Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: > Frank is yet another innocent victim of autofocus. Sadly, this is true... ;-) cheers, the innocent victim -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
Frank is yet another innocent victim of autofocus. On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Larry Colen wrote: > > On Feb 2, 2011, at 1:14 PM, frank theriault wrote: > >>> From: Larry Colen OK, then working autofocus, or any focus, not necessary. Image stabilization, not necessary. You are hereby forbidden from criticizing a photo for poor focus, motion blur, or any lack of clarity. >> >> So all of mine are still in the running, then. Whew! > > I hate to disappoint you Frank, but lately your photos have been almost > disconcertingly sharp and clear. Are you not well, or have you just taken up > doing photography during daylight hours? >> > > -- > Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est > > > > > > -- > 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. > -- Steve Desjardins -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On Feb 2, 2011, at 1:14 PM, frank theriault wrote: >> From: Larry Colen >>> >>> OK, then working autofocus, or any focus, not necessary. Image >>> stabilization, not necessary. You are hereby forbidden from >>> criticizing a photo for poor focus, motion blur, or any lack of >>> clarity. > > So all of mine are still in the running, then. Whew! I hate to disappoint you Frank, but lately your photos have been almost disconcertingly sharp and clear. Are you not well, or have you just taken up doing photography during daylight hours? > -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
So while all this chatter about kitchen implements and how much gear is enough gear, etc, has been going on, my short list got shorter... A MacBook Pro 13" arrived. My PowerBook G4 15" laptop is now officially retired. Tonight I'll install the 500G drive and 8G RAM, then set it up. A lovely little bugger it is ... such a trim and clean design. I bought the Mini DisplayPort adapter cables so I can drive my 23" desktop monitor with it too. Hmm, lessee ... what's left? - 16G CF and SDHC cards - Olympus FL50R flash unit - another light stand - Fuji X100 ... maybe :: Olympus E-PL2 + VF2 + Nokton 25mm f/0.95 ... maybe Not much, in other words. Maybe's don't count. ;-) -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
> From: Larry Colen >> >> OK, then working autofocus, or any focus, not necessary. Image >> stabilization, not necessary. You are hereby forbidden from >> criticizing a photo for poor focus, motion blur, or any lack of >> clarity. So all of mine are still in the running, then. Whew! ;-) cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
From: William Robb On 31/01/2011 7:10 PM, John Sessoms wrote: > You can re-season cast iron. In fact, if you really screw up the > seasoning on a cast iron pan, one of the steps to re-seasoning is to > burn the old seasoning off to give you a uniform surface for re-seasoning. > I found a Lodge omelette skillet in the basement of a house I was renoing. Coated in dry crusty grease embedded with decades of filth, and under that a coating of Lord knows what, for sure the glue from the label hadn't been removed. I ended up sanding it with a random orbital sander and then ran it through my gas oven's cleaning cycle. It's now in daily use cooking everything egg skillet. Old "Lodge" brand cast iron is usually worth the effort, no matter how badly it's been abused in the past. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3415 - Release Date: 01/31/11 -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
2011/2/1 John Sessoms : > > It's hot enough to burn the non-stick coating if the pan has one, releasing > poisonous fumes. totally. my non-stick goes up to 270 °C btw I checked and some Le Creuset wares only go up to 190°C so they seem to use different coatings > It will also burn the seasoning off a cast iron pan, but won't warp the cast > iron unless it's a really cheap pan. exactly. they come out a nice dull grey (even lustre black once oiled, tres sweet) and take new seasoning very well. > You can re-season cast iron. In fact, if you really screw up the seasoning > on a cast iron pan, one of the steps to re-seasoning is to burn the old > seasoning off to give you a uniform surface for re-seasoning. right thurr... -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 1/31/2011 9:39 PM, John Sessoms wrote: And again, while equipment does matter, the photographer using the equipment matters more. You grok rightly, John. Boris -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 01:35:16PM -0800, Larry Colen wrote: > > Speaking of equipment versus skill at cooking, I absolutely love my Le Cruset > cookware. . . . > Not only does it have all the advantages of cast iron for cooking, but I've > found the surface to be easier to clean and more durable than either teflon > or calphalon. I'm not a purist, so I clean my pans in the dishwasher. It doesn't get much easier than that. I wasn't too impressed by Calphalon, but several years ago I switched to using Anolon Advanced (some stainless steel, some hard-anodized aluminium), and I'm still happy with that decision. But this is another one of those personal decisions. For me, the cost/benefit ratio is about right at the price point I chose ($50 - $100 for a typical mid-range pan). But I can quite see that for some people that's pretty expensive, while for other people the high-end stuff (copper saute pans, etc.) is worth the nosebleed prices. -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
- Original Message - From: "Cotty" To: "pentax list" Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 6:52 AM Subject: Re: What gear is on your "short list"? On 30/1/11, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: If a good photographer can overcome bad equipment, why is it such a leap of logic that better equipment may well help a mediocre photographer to take better pictures? How about better equipment making the process easier/more pleasurable? If the camera "just works better", then would it not make better pictures no matter what class of photographer is pushing the button? If equipment didn't matter, St. Ansel would probably have used a Minolta 110 since it would have been easier to hump it around Yosemite. Totally agree. Me too. Totally agree. When one has to fight with their tools during the creative process, it sucks and it's miserable. To me equipment matters. I've been sewing since I was 13, and I can tell you I used a lot of crappy sewing machines when I was younger. When I could afford better machines, my garments and textile projects improved, and I was happier, and I wanted to sew more. With respect to photography, the K20D & K-7 are not the cameras for the "under the el tracks" photo story I want to do. They are too noisy. But I think the K-5 would work. It's a better camera--especially for a project like this. Good tools matter, and sometimes certain creative projects are tool-specific. Cheers, Christine -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 31/01/2011 7:10 PM, John Sessoms wrote: You can re-season cast iron. In fact, if you really screw up the seasoning on a cast iron pan, one of the steps to re-seasoning is to burn the old seasoning off to give you a uniform surface for re-seasoning. I found a Lodge omelette skillet in the basement of a house I was renoing. Coated in dry crusty grease embedded with decades of filth, and under that a coating of Lord knows what, for sure the glue from the label hadn't been removed. I ended up sanding it with a random orbital sander and then ran it through my gas oven's cleaning cycle. It's now in daily use cooking everything egg skillet. -- William Robb -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
From: Larry Colen On Jan 31, 2011, at 2:10 PM, eckinator wrote: does your oven have pyrolytic cleaning? if so just put in the empty LC every couple of months and burn it clean. they take it very well. Is that a serious hint or a joke? I don't know how hot pyrolytic cleaning gets. My oven is an old wedgewood gas oven, that was no longer new when my folks bought the house in '73. It certainly doesn't have any self cleaning capabilities. It's hot enough to burn the non-stick coating if the pan has one, releasing poisonous fumes. It will also burn the seasoning off a cast iron pan, but won't warp the cast iron unless it's a really cheap pan. You can re-season cast iron. In fact, if you really screw up the seasoning on a cast iron pan, one of the steps to re-seasoning is to burn the old seasoning off to give you a uniform surface for re-seasoning. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3413 - Release Date: 01/30/11 -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
From: Larry Colen On Jan 31, 2011, at 8:24 AM, John Sessoms wrote: From: Steven Desjardins You should just spend your money on better pans. Funny you should mention that; a new commercial grade stock pot is on my short list. Speaking of equipment versus skill at cooking, I absolutely love my Le Cruset cookware. It is enameled cast iron. The trick is to find an outlet store which starts out with better prices than list, plus the more pieces you buy, the bigger the discount you get, so go there with a friend or two, so you can combine your purchases to get a bigger discount. The closest one to me is in Gilroy, and totally worth the drive. Not only does it have all the advantages of cast iron for cooking, but I've found the surface to be easier to clean and more durable than either teflon or calphalon. I got a Le Creuset omelette pan from the PX at Ft. Bragg in 2005. I've never seen another like it and there's a couple of Le Creuset outlet stores reasonably near my home. It's enameled cast iron with some kind of non-stick coating on the inside. Looks sort of like this one but the transition from the bottom to the side doesn't have the obvious break this one shows. Mine has a smooth curve. http://www.lecreuset.co.uk/Product-Range-uk/Cast-Iron-Cookware/Frying-Pans/Omelette-Pan-20cm/ Even though it's non-stick, I always use butter and keep the heat down. Makes an omelette slide around better so it's easier to flip. I also have a really good Lodge 12" cast iron skillet with lid. No coating, but it's also non-stick if you know what you're doing. I've got a stock pot, but I'm not satisfied with the quality. I'm looking at one suitable for a commercial kitchen. And at some point in the future, I'd like to replace my current electric stove with a gas range. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3413 - Release Date: 01/30/11 -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
serious hint. I have a 380 V siemens oven and I regularly use it to clean/refresh old cast iron cookwares. pyrolytic self cleaning goes up to 500 degrees celsius. they look (and sell) like new afterwards. actually knowledge gathered from a US web site about the dutch oven et al. le creusets will also work great directly over a gas burner so the enamel will handle the heat just fine. 2011/1/31 Larry Colen : > > On Jan 31, 2011, at 2:10 PM, eckinator wrote: > >> does your oven have pyrolytic cleaning? if so just put in the empty LC >> every couple of months and burn it clean. they take it very well. > > Is that a serious hint or a joke? I don't know how hot pyrolytic cleaning > gets. > > My oven is an old wedgewood gas oven, that was no longer new when my folks > bought the house in '73. It certainly doesn't have any self cleaning > capabilities. > >> > > -- > Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est > > > > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On Jan 31, 2011, at 2:10 PM, eckinator wrote: > does your oven have pyrolytic cleaning? if so just put in the empty LC > every couple of months and burn it clean. they take it very well. Is that a serious hint or a joke? I don't know how hot pyrolytic cleaning gets. My oven is an old wedgewood gas oven, that was no longer new when my folks bought the house in '73. It certainly doesn't have any self cleaning capabilities. > -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
does your oven have pyrolytic cleaning? if so just put in the empty LC every couple of months and burn it clean. they take it very well. 2011/1/31 Larry Colen : > > On Jan 31, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Tim Bray wrote: > >> By an odd coincidence, I made a huge Stifado (Greek >> beef-or-rabbit-with-oregano stew) yesterday for a guest, in the big Le >> Creuset. Cooks great. But requires considerable scrubbing after 5 >> hours of stewing. -T > > I found that my Le Creusets are a lot easier to clean if rather than cooking > stews, chillis, etc. on the stove, I just put them in the oven. > > > -- > Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est > > > > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On Jan 31, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Tim Bray wrote: > By an odd coincidence, I made a huge Stifado (Greek > beef-or-rabbit-with-oregano stew) yesterday for a guest, in the big Le > Creuset. Cooks great. But requires considerable scrubbing after 5 > hours of stewing. -T I found that my Le Creusets are a lot easier to clean if rather than cooking stews, chillis, etc. on the stove, I just put them in the oven. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
