T3D Re: "Good and "Bad" Equipment

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

David W. Kesner wrote:
> 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.
> 

But having quantifiable characteristics is only half the equation.
You also have to have limits on the values of those criteria that make
sense for the specific application.  The highest, biggest, fastest,
etc. isn't always best for the job.  There can be perfectly valid
reasons why the sharpest, best resolving, least distorting lens may
also be the worst for the specific application.

Here's a non-stereo example.  I make Computer Generated Images.  I
want to produce negatives from these images for use in contact
printing (for cyanotype prints).  I could set up my 4x5 camera with a
Caltar II (re-badged Rodenstock) lens to take a picture of the
computer screen, but I think I'll get better results by using a
pinhole instead.  (I haven't tried yet with negative materials, but it
looked OK on a Polaroid print.)  If I use my lens I'll get a very good
reproduction of my computer screen, including the dot mask and
individual pixels.  By using a properly selected pinhole I believe
that I'll get just enough blur to hide the dot mask and individual
pixels.  For this application the pinhole is better than the lens
which has superior quantifiable characteristics (resolution, contrast,
etc.).  For this application it is important to reproduce the image,
not the screen that it is displayed on.

By the way, I know a film recorder would do what I want, but they are
very expensive, and using a service bureau would mean losing control
of the process while I'm experimenting to find the best techniques.
And if I decide I want 8x10 negatives a film recorder won't be an
option.

> 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.
> 

The application is to produce sound that I like.  If I like the sound
from the car radio better than the sound from a high end home stereo,
or a professional concert system, then the car radio is superior for
that application (producing sound I like).

The thing to remember is that no equipment is good for all
applications.  All equipment has limitations.  If the application
falls outside the range of the equipment the equipment is not the
best, no matter how good it is for other applications.

There are many who think that the Nikon F5 is the best 35mm camera
system made.  It pains them when I mention that my $40 Lubitels
(Russian plastic Medium Format TLRs with glass lenses) can produce
much better prints than any 35mm camera.  The Nikon (or just about any
35mm camera) produces better resolution on film, but since the bigger
Lubitel negatives don't have to be enlarged as much to get the same
size print they can produce sharper prints from softer negatives.  If
you don't care about big prints this isn't a factor.  If you do this
does make a difference.  Is a Lubitel better than a Nikon?  Maybe,
maybe not.

> 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.
> 

Equipment does not take photographs, people do.  Buying "better"
equipment will not improve anyone's photography if that person does
not understand the basics of photography (assuming all the equipment
being discussed meets the minimums necessary (no light leaks, etc.)).
>From the perspective of being able to take good pictures it doesn't
much matter what equipment you have if you don't understand how a
photograph is taken and what your equipment is doing.  Someone who
understands the photographic process is not limited by equipment.

Ansel Adams is know for having made great B&W prints of landscapes
with large format negatives, but he also took very nice portraits with
35mm cameras.  "Obviously" an 8x10 camera is "superior" to a 35mm
camera, but he was able to use the "inferior" camera to take good
pictures.  It all depends on the application and the abilities of the
photographer.

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"


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