T3D Re: TECH-3D digest 512

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

Eric Goldstein writes:

> Some of the finest portraiture ever done was shot with technically
> "inferior" lenses;

And I point out (again) that I admit that many fine images are 
produced with inferior equipment. If you are after a very specific 
look or feel then you will need to match that with the equipment that 
will produce it. As an extreme example take the "artists" that are 
shooting Polaroid film and manipulating them before the 
processing is completed to produce images that resemble abstract 
paintings. Definitely something that couldn't be done with a state of 
the art 35mm camera and chrome film. (Although easily done by 
scanning and computer manipulation).

> 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!

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".

I have nothing against ANY piece of equipment that someone wants 
to use. However, you must be aware that each one has its own 
merits and limitations. The lower the technical and optical quality of 
a camera the less latitude you will have in its use. In other words an 
inferior camera can be made only so good, whereas a superior 
camera can be made as bad as you want *{;-)

That's all for now,

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


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

End of TECH-3D Digest 513
*************************