By an odd coincidence, I made a huge Stifado (Greek beef-or-rabbit-with-oregano stew) yesterday for a guest, in the big Le Creuset. Cooks great. But requires considerable scrubbing after 5 hours of stewing. -T On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > > On Jan 31, 2011, at 8:24 AM, John Sessoms wrote: > >> From: Steven Desjardins >>> You should just spend your money on better pans. >> >> Funny you should mention that; a new commercial grade stock pot is on my >> short list. > > Speaking of equipment versus skill at cooking, I absolutely love my Le Cruset > cookware. It is enameled cast iron. The trick is to find an outlet store > which starts out with better prices than list, plus the more pieces you buy, > the bigger the discount you get, so go there with a friend or two, so you can > combine your purchases to get a bigger discount. The closest one to me is in > Gilroy, and totally worth the drive. > > Not only does it have all the advantages of cast iron for cooking, but I've > found the surface to be easier to clean and more durable than either teflon > or calphalon. > > -- > Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est > > > > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On Jan 31, 2011, at 8:24 AM, John Sessoms wrote: > From: Steven Desjardins >> You should just spend your money on better pans. > > Funny you should mention that; a new commercial grade stock pot is on my > short list. Speaking of equipment versus skill at cooking, I absolutely love my Le Cruset cookware. It is enameled cast iron. The trick is to find an outlet store which starts out with better prices than list, plus the more pieces you buy, the bigger the discount you get, so go there with a friend or two, so you can combine your purchases to get a bigger discount. The closest one to me is in Gilroy, and totally worth the drive. Not only does it have all the advantages of cast iron for cooking, but I've found the surface to be easier to clean and more durable than either teflon or calphalon. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
From: Boris Liberman On 1/31/2011 5:10 AM, William Robb wrote: > If a good photographer can overcome bad equipment, why is it such a leap > of logic that better equipment may well help a mediocre photographer to > take better pictures? Better technically - sure. They will be better exposed, in sharper focus, etc. Better artistically - obviously not. However, what the mediocre photographer will think of themselves? Methinks that's the interesting one to consider. > How about better equipment making the process easier/more pleasurable? > If the camera "just works better", then would it not make better > pictures no matter what class of photographer is pushing the button? Yes, that's why they invented automatic gearboxes... > If equipment didn't matter, St. Ansel would probably have used a Minolta > 110 since it would have been easier to hump it around Yosemite. We can't prove or disprove that. St. Ansel is not around for interview. Boris FWIW, Adams completed the major body of his work before Kodak introduced the 110 format. And again, while equipment does matter, the photographer using the equipment matters more. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3413 - Release Date: 01/30/11 -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
It occurs to me that I might explain why I take the position I do about the idea that equipment can make you a better photographer. Better equipment will allow you to express the better photographer within you more easily, but won't by itself make you a better photographer. To me "better equipment" means using a hammer when you want to drive nails instead of trying to bang them in with a pair of 9" Klein side-cutters. Anyway. Before I came to PDML, I participated in USENET discussions. In one of the groups I subscribed to there was a "photographer", for want of a better word, whose online persona helped me to form my point of view. I will not name him - although if there are any former USENET denizens here, they may recognize who I'm writing about. This photographer's entire online persona consisted of boasting about how great a photographer he was and denigrating how execrable the rest of us were. But what, you might ask, was the basis for his claim to superiority? Simply this ... as soon as Canon announced any new camera, new lens, new doodad of any kind, he was the first to acquire it. Having the latest and greatest from Canon made him the greatest photographer in the world. His better equipment *made* him the better photographer. He was always going on about how his new Canon camera could do this for him and do that for him and how the rest of us were a bunch of illiterate Luddites because we failed to acknowledge his superior wisdom & imitate him in availing ourselves of Canon's latest do-everything-for-you technology. I once asked, "If your camera is so great and automatically does everything, why does the camera even need you?" Never got an answer to that one. But, he always had the latest and greatest, best equipment, so that *made* him a better photographer. As to just how good a photographer he really was ... I think that if he were to ever take his head out of the dark and stinky place he kept it in, so that he could actually look through the viewfinder; and if he were then to really apply himself ... In about 10 years or so he might be almost as good as Kenny Boy. It's also why if I ever find myself "orphaned" by Pentax, I'll switch to Nikon, and not to Canon. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3413 - Release Date: 01/30/11 -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On Jan 31, 2011, at 10:00 AM, wendy beard wrote: > You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment. > > Err - oh wait ;-) :-p > > Wendy > (actually, there's a reason I have both systems. I really ~can't~ get > the shots I want with Pentax. And I've tried) Every system has it's strengths and weaknesses. I'm lucky to have started with Pentax because a lot of my work needs image stabilized fast glass. But, it's important to use the right tool for the job. Not only have I driven a van around a racetrack at speed, I've also hauled lumber with an Rx7, it works a lot better the other way around. > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Larry Colen wrote: >> >> >> If the quality of the camera didn't matter, people would be able to get good >> pictures with Canon gear. >> >> >> -- >> Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est >> >> > > > > -- > Wendy Beard > Carp, Ontario > Canada > > -- > 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. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment. Err - oh wait ;-) :-p Wendy (actually, there's a reason I have both systems. I really ~can't~ get the shots I want with Pentax. And I've tried) On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Larry Colen wrote: > > > If the quality of the camera didn't matter, people would be able to get good > pictures with Canon gear. > > > -- > Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est > > -- Wendy Beard Carp, Ontario Canada -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
Yeah. I urgently need to replace my worn out 28 cm Gastrolux with something uncoated. I am thinking forged iron since I already have a cast iron pan. I'll never buy coated again; plus Gastrolux won't recoat that € 130 piece of useless metal. Other places do it but PTFE only and I refuse to let that near my food. Maybe we should design and market a cookware line called Pantax... 2011/1/31 John Sessoms : > From: Steven Desjardins >> >> You should just spend your money on better pans. > > Funny you should mention that; a new commercial grade stock pot is on my > short list. > > > - > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3413 - Release Date: 01/30/11 > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
From: Steven Desjardins You should just spend your money on better pans. Funny you should mention that; a new commercial grade stock pot is on my short list. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3413 - Release Date: 01/30/11 -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
From: "Ken Waller" For those that think better equipment makes a photographer better (and assuming he would then take better images) I throw this out for you to tell me how 'better' equipment would make this a better photo. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=12483032 Taken with K20D, 70-210mm SMC Pentax F. 1/30 f16, ISO 200 on Gitzo 3530LS with Bogen mini gear head, other than the tripod, not exactly hi end gear. the K20D is not 'as good' as say a K-5, the 70-210 Pentax is good but not a superior lens. Do I need a better camera body or lens or what and what effect will they have on this image. Should I have taken the money I spent on 2 weeks in Utah and bought better equipment? ; - ) It's your money, you should spend it how it pleases you. Better equipment makes better photography possible, but doesn't make the photographer better. The equipment is only as capable as the photographer using it. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3413 - Release Date: 01/30/11 -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
Cotty and Robb agree, the end is nigh. On 1/31/2011 7:52 AM, Cotty wrote: On 30/1/11, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: If a good photographer can overcome bad equipment, why is it such a leap of logic that better equipment may well help a mediocre photographer to take better pictures? How about better equipment making the process easier/more pleasurable? If the camera "just works better", then would it not make better pictures no matter what class of photographer is pushing the button? If equipment didn't matter, St. Ansel would probably have used a Minolta 110 since it would have been easier to hump it around Yosemite. Totally agree. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche -- http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom! --Marvin the Martian. -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 30/1/11, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: >If a good photographer can overcome bad equipment, why is it such a leap >of logic that better equipment may well help a mediocre photographer to >take better pictures? >How about better equipment making the process easier/more pleasurable? >If the camera "just works better", then would it not make better >pictures no matter what class of photographer is pushing the button? > >If equipment didn't matter, St. Ansel would probably have used a Minolta >110 since it would have been easier to hump it around Yosemite. Totally agree. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche -- http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 1/31/2011 10:49 AM, Larry Colen wrote: If the quality of the camera didn't matter, people would be able to get good pictures with Canon gear. /Opening the clothes cabinet looking for anti-flame jacket to wrap around you/ /grin/ Boris -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On Jan 31, 2011, at 12:47 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: > On 1/31/2011 5:10 AM, William Robb wrote: >> If a good photographer can overcome bad equipment, why is it such a leap >> of logic that better equipment may well help a mediocre photographer to >> take better pictures? > > Better technically - sure. They will be better exposed, in sharper focus, > etc. Better artistically - obviously not. However, what the mediocre > photographer will think of themselves? Methinks that's the interesting one to > consider. If the quality of the camera didn't matter, people would be able to get good pictures with Canon gear. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 1/31/2011 5:10 AM, William Robb wrote: If a good photographer can overcome bad equipment, why is it such a leap of logic that better equipment may well help a mediocre photographer to take better pictures? Better technically - sure. They will be better exposed, in sharper focus, etc. Better artistically - obviously not. However, what the mediocre photographer will think of themselves? Methinks that's the interesting one to consider. How about better equipment making the process easier/more pleasurable? If the camera "just works better", then would it not make better pictures no matter what class of photographer is pushing the button? Yes, that's why they invented automatic gearboxes... If equipment didn't matter, St. Ansel would probably have used a Minolta 110 since it would have been easier to hump it around Yosemite. We can't prove or disprove that. St. Ansel is not around for interview. Boris -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 1/30/2011 5:52 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: Actually, I think this has been in general rather even-tempered discussion. ;-) You, Boris, are always courteous. Thank you, Steve. So far I haven't been able bump into the reason not to be courteous, as you put it. I don't think I'm switching positions. The argument is based on a comparison of two situations. These two situations are a single photographer of varying skills with each of two sets of equipment, one set being noticeably higher quality than the other.. I am trying to show that quality of equipment does matter in most situations. This means that the same photographer will, on the average, do better with the higher quality equipment. The language issue may be that the comparison does not imply absolute quality. An absolute duffer may not be helped by anything. A novice with some natural ability may do better with a camera with better exposure and AF. (I suspect that the better the photographer the more difference the equipment will make (at least up to a certain point), but this is ancillary to my main point.) In other words, I'm not saying that good equipment will produce good work, I'm simply saying it will produce better work on the average. Well, your reasoning appears sound do me. One can say that a car with 5 gear DSG gearbox will yield better MPG figures than that with older 4 gear gearbox provided the (inexperienced) driver is driving not like a lunatic. My point has been somewhat different, although it seems to go in line with what you said. So, we basically agree, but we don't agree to exact terms and terminology of our agreement. Boris -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On Jan 30, 2011, at 10:21 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: > We need a cookware thread. I like heavy copper-bottom stuff with no > non-stick surface. > I like medium-weight bottoms with a definite curve to them. Oh wait, that would be another thread! stan -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
