Ramblings

[lee_shively]

I used to laugh at the audiophile. Then my audio-nut stepson gave me some of his cast-off stereo equipment for Christmas one year. I discovered something really important. The MUSIC sounds better and has more detail with better audio equipment. I don't think I can ever get that heavily involved with audio gear but I do appreciate what the good stuff can do.

 

The same could be said for photography gear. I used to have some crappy equipment but then upgraded and discovered my PHOTOGRAPHY looked better and had more detail. I've upgraded several times since then but I'm not really chasing after the ultimate camera--just for what works best for me. Like audio gear, photography gear acquisition comes to a point of diminishing returns.

[nozar_kishi]

It is not the details on the leaf, but the leaf itself; it is not the leafs of a flower, but the flower itself; it is not the flower in the flower-bed, but the flower-bed; ... it is not the detail, it is the whole. You are too close to the trees, and can not see the forest. Step back; refocus (or rather, de-focus); find, without seeking. Bird-flu is coming; Global Warming is at the door; We are killing families in Iraq; ... and you are wondering if it is a tube that is better than a transistor, or it is you who likes tube more than transistor.

[lee_shively]

Wow! Nothing matters! I guess we should just crawl into our holes and die.

[beeman458]

"It is not the details on the leaf, but the leaf itself; it is not the leafs of a flower, but the flower itself; it is not the flower in the flower-bed, but the flower-bed; ... it is not the detail, it is the whole."

 

That's one view.

 

Personally, I like detail in my images and prefer images of detail. Does this make me an artistic Neanderthal?

 

AA was into detail, front to back, hence the use of an 8"X10" view camera set to f/64. Is he now passe pasture material to be condemned for his past?

 

Understanding photographic essence, think about it before you condemn it..... it's the details that allow the flower to exist and remove the flower's detail (the leaf which feeds the roots) is to destroy the flower cause without detail (leaf, root, support structure,) a flower "won't" exist.

 

Now who's right; you, the roots or the created flowerbed? :)

[yeffe]

I fondly recall in Hesse's novel Steppenwolf, The protagonist Harry Haller's discussions

with Mozart.

 

Harry detests the new fad of the radio (this was the '20s). The noise and distortion of the

music, perhaps the only experience in Harry's bleak and near-suicidal existence that holds

any joy for him was too much to take. Mozart tells him to relax, that the essence of the

music is still discernable within the din.

 

Harry confused his inner impulses with real life and thus suffered the despair of the

idealist/perfectionist. Leicas would have failed him miserably.

 

I think we all know about the imperfections of even the finest equipment. It's nothing

compared to our own imperfections. Our quickness of eye and hand, steadiness, ability to

calculate exposure differences on the fly. That's the kind of stuff I think Leicas are made

for. I've been shooting pictures for 43 yrs. I'm the chief instrument in the chain who most

frequently require a a good CLA.

 

I'd be happy to dump my photo goodies if I thought it was a creative waste of time or I

needed the money for oil paint or clay.

[edgreene]

Dick: <i>Where our ramblings part company, though, is in our standards for the print. I strive for the tack sharp, distoretion free, ungrainy print that reflects the effort I put into it.</i><p>But-but; "errr" ﾓummm" the human brain doesnﾒt <u><b>see</b></u> things "tack sharp": except for what we're <I>focused directly on</I>. Every other thing we "See" is out of focus-<i><b>everything</b></I>. <bR> Even as we peruse a measly 4 x 6 print, we look first for content, then we focus in on points of interest, scanning and focusing along the way.<br> No way you see it tack sharp except maybe at arms length.<p><i>Maybe it's because my sight isn't what it used to be and it concerns me that the loss will someday be reflected in my work.</i><p>Even our "best" eyesight is incapable of discerning what you can see with a 10X loupe.<br>I for one know how anal retentive I became about "Bokeh", as if it meant anything except to other anal retentive photographers like myself.<p><i> But, the image I previzualize is a clear, undistorted representation of the subject -- not some hazy, grainy ghost. Naturally, every step in the process is controlled to achieve that end.</i><p>"Controlled" is what I don't like about shooting my digital camera; all that damn post processing, all that damn dedicated new software programs needed to "tweak" digital images into some semblance of visual acceptance-"phoooey"!

[beeman458]

""Controlled" is what I don't like about shooting my digital camera; all that damn post processing, all that damn dedicated new software programs needed to "tweak" digital images into some semblance of visual acceptance-"phoooey"!"

 

But lacking the ability for our eyes to sharpen a blurred image after printed; we make do, how we can, when making that final print:)

[jasper1]

. Jeff (www.spirer.com) , jan 29, 2006; 08:37 p.m.

I don't need one for a 10X10 print for my mum, but I do for a 40"x40" for a gallery

What gallery are these 40x40s in?

 

A very special place, visited by many, often referred too as the mystic isles of BS.

[jonathancharlesphoto]

Most people accept that the content of a photo or a music recording is more important

than the technical quality but poor quality reproduction can diminish (or sometimes

"atmospherically" enhance) our appreciation of the scene / performance recorded.

 

Not much to argue about so far...

 

So, how good (in technical capability) is good enough?

 

There are 2 aspects to this: the fidelity of the recording and the ability to make the

recording under a range of conditions.

 

1) Fidelity. The "gold standard" is comparison with actually being there in the ideal

position. Our eyes+visual processing or ears+auditory processing are far more capable in

terms of dynamic range and spatial awareness than any recording can achieve though

arguably not in absolute resolution. So there is still room to improve and anything but the

best available is, to some extent though maybe not significantly, limiting.

 

2) Range of possible conditions. Just as portable recorders and improved microphone

technology has extended the options for making music recordings, so a series of camera

developments: plate - rollfilm - 35mm - digital, fixed lens - interchangable - zoom, trial

and error - light meter - TTL - auto-exposure, ground glass screen - rangefinder - TLR -

SLR - autofocus, have made it possible to capture a scene more effectively and quickly.

This has vastly widened the range of subjects and circumstances where photography is

feasable. Newer features continue to help: image stabilisation, weatherproofing,

sophisticated post-processing and others.

 

Many of these technical improvements, however, have their greatest effect in substituting

for the deficiencies in technical skill of photographers and this is why they are treated with

some suspicion by those who have taken the trouble to master the skills. The automatic

approach often produces the "standard" result and leaves less room for creative selection

of exposure, focus etc.

 

At the end of the day, it's the resulting picture that counts and how well it reflects the

photographer's intention and is appreciated by the viewer.

[robert x]

gee Michael, thanks for your encouragement there.

 

http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/front/stfuniversity.jpg

 

The point made about it being hard to go back is a good one. I used a Canon 35mm for years and got a MF a coupe of years ago. I still use my Canon sometimes, but often find that even the sharpest pics I take with it pale next to my 6x6s. The problem is that I know its not a problem (unless I want to blow them up large for my imaginary gallery) but still, having seen the sharpness I get from MF, its hard to go back to what I used to be happy with.

[richard glover]

When I am overcome with camera lust, I try to remind myself that 99% of the great pictures of history were made with equipment inferior to mine.