T3D Re: "Good and "Bad" Equipment

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

Responding to several comments In TECH-3D digest 515

goog says:

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

First, let me apologize if I have insulted you or any one else. 
Definitely not my intent. I was just trying to carry on a discussion in a 
friendly manner expressing my own ideas and beliefs. Please read 
on...

> Aside from his apparently obvious disdain for creativity in any form
> (reference-the ' "artists" ' bit),

The reason for the quotes was that I was trying to distinguish an 
"artist" from a "photographer". And before you take that wrong let 
me say that I do believe that photography can be just as creative 
and beautiful as art. However, in my opinion, art is something 
created directly by hand and photography is something created by 
a machine. Of course that line is getting blurred with the exact 
example I gave of a photograph being turned into art by direct 
manipulation. Hence the "artist" rather than "photographer". 
Perhaps I should have said "photartist" or "artographer" *{;-)

> 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.

Perhaps you missed my previous comment, so I will repost it here:

>> 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.

I totally agree that every piece of equipment has its own "feel" and 
will produce a totally unique "signature". And I repeat that if you are 
after a very specific look then there is probably only one piece of 
equipment that will be able to do it.

> And there's the rub-
> A creative artist *uses* those very limitations to help speak to the
> viewer.

And if the creative artist uses only that one piece of equipment, then 
every image that artist produces will have the same general 
qualities. Some might consider that a "signature", but personally I 
find it "limiting". In order for that not to happen they must then have a 
specialized piece of equipment for every different look or effect 
they want to convey. 

> 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.

No two systems will be able to completely duplicate each other. In 
fact I do not believe that you could duplicate an image with one 
Holga by another Holga. The qualities that make them "inferior" 
come from poor craftsmanship that is not reproducable from 
camera to camera or lens to lens. But you will be able to come a lot 
closer duplicating an image from a "lesser" system with a "higher-
end" system than you will ever be able to duplicate an image from a 
"high-end" system with a "lesser" system. Hence my statement: 

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

Please note the smilie face that was present in the first post. It was 
there for the choice of the words inferior, superior, and bad - not the 
sentiment or meaning of the statement.

Eric Goldstein says:

> 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

When discussing the "superiority" of one lens over another it has to 
be based strictly on measurable, quantifiable results such as 
resolution, contrast, distortion, etc. If you bring personal 
interpretation into the discussion, then you can not have a 
discussion with anyone but yourself as everyone has their own and 
no one is more right than anyone else.

If I like the sound of an AM car radio then that is a superior piece of 
equipment to a high end home stereo. Wrong - you like the sound 
better, but the home unit is far superior. You like the image from the 
Holga better, but the Hasselblad is far superior.

This whole thing might just be a case of mistaken identity.

I was talking about the ability of superior equipment to improve the 
ability of the stereo photographer to take superior images. Where I 
went wrong was to say that superior equipment can improve the 
quality of ANY image taken with inferior equipment.

What I should have said was that it has the ability to improve any 
image taken with inferior equipment not choosen with a specific 
purpose in mind.

Once again it was not my intent to offend the artists of this fine 
group, or anyone else. I was just trying to help new stereo 
photographers take better images. I guess I just don't know what a 
better image is.

Thanks for listening.

That's all for now,

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


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