I have a 30 year old set of Magnalite pro cookware. It's no longer made, but the pans are hard anodized aluminum and magnesium alloy. They're similar to Caphalon but with thicker metal they heat more evenly. Omelets slide right off my omelet pan. No teflon or other crap of course. Just great surface, well cured. ' Paul On Jan 30, 2011, at 10:21 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: > We need a cookware thread. I like heavy copper-bottom stuff with no > non-stick surface. > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 10:14 PM, William Robb > wrote: >> On 30/01/2011 11:36 AM, Bob W wrote: >>> >>> my cooking improved enormously when I bought decent pots >>> >> >> My cooking improved when I decided the Circulons just weren't cutting it and >> went back to my mangy but much loved cast iron cookware. >> >> >> -- >> >> William Robb >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > > > -- > Steve Desjardins > > -- > 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. -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 30/01/2011 3:45 PM, Ken Waller wrote: For those that think better equipment makes a photographer better (and assuming he would then take better images) I throw this out for you to tell me how 'better' equipment would make this a better photo. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=12483032 Not that anything would make any difference to the web presentation if that is the determining factor for required quality. But It would have been better if you had used a Deardorff and a good lens, yes. It is quite likely that there would be a noticeable resolution increase with a Nikon D3x and one of their primo lenses. -- William Robb -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
We need a cookware thread. I like heavy copper-bottom stuff with no non-stick surface. On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 10:14 PM, William Robb wrote: > On 30/01/2011 11:36 AM, Bob W wrote: >> >> my cooking improved enormously when I bought decent pots >> > > My cooking improved when I decided the Circulons just weren't cutting it and > went back to my mangy but much loved cast iron cookware. > > > -- > > William Robb > > -- > 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. > -- Steve Desjardins -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 30/01/2011 11:36 AM, Bob W wrote: my cooking improved enormously when I bought decent pots My cooking improved when I decided the Circulons just weren't cutting it and went back to my mangy but much loved cast iron cookware. -- William Robb -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 1/30/2011 5:28 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: I admit folks, I fail to see why this idea is so controversial. The best photographers often buy the best equipment. Maybe they can overcome inferior equipment, but I simply point out that very few of them bother to take this route. If a good photographer can overcome bad equipment, why is it such a leap of logic that better equipment may well help a mediocre photographer to take better pictures? How about better equipment making the process easier/more pleasurable? If the camera "just works better", then would it not make better pictures no matter what class of photographer is pushing the button? If equipment didn't matter, St. Ansel would probably have used a Minolta 110 since it would have been easier to hump it around Yosemite. -- William Robb -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
You should just spend your money on better pans. ;-) Although I do like your list even if it doesn't matter. Especially the 50-135. That doesn't matter the most in my book. On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 6:09 PM, eckinator wrote: > to put the thread back on topic: > 60-250 > k-5 + grip > 50-135 > and on my wish list > DA*8-16 > and a buyer for my DA 18-250, just repaired for € 122 with just under > 2 years pentax warranty left > cheers > ecke > > 2011/1/30 Steven Desjardins : >> You can always burn dinner in good pans. You can drive you Porsche >> into the wall. You can also drop drop your K5on your foot and break >> your toe. These are isolated incidents, however, and not averages >> across many situations. >> >> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Paul Stenquist >> wrote: >>> Better equipment quite obvkously wouldn't make much difference here. The >>> shot is in full sun and presents no huge equipment challenges. However, if >>> taken with an inferior lens that lacked sharpness it wouldn't be as nice as >>> it is. And it is quite nice. And of course if it were to be used on a >>> billboard, taking it with a medium format camera would probably yield a >>> better result for that purpose. >>> >>> However, the point some have been trying to make is that there are >>> situations that can tax one's equipment. For example, I was unable to >>> achieve decent results in the very dim lighting of the pool hall with >>> either the K20 or the K7. In fact, the K20 wouldn't even lock focus in that >>> light, and the ISO 6400 pics from both cameras were quite noisy. The K-5, >>> being better suited to lo-light photography in terms of both noise and >>> autofocus, allowed me to take better photos. >>> >>> I find this a silly discussion. Of course, better equipment won't always >>> help one take better photos. But there are times when it will. What could >>> possibly be more obvious? >>> >>> Paul >>> On Jan 30, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Ken Waller wrote: >>> For those that think better equipment makes a photographer better (and assuming he would then take better images) I throw this out for you to tell me how 'better' equipment would make this a better photo. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=12483032 Taken with K20D, 70-210mm SMC Pentax F. 1/30 f16, ISO 200 on Gitzo 3530LS with Bogen mini gear head, other than the tripod, not exactly hi end gear. the K20D is not 'as good' as say a K-5, the 70-210 Pentax is good but not a superior lens. Do I need a better camera body or lens or what and what effect will they have on this image. Should I have taken the money I spent on 2 weeks in Utah and bought better equipment? ; - ) Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller -- 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. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Steve Desjardins >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > -- > 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. > -- Steve Desjardins -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
to put the thread back on topic: 60-250 k-5 + grip 50-135 and on my wish list DA*8-16 and a buyer for my DA 18-250, just repaired for € 122 with just under 2 years pentax warranty left cheers ecke 2011/1/30 Steven Desjardins : > You can always burn dinner in good pans. You can drive you Porsche > into the wall. You can also drop drop your K5on your foot and break > your toe. These are isolated incidents, however, and not averages > across many situations. > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Paul Stenquist > wrote: >> Better equipment quite obvkously wouldn't make much difference here. The >> shot is in full sun and presents no huge equipment challenges. However, if >> taken with an inferior lens that lacked sharpness it wouldn't be as nice as >> it is. And it is quite nice. And of course if it were to be used on a >> billboard, taking it with a medium format camera would probably yield a >> better result for that purpose. >> >> However, the point some have been trying to make is that there are >> situations that can tax one's equipment. For example, I was unable to >> achieve decent results in the very dim lighting of the pool hall with either >> the K20 or the K7. In fact, the K20 wouldn't even lock focus in that light, >> and the ISO 6400 pics from both cameras were quite noisy. The K-5, being >> better suited to lo-light photography in terms of both noise and autofocus, >> allowed me to take better photos. >> >> I find this a silly discussion. Of course, better equipment won't always >> help one take better photos. But there are times when it will. What could >> possibly be more obvious? >> >> Paul >> On Jan 30, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Ken Waller wrote: >> >>> For those that think better equipment makes a photographer better (and >>> assuming he would then take better images) I throw this out for you to tell >>> me how 'better' equipment would make this a better photo. >>> >>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=12483032 >>> >>> Taken with K20D, 70-210mm SMC Pentax F. 1/30 f16, ISO 200 on Gitzo 3530LS >>> with Bogen >>> mini gear head, other than the tripod, not exactly hi end gear. the K20D is >>> not 'as good' as say a >>> K-5, the 70-210 Pentax is good but not a superior lens. >>> >>> Do I need a better camera body or lens or what and what effect will they >>> have on this image. >>> >>> Should I have taken the money I spent on 2 weeks in Utah and bought better >>> equipment? >>> >>> ; - ) >>> >>> Kenneth Waller >>> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > > > -- > Steve Desjardins > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
You can always burn dinner in good pans. You can drive you Porsche into the wall. You can also drop drop your K5on your foot and break your toe. These are isolated incidents, however, and not averages across many situations. On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > Better equipment quite obvkously wouldn't make much difference here. The > shot is in full sun and presents no huge equipment challenges. However, if > taken with an inferior lens that lacked sharpness it wouldn't be as nice as > it is. And it is quite nice. And of course if it were to be used on a > billboard, taking it with a medium format camera would probably yield a > better result for that purpose. > > However, the point some have been trying to make is that there are situations > that can tax one's equipment. For example, I was unable to achieve decent > results in the very dim lighting of the pool hall with either the K20 or the > K7. In fact, the K20 wouldn't even lock focus in that light, and the ISO 6400 > pics from both cameras were quite noisy. The K-5, being better suited to > lo-light photography in terms of both noise and autofocus, allowed me to take > better photos. > > I find this a silly discussion. Of course, better equipment won't always help > one take better photos. But there are times when it will. What could possibly > be more obvious? > > Paul > On Jan 30, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Ken Waller wrote: > >> For those that think better equipment makes a photographer better (and >> assuming he would then take better images) I throw this out for you to tell >> me how 'better' equipment would make this a better photo. >> >> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=12483032 >> >> Taken with K20D, 70-210mm SMC Pentax F. 1/30 f16, ISO 200 on Gitzo 3530LS >> with Bogen >> mini gear head, other than the tripod, not exactly hi end gear. the K20D is >> not 'as good' as say a >> K-5, the 70-210 Pentax is good but not a superior lens. >> >> Do I need a better camera body or lens or what and what effect will they >> have on this image. >> >> Should I have taken the money I spent on 2 weeks in Utah and bought better >> equipment? >> >> ; - ) >> >> Kenneth Waller >> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller >> >> -- >> 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. > > > -- > 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. > -- Steve Desjardins -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
Better equipment quite obvkously wouldn't make much difference here. The shot is in full sun and presents no huge equipment challenges. However, if taken with an inferior lens that lacked sharpness it wouldn't be as nice as it is. And it is quite nice. And of course if it were to be used on a billboard, taking it with a medium format camera would probably yield a better result for that purpose. However, the point some have been trying to make is that there are situations that can tax one's equipment. For example, I was unable to achieve decent results in the very dim lighting of the pool hall with either the K20 or the K7. In fact, the K20 wouldn't even lock focus in that light, and the ISO 6400 pics from both cameras were quite noisy. The K-5, being better suited to lo-light photography in terms of both noise and autofocus, allowed me to take better photos. I find this a silly discussion. Of course, better equipment won't always help one take better photos. But there are times when it will. What could possibly be more obvious? Paul On Jan 30, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Ken Waller wrote: > For those that think better equipment makes a photographer better (and > assuming he would then take better images) I throw this out for you to tell > me how 'better' equipment would make this a better photo. > > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=12483032 > > Taken with K20D, 70-210mm SMC Pentax F. 1/30 f16, ISO 200 on Gitzo 3530LS > with Bogen > mini gear head, other than the tripod, not exactly hi end gear. the K20D is > not 'as good' as say a > K-5, the 70-210 Pentax is good but not a superior lens. > > Do I need a better camera body or lens or what and what effect will they have > on this image. > > Should I have taken the money I spent on 2 weeks in Utah and bought better > equipment? > > ; - ) > > Kenneth Waller > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller > > -- > 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. -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
