Addendum #2. When I wrote "It doesn't matter if everything else is perfect", that was meant to mean 'if everything else is perfect and the composition is lacking, the perfection of the rest was for naught'.
Tom C. On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Tom C <caka...@gmail.com> wrote: > And to add an addendum (redundant?). > > Equipment is the least important factor in the equation. We (I) like > to think that the newest and best will make us/me better. It probably > won't. It may give us more options or a make a good image possibly > better depending on it's ultimate use. > > The best tools in the hands of a poor craftsman, will still result in > a shoddy product, photographically or otherwise. > > Having the best tools helps, but it only helps. > > I've got a wonderful image or two from plastic-lens Fuji film disposables. > > Tom C. > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Tom C <caka...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> From: Darren Addy <pixelsmi...@gmail.com> >>> >>> Alright. I had a Ranger IPA and let the desire to unsubscribe pass. My >>> Quality of Life Index stinks bad enough right now without cutting >>> myself off from PDML (you see, I clearly have masochistic tendencies). >>> : \ >> >> That's the way to do it. I knew you weren't a quitter!. :) Sorry about >> the QLI. I heard IPA's are even becoming popular in India. >> >>> >>> I realize that "Kenny Boy" is a widely reviled character here on PDML >>> (and beyond), and I'm not clear if this is because his information or >>> conclusion is (often?) wrong, or if he is just hated as a Pontificator >>> (or worse, Nikon Fanboy). >>> : ) >>> >> >> I'll read the essay later. I think sometimes he has valid things to >> say, I just generally dislike the pompousness of his writing. In >> general he strikes me as one of those guys that makes me think 'well I >> guess if he talks that much he HAS to be right about something >> sometime'. >> >>> If I may, I would like to ask you to please "hold your noses" and tell >>> me, specifically, what you disagree with in the following Kenny Boy >>> essay on the subject of lens sharpness: >>> http://kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm Please think of this as >>> a weekend diversion, should you not have time for it today. In >>> addition, if you have a link to share that you think discusses this >>> subject (lens sharpness) more lucidly, please pass that along. >>> >>> I'd also like to add one more layer of complexity to the discussion, >>> but that will (hopefully) come later. I don't want to "muddy the >>> waters" with it right now. >>> >>> I realize that the bottom line (cop-out answer) that one can't argue >>> with is "don't worry about it... just take pictures with what you've >>> got" and while I agree with that sentiment, it doesn't make my desire >>> to understand all of the variables to obtaining a good image go away. >>> Thanks in advance for any opinions you care to share. >> >> The # 1 component of a good image is composition. If that does not >> exist the image sucks, plain and simple. IMO that's at least 75% or >> higher of what makes a good image. Interesting subject and great >> lighting help (they're also elements of composition). It doesn't >> matter if everything else is perfect. >> >> A technically perfect, yet poorly composed image is a sucky image. >> >> Of course a well composed, yet out of focus or poorly exposed image, >> is also a sucky image, but without a good composition the rest >> wouldn't matter. >> >> If I may quote William Robb from over a decade ago, probably 13 years >> ago. It's the smartest thing he's ever written (that I've read), and >> I've chuckled about it monthly if not weekly for the last 13 years. >> >> "Photography is not rocket science. TANG is rocket science" - William >> Robb ca. 1999. >> >> Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
