T3D "Good" and "Bad" Equipment

[Eric <egoldste@xxxxxx>]

> In any case, appearance is the _only_ thing which counts
> when images are supposed to be seen by *humans* :-).
> 
> Abram Klooswyk

Now THAT just about says it all! Also, thanks for the snapshot on MTF,
which attempts to quantify how resolution and contrast function together
to yeild what we perceive as "sharpness"... but as you point out does
not tell the entire story...

George T asks:

> The view was switching back and forth... lady slightly
> fuzzy, guy sharp.  I wondered if I was dreaming... Was I dreaming 
> or do they do these tricks on a regular basis in movies?

Yes, usually more artfully so as not to be so obvious and intrusive as
you describe. Thankfully, movies are quite "soft" to begin with
partially because of the graininess and partially for asthetic
reasons... if you ever looked at a typical single 35 mm movie frame,
you'd be amazed at how "low fi" it is compared to still
photography...flashing 24 of them in front of us each second covers a
multitude of sins...


David W. Kesner responds:

> 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 *{;-)


We see this one differently, Dr. Dave! I have shot for many a year with
the $6000 Hasselblads (actually, some of the glass alone now costs more
than this!) and you cannot recreate the "look" of classic equipment with
modern equipment, any more than you can recreate vintage sound with
modern mics or vintage accoustics with modern concert halls. You can
approximate it with much difficultly, but you cannot duplicate it. Fine
artists around the world understand this, and they choose their
"instruments" accordingly... Adams (and Weston) understood this and
wrote about it extensively. Adams who was an equipment freek and who had
access to the finest available would readily admit that his finest work
was made with turn-of-the-century uncoated zeiss protars; it "fit" best
with the aesthetic he was going for.

I also fundamentally cannot call a pinhole or holga or a set of protar
convertables (still made! Check your B&H medium/large format pro
catalogue) inferior to, say, a modern schneider super angulon WITHOUT
KNOWING THE SPECIFIC APPLICATION FOR WHICH THEY WILL BE USED! Each lens
has it's own CHARACTER and characteristics; they are unique and useful
in the hands of the artist/craftsman.

If you are most comfortable with the "best" (highest resolution and
contrast? Lowest distortion?) modern equipment, if that is the look you
wish to achieve, then I'm sure you are saving your money to hang a set
of Zeiss prime distagons or planars off of your yashica-based RBT... 
please please please can I have your case-offs? 8-)))

Respectfully,

Eric G.


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

End of TECH-3D Digest 515
*************************