You realize that stochastic intransigence is another way of saying random stubbornness. On 1/30/2011 4:47 PM, Tim Bray wrote: If you'd taken it with a Leica, the cognoscenti would admire its stochastic intransigence. -T On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Ken Waller wrote: For those that think better equipment makes a photographer better (and assuming he would then take better images) I throw this out for you to tell me how 'better' equipment would make this a better photo. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=12483032 Taken with K20D, 70-210mm SMC Pentax F. 1/30 f16, ISO 200 on Gitzo 3530LS with Bogen mini gear head, other than the tripod, not exactly hi end gear. the K20D is not 'as good' as say a K-5, the 70-210 Pentax is good but not a superior lens. Do I need a better camera body or lens or what and what effect will they have on this image. Should I have taken the money I spent on 2 weeks in Utah and bought better equipment? ; - ) Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller -- 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. -- Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom! --Marvin the Martian. -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
If you had a K-5 you could print it bigger, if you had a 645D you could print it even bigger than that. On 1/30/2011 4:45 PM, Ken Waller wrote: For those that think better equipment makes a photographer better (and assuming he would then take better images) I throw this out for you to tell me how 'better' equipment would make this a better photo. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=12483032 Taken with K20D, 70-210mm SMC Pentax F. 1/30 f16, ISO 200 on Gitzo 3530LS with Bogen mini gear head, other than the tripod, not exactly hi end gear. the K20D is not 'as good' as say a K-5, the 70-210 Pentax is good but not a superior lens. Do I need a better camera body or lens or what and what effect will they have on this image. Should I have taken the money I spent on 2 weeks in Utah and bought better equipment? ; - ) Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller -- Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom! --Marvin the Martian. -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
If you'd taken it with a Leica, the cognoscenti would admire its stochastic intransigence. -T On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Ken Waller wrote: > For those that think better equipment makes a photographer better (and > assuming he would then take better images) I throw this out for you to tell > me how 'better' equipment would make this a better photo. > > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=12483032 > > Taken with K20D, 70-210mm SMC Pentax F. 1/30 f16, ISO 200 on Gitzo 3530LS > with Bogen > mini gear head, other than the tripod, not exactly hi end gear. the K20D is > not 'as good' as say a > K-5, the 70-210 Pentax is good but not a superior lens. > > Do I need a better camera body or lens or what and what effect will they > have on this image. > > Should I have taken the money I spent on 2 weeks in Utah and bought better > equipment? > > ; - ) > > Kenneth Waller > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
For those that think better equipment makes a photographer better (and assuming he would then take better images) I throw this out for you to tell me how 'better' equipment would make this a better photo. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=12483032 Taken with K20D, 70-210mm SMC Pentax F. 1/30 f16, ISO 200 on Gitzo 3530LS with Bogen mini gear head, other than the tripod, not exactly hi end gear. the K20D is not 'as good' as say a K-5, the 70-210 Pentax is good but not a superior lens. Do I need a better camera body or lens or what and what effect will they have on this image. Should I have taken the money I spent on 2 weeks in Utah and bought better equipment? ; - ) Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: "Tim Bray"
Subject: Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
?Let me spin this another way: The limiting factor in the quality of
the pictures I take is not the quality of the camera I take them with.
However, quite likely some combination of longer lenses and faster
lenses/senses would allow me to take some pictures that at the moment
I just can't take.
Obviously, longer &/or faster lenses are not necessarily better.
- Tim
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Bob W wrote:
my cooking improved enormously when I bought decent pots
After the meal, ask the chef what brand of pots were used because it
tasted great...
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Boris Liberman
wrote:
> On 1/27/2011 7:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
>>
>> My real objection is generalizations like "equipment doesn't
matter".
>> For some shots it doesn't matter and for some it does. My opinion
is
>> that for a great majority it does make a difference. Better
equipment
>> is far less likely to be inappropriate for a particular photographic
>> situation than lousy equipment.
>
> Steven, I am thinking of the following /almost/ real life situations:
>
> 1. Somebody talking to Picasso - "Maestro, your brushes have most
wonderful
> strokes in them".
>
> 2. Someone talking to Ferdinand Porsche - "Sir, the steering wheel of
your
> cars is so round, I cannot help but drive faster".
>
> 3. Someone talking to (well choose whatever haut couture grand master
you
> wish) - "Your needles make so wonderfully beautiful clothes"...
>
> I hope you catch my drift, Steve.
>
> Equipment, IMO (not so humble) does matter only if the one who uses
it knows
> exactly what they are doing. I cannot draw like Picasso or drive like
well
> known Stig or even cook like chief Ramsey no matter what canvas or
race
> track or kitchen you would put in front of me. Now, it will take
great deal
> of self-understanding and self-honesty to realize and admit that
there is a
> limit to the gear one is going to use to one's benefit whereas above
that
> limit it won't be for the quality of the outcome, but for other
reasons -
> that of collectible factor, that of social status, that of pleasure
of using
> ("buttery smooth focusing ring" epithets come to mind), etc.
>
> Boris
--
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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: "Bob W"
Subject: RE: What gear is on your "short list"?
.my cooking improved enormously when I bought decent pots
But were they better ?
. After the meal, ask the chef what brand of pots were used because it
tasted great...
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Boris Liberman
wrote:
On 1/27/2011 7:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
>>
My real objection is generalizations like "equipment doesn't
matter".
For some shots it doesn't matter and for some it does. My opinion
is
that for a great majority it does make a difference. Better
equipment
is far less likely to be inappropriate for a particular photographic
situation than lousy equipment.
Steven, I am thinking of the following /almost/ real life situations:
1. Somebody talking to Picasso - "Maestro, your brushes have most
wonderful
strokes in them".
2. Someone talking to Ferdinand Porsche - "Sir, the steering wheel of
your
cars is so round, I cannot help but drive faster".
3. Someone talking to (well choose whatever haut couture grand master
you
wish) - "Your needles make so wonderfully beautiful clothes"...
I hope you catch my drift, Steve.
Equipment, IMO (not so humble) does matter only if the one who uses
it knows
exactly what they are doing. I cannot draw like Picasso or drive like
well
known Stig or even cook like chief Ramsey no matter what canvas or
race
track or kitchen you would put in front of me. Now, it will take
great deal
of self-understanding and self-honesty to realize and admit that
there is a
limit to the gear one is going to use to one's benefit whereas above
that
limit it won't be for the quality of the outcome, but for other
reasons -
that of collectible factor, that of social status, that of pleasure
of using
("buttery smooth focusing ring" epithets come to mind), etc.
Boris
--
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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
Let me spin this another way: The limiting factor in the quality of
the pictures I take is not the quality of the camera I take them with.
However, quite likely some combination of longer lenses and faster
lenses/senses would allow me to take some pictures that at the moment
I just can't take.
- Tim
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Bob W wrote:
> my cooking improved enormously when I bought decent pots
>
>> After the meal, ask the chef what brand of pots were used because it
>> tasted great...
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Boris Liberman
>> wrote:
>> > On 1/27/2011 7:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
>> >>
>> >> My real objection is generalizations like "equipment doesn't
>> matter".
>> >> For some shots it doesn't matter and for some it does. My opinion
>> is
>> >> that for a great majority it does make a difference. Better
>> equipment
>> >> is far less likely to be inappropriate for a particular photographic
>> >> situation than lousy equipment.
>> >
>> > Steven, I am thinking of the following /almost/ real life situations:
>> >
>> > 1. Somebody talking to Picasso - "Maestro, your brushes have most
>> wonderful
>> > strokes in them".
>> >
>> > 2. Someone talking to Ferdinand Porsche - "Sir, the steering wheel of
>> your
>> > cars is so round, I cannot help but drive faster".
>> >
>> > 3. Someone talking to (well choose whatever haut couture grand master
>> you
>> > wish) - "Your needles make so wonderfully beautiful clothes"...
>> >
>> > I hope you catch my drift, Steve.
>> >
>> > Equipment, IMO (not so humble) does matter only if the one who uses
>> it knows
>> > exactly what they are doing. I cannot draw like Picasso or drive like
>> well
>> > known Stig or even cook like chief Ramsey no matter what canvas or
>> race
>> > track or kitchen you would put in front of me. Now, it will take
>> great deal
>> > of self-understanding and self-honesty to realize and admit that
>> there is a
>> > limit to the gear one is going to use to one's benefit whereas above
>> that
>> > limit it won't be for the quality of the outcome, but for other
>> reasons -
>> > that of collectible factor, that of social status, that of pleasure
>> of using
>> > ("buttery smooth focusing ring" epithets come to mind), etc.
>> >
>> > Boris
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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.
>> >
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
--
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.
RE: What gear is on your "short list"?
my cooking improved enormously when I bought decent pots
> After the meal, ask the chef what brand of pots were used because it
> tasted great...
>
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Boris Liberman
> wrote:
> > On 1/27/2011 7:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
> >>
> >> My real objection is generalizations like "equipment doesn't
> matter".
> >> For some shots it doesn't matter and for some it does. My opinion
> is
> >> that for a great majority it does make a difference. Better
> equipment
> >> is far less likely to be inappropriate for a particular photographic
> >> situation than lousy equipment.
> >
> > Steven, I am thinking of the following /almost/ real life situations:
> >
> > 1. Somebody talking to Picasso - "Maestro, your brushes have most
> wonderful
> > strokes in them".
> >
> > 2. Someone talking to Ferdinand Porsche - "Sir, the steering wheel of
> your
> > cars is so round, I cannot help but drive faster".
> >
> > 3. Someone talking to (well choose whatever haut couture grand master
> you
> > wish) - "Your needles make so wonderfully beautiful clothes"...
> >
> > I hope you catch my drift, Steve.
> >
> > Equipment, IMO (not so humble) does matter only if the one who uses
> it knows
> > exactly what they are doing. I cannot draw like Picasso or drive like
> well
> > known Stig or even cook like chief Ramsey no matter what canvas or
> race
> > track or kitchen you would put in front of me. Now, it will take
> great deal
> > of self-understanding and self-honesty to realize and admit that
> there is a
> > limit to the gear one is going to use to one's benefit whereas above
> that
> > limit it won't be for the quality of the outcome, but for other
> reasons -
> > that of collectible factor, that of social status, that of pleasure
> of using
> > ("buttery smooth focusing ring" epithets come to mind), etc.
> >
> > Boris
> >
> > --
> > 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.
> >
>
> --
> 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.
