Tom C. wrote: > Sure, but those reviews are written for many people, myself included, who > don't totally understand the measurements. So to rate a lens on a scale and > to give it a qualitative assesment is helpful. Seeing the actual images > and how the measurements relate is even better.
You're right. Most people don't have the time or inclination to try a zillion lenses like I have. They need clues as to what's good. Keeps photo magazines in business. > I understand your point totally, and even mostly agree. MOST things in life > ARE subjective. So I guess I'm really talking about MY parameters and not > anyone elses. As you are right to do! >> And what metaphysics do you propose to demonstrate that more information >> makes for better pictures? I could make a very good case for the opposite >> being true (and if I did, neither of us would be entirely right). > I > would ask you, to demonstrate that it doesn't. Or to demonstrate that less > information makes for just as good of an image, or that less information > makes for a better image. And I would respond simply by enumerating some of the many types of work from the history of photography that don't have much "information." Almost all pictorialst work. Ernst Haas's blurred ASA 10 Kodachromes of Spanish bullfights. Most high-contrast work like Bill Brandt's. All Diana camera work like Nancy Rexroth's. All the artwork done with SX-70s. A great many night shots. Sheila Metzner's Fresson prints. Julia Margaret Cameron's portraits. If I don't stop I'm going to be like the Energizer bunny here...<g> That's obviously not to say that lots of photographs WITH lots of information aren't successful too. They are, of course. But it's not a prerequisite. Now I'll switch to my purely argumentative mode--if you want information, why aren't you shooting on larger film? Few things beat an 8x10 contact print for conveying tonal detail and resolution. But even a 645 will blow away most 35mm shots for conveying information. > I think > it's pretty easy to prove that a 35mm frame, having more capacity to record > a scene, will deliver a better image than 110 film, all other things being > equal. There you go again, talking about "better." I once knew a photographer who was working on a set of pictures taken on color negative film using a Sunpet. What's that? It's a camera you can ONLY get by sending in $1.95 and five Bazooka Joe comics. She worked in a color lab and was blowing up the negatives to 30 x 30. You couldn't even tell what some of them were. But the way I met her was by contacting her after seeing her pictures exhibited at the Museum of Modern Art. > I am sure you would know better than I regarding the pro market for digital > cameras. > > Which pros, in what profession, and where will the images be displayed and > at what size? You're seeing digital images all the time without knowing it. They've been on the covers of newsstand magazines, and most clothes catalogues you'll get this Christmas season are shot with them. _Sports Illustrated_ is riddled with them. In museums or galleries, watch for prints marked "Giclée." Those are high-end digital prints. I've seen Giclée prints five feet wide that are absolutely stunning. > I have to be somewhat of a smart-alec and kindly ask. You have expressed an > interest in the Pentax 67II medium format camera. For what purpose? Well, not to ramble on with a long confession, but I think my little digicam has brought me to a crossroads. For 20 years I've been shooting 35mm black-and-white, with art and personal uses (snapshots and records of my life) literally merging in the work I do. Now it appears clear to me that whatever else I do, digital is going to take over the snapshot and personal record aspect of my shooting. At the same time, I love black-and-white darkroom craft. I'm an expert at it and I'm good at it. So it seems I have roughly three options at this point: --Continue shooting mostly 35mm Tri-X as I've always done. --Go completely digital and set my sights on getting a high-end digital camera within a couple of years. --Stick with mid-level digital for snapshots and make my black-and-white shooting more purely artistic and craft-oriented; in which case, 35mm doesn't really cut it, and I'd probably like to move up in film size. Hence the interest in the 67. A fourth option may be to continue shooting 35mm black-and-white _film_ but print the negatives digitally. This is what my friend Nick Hartmann is doing and I've really fallen for his prints. They're just gorgeous. --Mike - 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 .
