because it will not meet my technical demands. You might like the look, and
it seems you do, and that's OK, too.


>>Technically "superior" Japanese lenses often produce artistically
sterile,
>>unromantic and unevocative images which are artistically inferior! In
>>photography, it is impossible to seperate the technical from the
artistic;
>>they are inextricably intertwined...


Some do, and that's more the fault of the photographer. Great photographers
can take great photographs with not so great equipment, and they can take
great photographs with great equipment. "Artistically Inferior" is a term
that can mean different things to different people. There are some
celebrated photographers I do not care for, and others might feel
different.

Having said that, I have a series of Kodachrome slides taken at an auto
show. They were made using my Yashica TL Electro X. A relatively cheap
camera compared to other cameras I have. I shot them without a tripod, and
I did not pay any special attention to details. Just went by the internal
meter and paid attention to DOF They remain some of the sharpest images I
have ever made. I marvel at how well my inexpensive camera did.


RM




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