--
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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
BTW, since we are discussing equipment, I just bought my wife a new camera. Her old P&S had seen hard use and the trip to Africa hadn't helped. I took advantage of the $100 price tag on the Optio I-10. She takes pictures primarily of people in good light (or uses the flash), so the noise issues with the Optio shouldn't matter too much. It came in Friday, although since I had sent it to my office I didn't see it until today. Damn, this thing is tiny. Smaller than my cell phone. I have not idea how good it is yet but it certainly would be no burden in the pocket. I didn't like the "Altoids" Optios since I just couldn't seem to hold them steady. I wonder if SR helps with that problem here. BTW, It doesn't quite fit in the Altoids tin. On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Steven Desjardins wrote: > Amen, brother. We are in agreement. ;-) > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 10:31 AM, John Sessoms wrote: >>> On 1/27/2011 7:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: > My real objection is generalizations like "equipment doesn't matter". > For some shots it doesn't matter and for some it does. My opinion is > that for a great majority it does make a difference. Better equipment > is far less likely to be inappropriate for a particular photographic > situation than lousy equipment. >> >> Equipment matters. The photographer matters MORE. >> >> >> - >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3411 - Release Date: 01/29/11 >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > > > -- > Steve Desjardins > -- Steve Desjardins -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
Amen, brother. We are in agreement. ;-) On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 10:31 AM, John Sessoms wrote: >> On 1/27/2011 7:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: >>> >>> > My real objection is generalizations like "equipment doesn't matter". >>> > For some shots it doesn't matter and for some it does. My opinion is >>> > that for a great majority it does make a difference. Better equipment >>> > is far less likely to be inappropriate for a particular photographic >>> > situation than lousy equipment. > > Equipment matters. The photographer matters MORE. > > > - > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3411 - Release Date: 01/29/11 > > > -- > 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. > -- Steve Desjardins -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
Actually, I think this has been in general rather even-tempered discussion. ;-) You, Boris, are always courteous. I don't think I'm switching positions. The argument is based on a comparison of two situations. These two situations are a single photographer of varying skills with each of two sets of equipment, one set being noticeably higher quality than the other.. I am trying to show that quality of equipment does matter in most situations. This means that the same photographer will, on the average, do better with the higher quality equipment. The language issue may be that the comparison does not imply absolute quality. An absolute duffer may not be helped by anything. A novice with some natural ability may do better with a camera with better exposure and AF. (I suspect that the better the photographer the more difference the equipment will make (at least up to a certain point), but this is ancillary to my main point.) In other words, I'm not saying that good equipment will produce good work, I'm simply saying it will produce better work on the average. This is definitely putting me in the mood to write my test. ;-) On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: > On 1/30/2011 5:28 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: >> >> I admit folks, I fail to see why this idea is so controversial. The >> best photographers often buy the best equipment. Maybe they can >> overcome inferior equipment, but I simply point out that very few of >> them bother to take this route. > > I gotta be slow today and dense. Steve, if you wish, we can always take it > off-list so as to not provoke further controversy. > > Boris > > -- > 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. > -- Steve Desjardins -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 1/30/2011 5:28 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: I admit folks, I fail to see why this idea is so controversial. The best photographers often buy the best equipment. Maybe they can overcome inferior equipment, but I simply point out that very few of them bother to take this route. I gotta be slow today and dense. Steve, if you wish, we can always take it off-list so as to not provoke further controversy. Boris -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 1/30/2011 5:28 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: I'm clearly not saying this well. I keep saying the equivalent of "A good photographer can take advantage of better equipment" and folks keep translating it to "good equipment will make you a better photographer." To be clear, I think the former statement is obvious, I think the latter is usually wrong, and there is a clear difference between the the two. That I can easily and rather totally agree with. If a good photographer can take advantage of better equipment, then equipment clearly matters because they will take the trouble to buy it. To use the car example, this is like saying, "you are a fine race car driver so you should be able to set a track record in a Ford Fiesta instead of a an F1 racer". Or going into the kitchen of Chef Antoine and telling him he is a fool for buying the best cookware when a chef of his caliber clearly doesn't need it. Every photographer is stuck with the skills they have at that moment. The skills I might acquire in the future through practice are not available to me today. Therefore, for each photographer, the major remaining variable is quality of the equipment. A really good photographer can get good pictures with inferior equipment. Chances are he/she would do even better with better equipment. Hmmm. Probably some facet of language barrier is in play here, because to me it seems you just made the logical switch again and you're advocating the "the equipment is better be better than one is a photographer" idea... But I digress. I admit folks, I fail to see why this idea is so controversial. The best photographers often buy the best equipment. Maybe they can overcome inferior equipment, but I simply point out that very few of them bother to take this route. Oh, right, the best photographers. True as you put it. It is just that it is rather natural to see how this rationale projects on to Boris-the-average-photog. The controversy is probably related to (if not based on) the fact that in modern times one is kind of supposed to be on top of things. It is (trying to make a car analogy here) if you came to the meet up of the gear heads with VW Golf Mk3 VR6. No matter how good is the state of the car, you would be looked down up on merely because it is not modern VW Scirocco or VW is offering now in VR6's stead... And even if you drove and outdriven all the others with your car (because you know it intimately, etc), they would still think of you in a rather special manner. This is the impression I am getting from reading the forums and other non-PDML sources. Cases to illustrate my points are most recent lenses introduced by Pentax (35/2.4 and 18-135). -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 1/27/2011 7:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: > My real objection is generalizations like "equipment doesn't matter". > For some shots it doesn't matter and for some it does. My opinion is > that for a great majority it does make a difference. Better equipment > is far less likely to be inappropriate for a particular photographic > situation than lousy equipment. Equipment matters. The photographer matters MORE. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3411 - Release Date: 01/29/11 -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
I'm clearly not saying this well. I keep saying the equivalent of "A
good photographer can take advantage of better equipment" and folks
keep translating it to "good equipment will make you a better
photographer." To be clear, I think the former statement is obvious,
I think the latter is usually wrong, and there is a clear difference
between the the two. If a good photographer can take advantage of
better equipment, then equipment clearly matters because they will
take the trouble to buy it. To use the car example, this is like
saying, "you are a fine race car driver so you should be able to set a
track record in a Ford Fiesta instead of a an F1 racer". Or going
into the kitchen of Chef Antoine and telling him he is a fool for
buying the best cookware when a chef of his caliber clearly doesn't
need it.
Every photographer is stuck with the skills they have at that moment.
The skills I might acquire in the future through practice are not
available to me today. Therefore, for each photographer, the major
remaining variable is quality of the equipment. A really good
photographer can get good pictures with inferior equipment. Chances
are he/she would do even better with better equipment.
I admit folks, I fail to see why this idea is so controversial. The
best photographers often buy the best equipment. Maybe they can
overcome inferior equipment, but I simply point out that very few of
them bother to take this route.
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
> On 1/27/2011 7:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
>>
>> My real objection is generalizations like "equipment doesn't matter".
>> For some shots it doesn't matter and for some it does. My opinion is
>> that for a great majority it does make a difference. Better equipment
>> is far less likely to be inappropriate for a particular photographic
>> situation than lousy equipment.
>
> Steven, I am thinking of the following /almost/ real life situations:
>
> 1. Somebody talking to Picasso - "Maestro, your brushes have most wonderful
> strokes in them".
>
> 2. Someone talking to Ferdinand Porsche - "Sir, the steering wheel of your
> cars is so round, I cannot help but drive faster".
>
> 3. Someone talking to (well choose whatever haut couture grand master you
> wish) - "Your needles make so wonderfully beautiful clothes"...
>
> I hope you catch my drift, Steve.
>
> Equipment, IMO (not so humble) does matter only if the one who uses it knows
> exactly what they are doing. I cannot draw like Picasso or drive like well
> known Stig or even cook like chief Ramsey no matter what canvas or race
> track or kitchen you would put in front of me. Now, it will take great deal
> of self-understanding and self-honesty to realize and admit that there is a
> limit to the gear one is going to use to one's benefit whereas above that
> limit it won't be for the quality of the outcome, but for other reasons -
> that of collectible factor, that of social status, that of pleasure of using
> ("buttery smooth focusing ring" epithets come to mind), etc.
>
> Boris
>
> --
> 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.
>
--
Steve Desjardins
--
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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
After the meal, ask the chef what brand of pots were used because it
tasted great...
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
> On 1/27/2011 7:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
>>
>> My real objection is generalizations like "equipment doesn't matter".
>> For some shots it doesn't matter and for some it does. My opinion is
>> that for a great majority it does make a difference. Better equipment
>> is far less likely to be inappropriate for a particular photographic
>> situation than lousy equipment.
>
> Steven, I am thinking of the following /almost/ real life situations:
>
> 1. Somebody talking to Picasso - "Maestro, your brushes have most wonderful
> strokes in them".
>
> 2. Someone talking to Ferdinand Porsche - "Sir, the steering wheel of your
> cars is so round, I cannot help but drive faster".
>
> 3. Someone talking to (well choose whatever haut couture grand master you
> wish) - "Your needles make so wonderfully beautiful clothes"...
>
> I hope you catch my drift, Steve.
>
> Equipment, IMO (not so humble) does matter only if the one who uses it knows
> exactly what they are doing. I cannot draw like Picasso or drive like well
> known Stig or even cook like chief Ramsey no matter what canvas or race
> track or kitchen you would put in front of me. Now, it will take great deal
> of self-understanding and self-honesty to realize and admit that there is a
> limit to the gear one is going to use to one's benefit whereas above that
> limit it won't be for the quality of the outcome, but for other reasons -
> that of collectible factor, that of social status, that of pleasure of using
> ("buttery smooth focusing ring" epithets come to mind), etc.
>
> Boris
>
> --
> 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.
>
--
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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 1/27/2011 7:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: My real objection is generalizations like "equipment doesn't matter". For some shots it doesn't matter and for some it does. My opinion is that for a great majority it does make a difference. Better equipment is far less likely to be inappropriate for a particular photographic situation than lousy equipment. To clarify. My previous reply to this post of yours is not directed at you, obviously, but rather offered as an opinion in the general discussion. Boris -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 1/27/2011 7:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
My real objection is generalizations like "equipment doesn't matter".
For some shots it doesn't matter and for some it does. My opinion is
that for a great majority it does make a difference. Better equipment
is far less likely to be inappropriate for a particular photographic
situation than lousy equipment.
Steven, I am thinking of the following /almost/ real life situations:
1. Somebody talking to Picasso - "Maestro, your brushes have most
wonderful strokes in them".
2. Someone talking to Ferdinand Porsche - "Sir, the steering wheel of
your cars is so round, I cannot help but drive faster".
