Jump to content

mykem

Members
  • Posts

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by mykem

  1. comparing audiophile to a photogrpaher is like apples and oranges. musician is probably a more apt comparison. an audiophile listens to music and his/her motive is to get good sound out of a recorded music which in my book is more like an art collector. mind you a musician can be a gearhead and a good musician like a good photographer realise that he/she doesn't need an astronomically priced instrument/equipment in order to make great music.

    i've heard horror stories of audiophile who's spent thousands of dollars on koetsu cartridge only to play the 10 LPs he has in his entire collection. i don't see any point in that. even as an audiophile, what should matter most is the music and that the equipment should be secondary.

    still i find the question or thought in your ramblings perplexing although i do realise that most so called photographer on photo.net forums by the nature of their questions, are more of a gearhead than a real photographer.

    as to eggleston works speakers- they're designed by one of his son and not by him.

  2. i have both the 50 1.4 and the 35 2 ai. it's a great lens and the difference in focal length is noticeable enough (obviously) that most of the time i have to decide on which lens i would have on my camera and unlike the 50mm, the 35mm will focus down to .3m. i don't like zoom and i don't like confusion, so these are the only lenses i have.
  3. Wim Wenders (Wings of Desire/Paris, Texas) is an avid photographer. I think he even has a website displaying his photographs. Larry Clark (Ken Park, Bully) started out as a photographer before turning to movie at the age of 52. I'm pretty sure someone like Gus Van Sant or David Lynch (both are greatly influenced by work from photographer like William Eggleston) are photographers as well.<div>00DL0B-25334684.jpg.e719bee33499c3d9ca44f5c0dfc5d528.jpg</div>
×
×
  • Create New...