T3D Re: TECH-3D digest 513

[ddd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Hello;

As one who creates images in many formats, and as this directly relates to 'technical' aspects of 3-D photography, i feel i must respond to these postings on the "Quality" of images from various cameras...

I almost totally agree with Eric Goldstein, and find Mr.Kessners comments somewhat, well, insulting, i suppose...

DKessner:
>... As an extreme example take the "artists" that are 
> shooting Polaroid film and manipulating them... 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).

Aside from his apparently obvious disdain for creativity in any form (reference-the ' "artists" ' bit), i believe he misses the value of true authenticity in any artistic creation.
By his logic, why would a painter bother with all those messy oils & pastels, when you can simply 'paint' with a computer?
Authenticity is its own artistic statement.
 
> > 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".

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.
 
> 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...

And there's the rub-
A creative artist *uses* those very limitations to help speak to the viewer. If the viewer has a bias againt anything other than a clinically-clear stripping away of meaning (I hesitate to say 'no artistic vision or appreciation' ;> ), then of course s/he will find no value in any less-than-razor-sharp-and-wholly-illuminated image.

>...In other words an 
> inferior camera can be made only so good, whereas a superior 
> camera can be made as bad as you want *{;-)

No sir.
I personally challenge you to provide an example of images shot with various 'inferior'-quality cameras/lenses and duplicate those with a Hasselblad (or other high-end system) in a side-by-side comparison, and show that they are *indistinguishable* from each other.
IMO, all attempts to duplicate the total qualities of so-called 'lesser' systems are, to all i personally have seen, completely artificial looking.

Thank for your time.
googs


----------------------------------------------------------------
Get your free email from AltaVista at http://altavista.iname.com


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