3. Someone talking to (well choose whatever haut couture grand master
you wish) - "Your needles make so wonderfully beautiful clothes"...
I hope you catch my drift, Steve.
Equipment, IMO (not so humble) does matter only if the one who uses it
knows exactly what they are doing. I cannot draw like Picasso or drive
like well known Stig or even cook like chief Ramsey no matter what
canvas or race track or kitchen you would put in front of me. Now, it
will take great deal of self-understanding and self-honesty to realize
and admit that there is a limit to the gear one is going to use to one's
benefit whereas above that limit it won't be for the quality of the
outcome, but for other reasons - that of collectible factor, that of
social status, that of pleasure of using ("buttery smooth focusing ring"
epithets come to mind), etc.
Boris
--
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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 28 January 2011 12:47, Larry Colen wrote: > I sort of figure that the photos should be suitable for the children's cancer > ward that it's raising money for. So it's really up to the individuals discretion, the images I'm referring to I could show (and have) to "my" 4 yo but "some" more prudish adults may have problems with them. I guess the issue is that I don't want to waste a submission by having it dismissed by the editing team due to an unwritten rule. -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On Jan 27, 2011, at 5:43 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: > On 28 January 2011 11:46, Larry Colen wrote: > >> I'm having a hard time picking my third one. I want something significantly >> different. One of my absolute favorites is a rather edgy profile of a model >> licking a chainmail leash, but I'm pretty sure that it's a bit too edgy for >> the annual. Another favorite is the one of a model on the beach, I liked it >> so much I immediately printed it out as a 12x18. > > I'm down to my short-list too, interesting question, what is too > edgy/risqué for the Annual? There are no guidelines in this regard, > there are a few images that I have self censored that I would have > otherwise liked to submit. I sort of figure that the photos should be suitable for the children's cancer ward that it's raising money for. > -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 28 January 2011 11:46, Larry Colen wrote: > I'm having a hard time picking my third one. I want something significantly > different. One of my absolute favorites is a rather edgy profile of a model > licking a chainmail leash, but I'm pretty sure that it's a bit too edgy for > the annual. Another favorite is the one of a model on the beach, I liked it > so much I immediately printed it out as a 12x18. I'm down to my short-list too, interesting question, what is too edgy/risqué for the Annual? There are no guidelines in this regard, there are a few images that I have self censored that I would have otherwise liked to submit. Cheers, -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On Jan 27, 2011, at 6:43 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Paul Stenquist > wrote: >> ... You're right of course. I didn't meant to imply that I'd rather shoot >> with a Barnack Leica. They're a pain. What I meant was that neither the >> Leica nor the Fuji would serve me very well as a photographic tool, given >> the type of work I do. ... > > I don't see a camera like this as being a replacement for my system > kit but rather as an adjunct to the system camera. It's for > photography that I'd prefer to do with a smaller, lighter, more > convenient to carry camera, for when a handy camera with a simple fast > wide or normal lens is the best tool. > I could see myself using and enjoying it in that manner. But my budget doesn't have a category for things I'd like to have but don't need:-). Paul > "Creativity blossoms with technical constraint." I can't remember who > said that but I've often found it to be true. ;-) > -- > Godfrey > godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com > > -- > 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. -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On Jan 27, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: > On 11-01-27 5:13 PM, Larry Colen wrote: >> one of the photos that I'm almost certainly going to submit to the annual: >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/4603493834/in/set-72157625712393314/ >> I don't think that there is anything in the picture that is perfectly sharp, >> although I think it would be slightly stronger if the things that were >> nearly so, actually were perfectly sharp, as much of the appeal of the photo >> is the contrast between the clarity of stationary objects in the field of >> focus, and the lack of clarity of everything else. > > BTW, meant to add: great choice! And there's easily enough contrast between > motion-blurred and steady to make the shot work. Thanks. That and my photo of Anno Sensei are pretty much mandatory to submit. I'm having a hard time picking my third one. I want something significantly different. One of my absolute favorites is a rather edgy profile of a model licking a chainmail leash, but I'm pretty sure that it's a bit too edgy for the annual. Another favorite is the one of a model on the beach, I liked it so much I immediately printed it out as a 12x18. Based partly on the reactions of people as they read my book, the two that I'm trying to decide between are my pigeon photo http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/4626341078/in/set-72157625712393314/ and my firetruck photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/5194589514/in/set-72157625712393314/ I think that the firetruck photo is a prettier image, but that the pigeon photo is a bit more creative. That's a shot that I "made" rather than noticing "hey that's pretty" and pretty much taking a snapshot. The one that I kind of wish I could submit, because it's fun, and topical, is my portrait of the little stormtrooper: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/4418614177/in/set-72157625712393314/ At least I've got a few more weeks to make the decision. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 11-01-27 5:13 PM, Larry Colen wrote: one of the photos that I'm almost certainly going to submit to the annual: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/4603493834/in/set-72157625712393314/ I don't think that there is anything in the picture that is perfectly sharp, although I think it would be slightly stronger if the things that were nearly so, actually were perfectly sharp, as much of the appeal of the photo is the contrast between the clarity of stationary objects in the field of focus, and the lack of clarity of everything else. BTW, meant to add: great choice! And there's easily enough contrast between motion-blurred and steady to make the shot work. -bmw -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On Jan 27, 2011, at 4:12 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: > On 11-01-27 5:13 PM, Larry Colen wrote: >> What I suspect that you really mean is not that nothing in the photo needs >> to be clear, but that not everything in the photo needs to be clear. While >> I'm saying that while not everything in the photo needs to be clear, the >> fast majority of the time, something does. In other words, you and I seem to >> be in violent agreement on this. > > Quite so. And since we cannot seem to come to a disagreement, we'll just have > to agree to agree. :-) I'm glad that we got clear on that. > -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 11-01-27 5:13 PM, Larry Colen wrote: What I suspect that you really mean is not that nothing in the photo needs to be clear, but that not everything in the photo needs to be clear. While I'm saying that while not everything in the photo needs to be clear, the fast majority of the time, something does. In other words, you and I seem to be in violent agreement on this. Quite so. And since we cannot seem to come to a disagreement, we'll just have to agree to agree. :-) -bmw -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > ... You're right of course. I didn't meant to imply that I'd rather shoot > with a Barnack Leica. They're a pain. What I meant was that neither the Leica > nor the Fuji would serve me very well as a photographic tool, given the type > of work I do. ... I don't see a camera like this as being a replacement for my system kit but rather as an adjunct to the system camera. It's for photography that I'd prefer to do with a smaller, lighter, more convenient to carry camera, for when a handy camera with a simple fast wide or normal lens is the best tool. "Creativity blossoms with technical constraint." I can't remember who said that but I've often found it to be true. ;-) -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On Jan 27, 2011, at 7:28 AM, Bruce Walker wrote: > On 11-01-27 12:23 AM, Larry Colen wrote: >> On Jan 26, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: >> > > You and I differ on a definition then. I define lack of clarity by all of the > antonyms of clarity. You define lack of clarity as simply unsharp. That is part of it, and the other part is perhaps a disconnect between what you're saying, and what I'm hearing. You say that clarity is not necessary, and I hear that as you're saying that nothing in the photo needs to be clear. What I'm saying is that in *most* photos, something needs to be clear. While a couple of your examples didn't have anything that was sharp, even they had enough clarity to easily recognize the road and the trees. I am certainly not saying that nothing in the picture can be blurred. As a matter of fact, in one of the photos that I'm almost certainly going to submit to the annual: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/4603493834/in/set-72157625712393314/ I don't think that there is anything in the picture that is perfectly sharp, although I think it would be slightly stronger if the things that were nearly so, actually were perfectly sharp, as much of the appeal of the photo is the contrast between the clarity of stationary objects in the field of focus, and the lack of clarity of everything else. What I suspect that you really mean is not that nothing in the photo needs to be clear, but that not everything in the photo needs to be clear. While I'm saying that while not everything in the photo needs to be clear, the fast majority of the time, something does. In other words, you and I seem to be in violent agreement on this. > >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/silentrunning/3609986922 >> The leading edge of the flower, right in the center of the screen, is in >> perfectly sharp focus, and the razor thin depth of field lends depth to the >> photo. >> >> All of these photos critically depend on at least one element of sharpness >> to make them work. > > Yes, agreed, there is *some* sharpness there, and it's critical where it > appears. Yes, that's what I said. > > But you are fixating on sharpness as the single measure of clarity, and I > maintain that reduced clarity covers more ground than merely a lack of > sharpness. It also covers gloom and shadows, low contrast and haze, > distortion and noise. (It could even include obscured meaning of the image, > but I'm *not* going there. ) I was indeed misunderstanding your definition of clarity, which I find amusing. > > Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that clarity is /not/ good, or that > clarity is /never/ necessary. I'm saying that there are excellent photos, and > not just a few exceptions, that are low or very low on clarity. For another > example, take the very large body of work of the Pictorialists. Look at The > Black Bowl here ... > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism If you don't define clarity as sharpness, but rather the opposite of obscuring, then I'd say that it is very clear what various elements in the photo are, and that if the woman's face and jewelry were blurred to unrecognizability (a complete lack of clarity), then the picture would not work. I think that the point that we're in violent agreement on is that clarity (not necessarily sharpness) is a tool, and that is critical that a photograph have the right amount of it in order to work. I think that it's critical to recognize that clarity is an analog value, not a boolean one, and there's a range between zero clarity and 100% clarity. > > You've heard of the Group f/64? Where sharpness is _everything_? I am not > those guys. :-) > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_f/64 When I first heard about them, in my early teens, I considered them as an ideal to aspire to. But at one point I sort of felt the same way about orthodox jews too. > > > Lots to think about anyway. Larry, thanks for inspiring this exploration. I agree. I've been having fun with this. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: "Bruce Walker" Subject: Re: What gear is on your "short list"? On 11-01-27 12:05 PM, Larry Colen wrote: If I were more careful about what I said, my writing would be much less interesting to read. So you're saying that clarity is actually undesirable. Yes if you're looking to get MARKED ricochet :-) -bmw -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 11-01-27 12:05 PM, Larry Colen wrote: If I were more careful about what I said, my writing would be much less interesting to read. So you're saying that clarity is actually undesirable. ricochet :-) -bmw -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
