T3D Holga vs. Hassy, for instance!

[ddd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Hello;

First, Thanks to all who gave me input in the matter
of possible 'flaming.'

Now, to address some points;

> From: "David W. Kesner" <drdave@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: tech-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: T3D Re: "Good and "Bad" Equipment
 
I said:
> > I almost totally agree with Eric Goldstein, and find Mr.Kessners comments
> > somewhat, well, insulting, i suppose...

To which Mr. Kessner replied: 
> 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...

Mr. Kessner;

No apologies necessary; I felt no personal insult. 
Rather, it was a matter of concern to those of us who
choose 'inferior' tools to work with to communicate in
 a certain visual language that I felt may be insulted.
 
> > 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" *{;-)

I respectfully offer that your classifications of 'art' 
need a bit of expanding.
There are many parallels between the arts of both 
painting (for one) and photography.
Whereas the painter chooses his or her canvas, the pho-
tographer chooses a papers' surface texture; 
the painter chooses a medium- the photographer, a film,
emulsion, and developer; the painter selects a tonal 
value for the work, and the photographer selects a paper 
grade,...
The list goes on, but suffice it to say that the 
photographer selects from a broad range of possibilities
to best communicate his expression (or impression, I 
suppose ; > ) to the viewer, much as a painter chooses
what will best interpret his meanings.
The only difference between the two is that a 
photographer must initially work with Reality in the 
form of true light & shadow to form his Art, and the 
painter may use only what his imagination can concoct.
(Still, a photographer can be just as surrealistic as any 
other artform; it's a matter of creativity within a 
different set of 'canvas rules.')
To sum up, photography is more than sending off the film
to be machine printed; it is a unique and viable
artform, as 'hands-on' and personal as any other 
creative medium. Please consider the range of possibilities
inherent in hand crafting a print, and you will find a
respect for the medium.
 
<me:>
> > 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.

This contradicts your statement to Eric G.,
quoted here from #514:

Eric G.:
> > 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!

You:                  
> 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".

To which I replied:
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.

Those two statements of yours seem to contradict each other; please correct
me if I misunderstand. Otherwise, I stand by my reply.
 
> > 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. 

Unless the photographer finds whatever medium s/he uses to adequately 'get
across' all the meaning s/he desires.
Just as there are both pastels & oils for a painter, a photographer may
choose color or black & white; Do you dismiss a painter who finds comfort
working with only oils? Neither would we dismiss Ansel Adams later work
simply because it is all black & white...

> > 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.

Though I don't follow you in that last paragraph, let me point out that 
your second-above paragraph also seems to be cotradictory to the above 
mentioned last reply from you.
But I agree that a Holga will never match a Hasselblad; but, as I stated 
last time, neither will an Hasselblad *ever* match a Holga, regardless of 
before-exposure manipulations. 
 
> 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.

Agreed, but my point was that *technically*, you cannot make a Hassy do
the same things as a Holga.

> 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.

I offer that 6 channel Dolby/THX with a freq. response of 10-40KHz sound
coming out of a '57 Chevy convertible would indeed be inferior to an AM
radios sound, in that the AM is correct for that car. The same is true for
my personal vision; e.g.- should I wish to convey an antique emotion and 
use an old Crap-O-Flex to express it.
 
> 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.

I am truly lost here, but no matter...

> 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.

And still, but,...
I agree that in all practicality, superior equipment yields superior
results; but the finest resolution & sharpness are not always what is 
most desired in a finished print. Sometimes a blur is a statement in 
itself! : )
 
> 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.

Please don't withdraw on that note! : )
As you said above, 'Better' is in the eye of the beholder.
And I truly believe that a beginning photographer should strive for 
ultimate sharpness & perfection, but there is IMO more to the Art of 
Photography than simply 'technical perfection'.
 
> Thanks for listening.

And thank you for the flame-free discussion!


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


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