----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Delcour" Subject: Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round
> I see. Well, I must say I'm not that surprised. If you take really great > care to ensure a good stirdy setup, I would expect even 1/500 to show some > unsharpness due to movement. However, I was in a situation serveral times > when the shot had to be taken and a tripod was not available, or would have > been impossible to use, in a theatre for instance. Question is more: how > much unsharpness is still acceptable knowing the circumstances. Usually I > don't really mind, although the occasional crisp sharp photo of course I > like very much. Read my post about wedding photography (subject is tripod use). If you are shooting for a purpose, you suit your technique to that purpose and hope the client doesn't change their mind after the fact. > > Unsharpness also creates some softness, giving me reason to wander whether > those really contrasty sharp Pentax lenses are any good when I accept so > much unsharpness. Think about how much less sharp the image would be if you were using a low quality lens. OTOH, if you are accepting poor technical quality as a matter of course, we don't have enough in common to make a discussion out of this. > > Also: I used to use Kodak neg. film which is quite contrasty. For people my > wife rightly said this was too contrasty. I now use a medium film. Again > here, why use such hard lenses if I compensate them by using milder films. > So here comes the question of using a softer Takumar with a hard film or a > Pentax lens with a softer film. Which would give me a more satisfying > result. But as I said before, I cannot afford to get all that stuff and > simply choose what I need at the appropiate moment. I actually don't find Pentax lenses to be overly contrasty. Pentax glass is more about balance. Everything is compromised somewhat, this is the nature of lensmaking, but no one parameter is compromised overly at the expense of another parameter. William Robb