If I were more careful about what I said, my writing would be much less interesting to read. True for a lot of the 'Marks' MARK! Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: "Larry Colen" Subject: Re: What gear is on your "short list"? On Jan 27, 2011, at 8:27 AM, John Sessoms wrote: From: Larry Colen OK, then working autofocus, or any focus, not necessary. Image stabilization, not necessary. You are hereby forbidden from criticizing a photo for poor focus, motion blur, or any lack of clarity. Larry, When you go out on a limb, be careful which side you're sawing off. If I were more careful about what I said, my writing would be much less interesting to read. Bruce is claiming that clarity is not necessary, and I'm saying that it is a critical element in most photos. The whole photo doesn't need to be perfectly sharp, or clear, but the vast majority of photos need some aspect of clarity. By the same token, you could take great photos without using the red channel of your sensor, write without using the letter 'R', compose music without the note 'G', or respond to a PDML post without making any puns. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On Jan 27, 2011, at 2:59 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Paul Stenquist > wrote: >> >> On Jan 27, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: >> >>> On 11-01-27 12:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: My real objection is generalizations like "equipment doesn't matter". For some shots it doesn't matter and for some it does. My opinion is that for a great majority it does make a difference. Better equipment is far less likely to be inappropriate for a particular photographic situation than lousy equipment. >>> >>> Agreed, completely. I don't think that I've ever said "equipment doesn't >>> matter" myself, I certainly didn't intend to. ... > > I've said "... Equipment often gets in the way of Photography. ..." > quite often, never that it "doesn't matter". > >>> I feel that equipment matters up to the point where it is not getting in >>> the way. ... > > Exactly. > >> I'm definitely not a collector, but I can appreciate the beauty of the Fuji >> X100. Of course I'd never buy one. It's too limited as a photographic tool. >> And in terms of pretty cameras, a Barnack Leica is more handsome, and an >> excellent one can be had for about a fourth of the Fuji's price. >> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2870904&size=lg > > A Barnack Leica is a pretty thing, but having shot with three of them > for a period of 15 years I'd not want one again other than as a shelf > decoration. The viewfinder is pretty wretched. I don't see where > you're finding them for $300 ... The lowest prices I find for a > usable condition IIIf body and lens seem to be in the $500-700 range. > But I haven't looked very hard. > > Of course, they use film and I no longer work with film, so an X100 is > far far more sensible as a photographic tool at $1200 than a Barnack > Leica is for $300. At least you get a really nice viewfinder for that > price. ;-) > -- You're right of course. I didn't meant to imply that I'd rather shoot with a Barnack Leica. They're a pain. What I meant was that neither the Leica nor the Fuji would serve me very well as a photographic tool, given the type of work I do. So if I were to buy something merely because I thought it was attractive, I would opt for the prettier Leica. Bodies can be had for around $300 or less on ebay, although with a lens I'd expect to pay $500. With the Summicron 50/2 in my photo, it's more like $600 - $750. > Godfrey > godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com > > -- > 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. -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > On Jan 27, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: > >> On 11-01-27 12:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: >>> My real objection is generalizations like "equipment doesn't matter". >>> For some shots it doesn't matter and for some it does. My opinion is >>> that for a great majority it does make a difference. Better equipment >>> is far less likely to be inappropriate for a particular photographic >>> situation than lousy equipment. >> >> Agreed, completely. I don't think that I've ever said "equipment doesn't >> matter" myself, I certainly didn't intend to. ... I've said "... Equipment often gets in the way of Photography. ..." quite often, never that it "doesn't matter". >> I feel that equipment matters up to the point where it is not getting in the >> way. ... Exactly. > I'm definitely not a collector, but I can appreciate the beauty of the Fuji > X100. Of course I'd never buy one. It's too limited as a photographic tool. > And in terms of pretty cameras, a Barnack Leica is more handsome, and an > excellent one can be had for about a fourth of the Fuji's price. > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2870904&size=lg A Barnack Leica is a pretty thing, but having shot with three of them for a period of 15 years I'd not want one again other than as a shelf decoration. The viewfinder is pretty wretched. I don't see where you're finding them for $300 ... The lowest prices I find for a usable condition IIIf body and lens seem to be in the $500-700 range. But I haven't looked very hard. Of course, they use film and I no longer work with film, so an X100 is far far more sensible as a photographic tool at $1200 than a Barnack Leica is for $300. At least you get a really nice viewfinder for that price. ;-) -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On Jan 27, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: > On 11-01-27 12:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: >> My real objection is generalizations like "equipment doesn't matter". >> For some shots it doesn't matter and for some it does. My opinion is >> that for a great majority it does make a difference. Better equipment >> is far less likely to be inappropriate for a particular photographic >> situation than lousy equipment. > > Agreed, completely. I don't think that I've ever said "equipment doesn't > matter" myself, I certainly didn't intend to. If I really thought that, I > wouldn't have upgraded beyond the Canon A75 p&s I had. > > I feel that equipment matters up to the point where it is not getting in the > way. For some that point is really low. For others, quite high. Some people > have great tolerance for work-arounds, some none. > > Oh, and of course equipment matters a great to deal to bling collectors--but > for reasons I'm completely uninterested in. Like I don't care about the > retro look of the Fuji X100, I just know it's not for me because 35mm-e isn't > a focal length that suits me much. > I'm definitely not a collector, but I can appreciate the beauty of the Fuji X100. Of course I'd never buy one. It's too limited as a photographic tool. And in terms of pretty cameras, a Barnack Leica is more handsome, and an excellent one can be had for about a fourth of the Fuji's price. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2870904&size=lg > -bmw > > -- > 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. -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 11-01-27 12:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: My real objection is generalizations like "equipment doesn't matter". For some shots it doesn't matter and for some it does. My opinion is that for a great majority it does make a difference. Better equipment is far less likely to be inappropriate for a particular photographic situation than lousy equipment. Agreed, completely. I don't think that I've ever said "equipment doesn't matter" myself, I certainly didn't intend to. If I really thought that, I wouldn't have upgraded beyond the Canon A75 p&s I had. I feel that equipment matters up to the point where it is not getting in the way. For some that point is really low. For others, quite high. Some people have great tolerance for work-arounds, some none. Oh, and of course equipment matters a great to deal to bling collectors--but for reasons I'm completely uninterested in. Like I don't care about the retro look of the Fuji X100, I just know it's not for me because 35mm-e isn't a focal length that suits me much. -bmw -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 23 January 2011 12:50, John Sessoms wrote: > > I'd rather have a lens that makes life worth living. MARK! —M. \/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 09:05:54 -0800, Larry Colen wrote: >If I were more careful about what I said, my writing would be much less >interesting to read. Now *that's* a "Mark!" -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
From: Larry Colen On Jan 27, 2011, at 8:27 AM, John Sessoms wrote: From: Larry Colen OK, then working autofocus, or any focus, not necessary. Image stabilization, not necessary. You are hereby forbidden from criticizing a photo for poor focus, motion blur, or any lack of clarity. Larry, When you go out on a limb, be careful which side you're sawing off. If I were more careful about what I said, my writing would be much less interesting to read. Bruce is claiming that clarity is not necessary, and I'm saying that it is a critical element in most photos. The whole photo doesn't need to be perfectly sharp, or clear, but the vast majority of photos need some aspect of clarity. By the same token, you could take great photos without using the red channel of your sensor, write without using the letter 'R', compose music without the note 'G', or respond to a PDML post without making any puns. Yeah, but it's getting almost cartoonishly hilarious - Daffy vs. Bugs Larry: It is! Bruce: It is not! Larry: It is! Bruce: It is not! Larry: It is! Bruce: It is! Larry: ... It is not! - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3405 - Release Date: 01/26/11 -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
From: Bob Sullivan Oh, now there's an insult... Nah! "Sticks 'n stones ..." Besides, I'm still better looking. On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:46 AM, William Robb wrote: > On 25/01/2011 10:19 AM, John Sessoms wrote: >> >> From: Steven Desjardins >>> >>> If you have a Porsche you still have to drive it. It doesn't mean >>> that a better driver won't do better in the Porsche than in a minivan. >>> >>> I don't question the central importance of the photographer. But if >>> the equipment doesn't matter then we're all idiots for spending all >>> this money on bodies and lenses. >>> >> >> But a "better driver" might well do better in a minivan than a poor >> driver in a Porsche. >> >> I'm not saying better equipment doesn't matter. I'm saying that >> improving yourself as a photographer matters *more* for you to get full >> value from that better equipment. >> >> Better equipment by itself won't improve your skills. At best, it offers >> less of an impediment for you to improve your skills. >> >> Case in point ... could any amount of better equipment make Kenny Boy a >> "better" photographer? >> >> > > You're like having a junior version of JCO on list. > - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3405 - Release Date: 01/26/11 -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On Jan 27, 2011, at 8:27 AM, John Sessoms wrote: > From: Larry Colen >> OK, then working autofocus, or any focus, not necessary. Image >> stabilization, not necessary. You are hereby forbidden from >> criticizing a photo for poor focus, motion blur, or any lack of >> clarity. > > Larry, > > When you go out on a limb, be careful which side you're sawing off. If I were more careful about what I said, my writing would be much less interesting to read. Bruce is claiming that clarity is not necessary, and I'm saying that it is a critical element in most photos. The whole photo doesn't need to be perfectly sharp, or clear, but the vast majority of photos need some aspect of clarity. By the same token, you could take great photos without using the red channel of your sensor, write without using the letter 'R', compose music without the note 'G', or respond to a PDML post without making any puns. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
