T3D Equipment and the Image

[egoldste@xxxxxx (Eric Goldstein)]

Bob-

I'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding your argument. Let me
try to sharpen my point:

Many celebrated photographs and photographers have used "inferior"
equipment in their image making. Edward Weston and Man Rey are two clear
examples. Whether you or I personally "like" them is not the point, they
are widely published, exhibited, studied, celebrated. Their work would
suffer from the substitution of "great" equipment, because much of it
relied on qualities which this would eliminate. The original statement was:

>However, great
>equipment can improve any image!

I guess any single individual could say that a classic Weston portrait
would be improved by modern glass, but he would get much support for his
views.

And speaking of consensus, you state: "For the average photographer, I
would think the use of a cheap plastic camera is out of the question." Fact
is, the overwhelming majority of photographers out there use cheap plastic
cameras! They use disposable cameras, they use point and shoot cameras.
They use plastic bodied, plastic lensed, cheap equipment... and they are
highly satisfied with the results! Even SLRs designed and produced today
have turned into mediocre plastic junk with cheap, poor quality zoom lenses
of "inferior" quality to our 50's prime lenses.

Bob Wier makes an important point that higher contrast images give the
appearance of greater sharpness. Many "inferior" (lower contrast, higher
distortion/abberation) lenses are apotized for higher contrast rather than
higher resolution and so may give the appearance of greater sharpness than
other, "better" (higher resolution;lower abberation) lenses. In this case,
and with reference to the original statement, which is the "great" lens?

Sorry to be so metaphysical and untechnical here on tech-3D...


Eric G.



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