Mike Johnston made some good points, but I feel the need to throw
in a contrasting perspective.
Mike Johnston wrote:
> Re fast films:
>
> --Most films are overrated anyway.
> --Most photographers are unreasonably attracted to the idea of "pushing,"
> i.e., deliberate underexposure.
Except that it's more than just underexposure -- depending on how
a particular film responds to the altered processing, isn't it more
akin to choosing a different film with different grain/contrast/speed
characteristics? That is, I've gotten the impression that the decision
to push a film or not (assuming it's a premeditated choice and not an
"oops I set the camera wrong") is similar to the decision to choose one
film instead of another.
(Note: The film I usually push is TMZ. In the 3200-12500 range,
grain changes more than contrast. I haven't shot it at 1000 yet,
so I'm not as familiar with how it looks at that speed, but I have
seen an 8x10 someone else shot at 1000 and it was much "smoother"
contrast-wise than my TMZ shots. So it seems to me that the effect
of pushing TMZ to 3200 instead of shooting it at 1000 is analogous
to the decision to shoot Tri-X instead of TMax 100.)
> --Some "box speeds" are advertising copy, not ISO ratings (this is a fact).
Are you talking about the films designed to be pushed (i.e. Ilford Delta
3200, TMZ (TMax p3200), and Provia 1600), where shooting at the "box
speed" requires push-processing, or are you referring to other films
as well? (Note that Kodak throws that 'p' into the name as their way
of warning us that it's not really a 3200-speed film in normal processing.)
> Further:
>
> I also think that photographers/equipment aficionados are generally overly
> obsessed with limits, simply because the experience of butting up against
> one limitation or another while shooting is unpleasant and is highlighted in
> our memories.
*nod* I'm inclined to agree. I do _try_ to watch out for that in
myself, and separate "want" from "need"; and "would be usefull" or
"would make such-and-such easier" from "would be a serious limitation
to have to do without".
The thing is, some of us are attracted to situations where those
tools do fit: I shoot candids by candlelight, for example. It's
not "once and it stuck in my memory"; it's that I find myself in
that environment often, with subjects present that attract my eye.
The other thing is that there are some of us who, once we get a tool
that lets us push the envelope, get fascinated by what we can do with
it. So give me a faster lens and I'll shoot the stuff I currently
have trouble focussing on due to low light. Give me faster film and
I'll shoot at night from farther away. Give me a faster shutter: I'll
go hunting birds in flight. Give me a Really Huge flashgun and It's
time for me to start hunting _bats_ in flight. I might not need a
faster shutter for what I'm shooting now, but if I get my hands on one
I'll add the stuff it's designed for to my repertoire. The flip side
of the tool-geek coin. The trick, of course, is to maintain that "want"
versus "need" awareness/perspective. :-) As you point out, what I've
got now is good for _much_ of what I shoot.
> The fact is, for general, all-around, everyday shooting, a good 100- to
> 400-speed film, an f/2 lens that performs adequately well wide open, and a
> camera that has a maximum shutter speed of 1/1000th, etc., ARE ALL PERFECTLY
> ADEQUATE for doing superb work in almost all conditions and circumstances.
> And lest you think this isn't true, consider all the great photojournalists
> and artists who have made great and significant art armed only with a Leica,
> a Summicron, and Tri-X...or an MX, an SMC 50/1.4, and Plus-X. Or whatever.
Good points, and good for keeping perspective. As long as you keep
in mind also that some of us often shoot in non-ordinary circumstances.
Yes, I could shoot folks in medieval costume by firelight using my 50/1.7
and Tri-X, but shooting TMZ at 6400 instead means that I get fewer shots
ruined by camera shake or subject movement. If I had an f/1.2 lens, more
shots would be in focus because I could see more clearly through the
viewfinder.
When I'm shooting in daylight, 100 or 400 film and an f/3.5 zoom lens
suddenly don't feel at all limiting any more. (Well, until I decide
I want shallower DOF than a 3.5 gives me, but you get the idea.) Then
again, in that situation I might even do without such "frills" as
TTL metering, and carry an H3 or an S1a with me. Not that there's any
reason _not_ to use more impressive/modern tools in less technically
challenging circumstances; just that I'm aware that in those conditions
I don't _need_ as many features, so I've got a wider selection of
apropriate tools to choose from.
Obviously, somone who shoots almost entirely still or slow-moving
subjects in daylight at sane distances doesn't need 12500 ASA film
or a 1/8000 shutter. Then again, as long as they know the difference
beteween "want" and "need", why shouldn't they spend their money on
a body that does 1/8000 if they want it badly enough for the price?
(Of course, for all I know you might agree with me and merely want
to makes sure people do know the difference between what they need
and what they want...)
-- Glenn
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