My real objection is generalizations like "equipment doesn't matter". For some shots it doesn't matter and for some it does. My opinion is that for a great majority it does make a difference. Better equipment is far less likely to be inappropriate for a particular photographic situation than lousy equipment. On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Bruce Walker wrote: > On 11-01-27 12:23 AM, Larry Colen wrote: >> >> On Jan 26, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: >> >>> Too much clarity can spoil a shot. Very often you need to hide as much as >>> you reveal; submerge it in the shadows, unsaturate, untint or lower its >>> contrast, or defocus it; all reduce clarity. >>> >>> Clarity: not necessary. >> >> OK, >> then working autofocus, or any focus, not necessary. >> Image stabilization, not necessary. > > Did you ever see the shots taken by that strange Czech dude Miroslav Tichy, > a guy who looked like Aqualung and fabricated cameras from scrap plexiglass > and cardboard? He took shots of women that, despite lacking focus and > anti-shake (or any other mod-con), are pretty compelling. > > "[...] some of Mr. Tichy’s subjects assumed that his camera was fake. The > cameras certainly don’t look functional; he fashioned them from shoeboxes, > toilet-paper rolls and plexiglass, polishing the lenses with toothpaste and > cigarette ash." > > Tichy: "If you want to be famous, you must do something more badly than > anybody in the entire world." > > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/arts/design/12photos.html > > (Do a Google image search for him. Intriguing!) > > >> You are hereby forbidden from criticizing a photo for poor focus, motion >> blur, or any lack of clarity. Or alternatively, you can read the first seven >> words of my sentence "while there are exceptions to every rule". What >> you've shown me are two exceptions: > > I didn't plan to spend all evening gathering exceptions. :-) > > >> Sunday drive http://www.flickr.com/photos/booleansplit/3894430548 >> and the chase http://www.flickr.com/photos/ingynoo/4413415496 >> >> and five examples where sharpness are critical to the success of the >> photo. >> >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/minebilder/208387780 >> The sharp edges of the horizontal lines lend critical contrast to the >> blurs in the background. >> >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilbert/3134678910 >> I don't see anything that is at unsharp about this photo I wouldn't >> describe environmental haze lending depth as a lack of clarity. > > You and I differ on a definition then. I define lack of clarity by all of > the antonyms of clarity. You define lack of clarity as simply unsharp. > > >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilbert/5179173922 >> Again, nothing unsharp about this one. A little environmental haze >> lending depth is all. >> >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikolaborissov/4119473858 >> I consider this picture sharp practically to the point of harshness. > > (Really?) > > >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/silentrunning/3609986922 >> The leading edge of the flower, right in the center of the screen, is in >> perfectly sharp focus, and the razor thin depth of field lends depth to the >> photo. >> >> All of these photos critically depend on at least one element of sharpness >> to make them work. > > Yes, agreed, there is *some* sharpness there, and it's critical where it > appears. > > But you are fixating on sharpness as the single measure of clarity, and I > maintain that reduced clarity covers more ground than merely a lack of > sharpness. It also covers gloom and shadows, low contrast and haze, > distortion and noise. (It could even include obscured meaning of the image, > but I'm *not* going there. ) > > Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that clarity is /not/ good, or that > clarity is /never/ necessary. I'm saying that there are excellent photos, > and not just a few exceptions, that are low or very low on clarity. For > another example, take the very large body of work of the Pictorialists. Look > at The Black Bowl here ... > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism > > You've heard of the Group f/64? Where sharpness is _everything_? I am not > those guys. :-) > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_f/64 > > > Lots to think about anyway. Larry, thanks for inspiring this exploration. > > -bmw > > > -- > 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. > -- Steve Desjardins -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 11-01-27 11:27 AM, John Sessoms wrote: From: Larry Colen OK, then working autofocus, or any focus, not necessary. Image stabilization, not necessary. You are hereby forbidden from criticizing a photo for poor focus, motion blur, or any lack of clarity. Larry, When you go out on a limb, be careful which side you're sawing off. Har! Mark! -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
From: Larry Colen OK, then working autofocus, or any focus, not necessary. Image stabilization, not necessary. You are hereby forbidden from criticizing a photo for poor focus, motion blur, or any lack of clarity. Larry, When you go out on a limb, be careful which side you're sawing off. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3405 - Release Date: 01/26/11 -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 11-01-27 12:23 AM, Larry Colen wrote: On Jan 26, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: Too much clarity can spoil a shot. Very often you need to hide as much as you reveal; submerge it in the shadows, unsaturate, untint or lower its contrast, or defocus it; all reduce clarity. Clarity: not necessary. OK, then working autofocus, or any focus, not necessary. Image stabilization, not necessary. Did you ever see the shots taken by that strange Czech dude Miroslav Tichy, a guy who looked like Aqualung and fabricated cameras from scrap plexiglass and cardboard? He took shots of women that, despite lacking focus and anti-shake (or any other mod-con), are pretty compelling. "[...] some of Mr. Tichy’s subjects assumed that his camera was fake. The cameras certainly don’t look functional; he fashioned them from shoeboxes, toilet-paper rolls and plexiglass, polishing the lenses with toothpaste and cigarette ash." Tichy: "If you want to be famous, you must do something more badly than anybody in the entire world." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/arts/design/12photos.html (Do a Google image search for him. Intriguing!) You are hereby forbidden from criticizing a photo for poor focus, motion blur, or any lack of clarity. Or alternatively, you can read the first seven words of my sentence "while there are exceptions to every rule". What you've shown me are two exceptions: I didn't plan to spend all evening gathering exceptions. :-) Sunday drive http://www.flickr.com/photos/booleansplit/3894430548 and the chase http://www.flickr.com/photos/ingynoo/4413415496 and five examples where sharpness are critical to the success of the photo. http://www.flickr.com/photos/minebilder/208387780 The sharp edges of the horizontal lines lend critical contrast to the blurs in the background. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilbert/3134678910 I don't see anything that is at unsharp about this photo I wouldn't describe environmental haze lending depth as a lack of clarity. You and I differ on a definition then. I define lack of clarity by all of the antonyms of clarity. You define lack of clarity as simply unsharp. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilbert/5179173922 Again, nothing unsharp about this one. A little environmental haze lending depth is all. http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikolaborissov/4119473858 I consider this picture sharp practically to the point of harshness. (Really?) http://www.flickr.com/photos/silentrunning/3609986922 The leading edge of the flower, right in the center of the screen, is in perfectly sharp focus, and the razor thin depth of field lends depth to the photo. All of these photos critically depend on at least one element of sharpness to make them work. Yes, agreed, there is *some* sharpness there, and it's critical where it appears. But you are fixating on sharpness as the single measure of clarity, and I maintain that reduced clarity covers more ground than merely a lack of sharpness. It also covers gloom and shadows, low contrast and haze, distortion and noise. (It could even include obscured meaning of the image, but I'm *not* going there. ) Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that clarity is /not/ good, or that clarity is /never/ necessary. I'm saying that there are excellent photos, and not just a few exceptions, that are low or very low on clarity. For another example, take the very large body of work of the Pictorialists. Look at The Black Bowl here ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism You've heard of the Group f/64? Where sharpness is _everything_? I am not those guys. :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_f/64 Lots to think about anyway. Larry, thanks for inspiring this exploration. -bmw -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
Oh, now there's an insult... On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:46 AM, William Robb wrote: > On 25/01/2011 10:19 AM, John Sessoms wrote: >> >> From: Steven Desjardins >>> >>> If you have a Porsche you still have to drive it. It doesn't mean >>> that a better driver won't do better in the Porsche than in a minivan. >>> >>> I don't question the central importance of the photographer. But if >>> the equipment doesn't matter then we're all idiots for spending all >>> this money on bodies and lenses. >>> >> >> But a "better driver" might well do better in a minivan than a poor >> driver in a Porsche. >> >> I'm not saying better equipment doesn't matter. I'm saying that >> improving yourself as a photographer matters *more* for you to get full >> value from that better equipment. >> >> Better equipment by itself won't improve your skills. At best, it offers >> less of an impediment for you to improve your skills. >> >> Case in point ... could any amount of better equipment make Kenny Boy a >> "better" photographer? >> >> > > You're like having a junior version of JCO on list. > > -- > > William Robb -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
Of course clarity isn't always necessary, but there are certainly occasions when it is required. (I don't think I'll last long if I start sending soft photos of cars to my auto clients.) Good equipment is necessary to deliver everything that a photographer has to do. And better equipment -- as in the K-5 over the K-7 -- can expand one's reach. Paul On Jan 26, 2011, at 10:50 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: > Most of these images rely on an element of clarity in a diffuse field. > Awesome shots, BTW, I really like that face and the wharf/dock. > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: >> On 11-01-26 1:37 PM, Larry Colen wrote: >>> >>> On Jan 26, 2011, at 7:04 AM, Bruce Walker wrote: On 11-01-25 7:47 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > > Better equipment won't make you a better photographer, and one can argue > that equipment that is too good at doing everything automatically can > interfere with you becoming a better photographer. And while a good > photographer can get great pictures with almost any gear, especially if > you > aren't overmuch worried about minor details like sharpness, the right > equipment can allow almost anyone to get clearer photos under difficult > lighting situations. That's not a persuasive argument for either side, Larry. Achieving "clear photos" has little or nothing to do with "great pictures". Clear photos are desirable in technical manuals though. >>> >>> While there are exceptions to every artistic rule, unless your name is >>> Knarf, clarity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a great >>> picture. >> >> I beg to differ, and offer just a few from an innumerable list of excellent >> images with little or no clarity. These shots are not mine--all taken from >> Flickr ... >> >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/booleansplit/3894430548 >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/minebilder/208387780 >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilbert/3134678910 >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ingynoo/4413415496 >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilbert/5179173922 >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikolaborissov/4119473858 >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/silentrunning/3609986922 >> >> And don't forget Christine Aguila's wonderful shot from the 2009 PDML Annual >> (pg 9). Very low contrast, foggy, barely discernable bare trees in a >> snowscape. Yet gorgeous; one of the most striking shots in the book. >> >> Too much clarity can spoil a shot. Very often you need to hide as much as >> you reveal; submerge it in the shadows, unsaturate, untint or lower its >> contrast, or defocus it; all reduce clarity. >> >> Clarity: not necessary. >> >> -bmw >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > > > -- > Steve Desjardins > > -- > 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. -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On Jan 26, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: > On 11-01-26 1:37 PM, Larry Colen wrote: >> On Jan 26, 2011, at 7:04 AM, Bruce Walker wrote: >>> On 11-01-25 7:47 PM, Larry Colen wrote: Better equipment won't make you a better photographer, and one can argue that equipment that is too good at doing everything automatically can interfere with you becoming a better photographer. And while a good photographer can get great pictures with almost any gear, especially if you aren't overmuch worried about minor details like sharpness, the right equipment can allow almost anyone to get clearer photos under difficult lighting situations. >>> That's not a persuasive argument for either side, Larry. Achieving "clear >>> photos" has little or nothing to do with "great pictures". Clear photos >>> are desirable in technical manuals though. >> While there are exceptions to every artistic rule, unless your name is >> Knarf, clarity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a great >> picture. > > I beg to differ, and offer just a few from an innumerable list of excellent > images with little or no clarity. These shots are not mine--all taken from > Flickr ... > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/booleansplit/3894430548 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/minebilder/208387780 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilbert/3134678910 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/ingynoo/4413415496 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilbert/5179173922 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikolaborissov/4119473858 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/silentrunning/3609986922 > > And don't forget Christine Aguila's wonderful shot from the 2009 PDML Annual > (pg 9). Very low contrast, foggy, barely discernable bare trees in a > snowscape. Yet gorgeous; one of the most striking shots in the book. > > Too much clarity can spoil a shot. Very often you need to hide as much as you > reveal; submerge it in the shadows, unsaturate, untint or lower its contrast, > or defocus it; all reduce clarity. > > Clarity: not necessary. OK, then working autofocus, or any focus, not necessary. Image stabilization, not necessary. You are hereby forbidden from criticizing a photo for poor focus, motion blur, or any lack of clarity. Or alternatively, you can read the first seven words of my sentence "while there are exceptions to every rule". What you've shown me are two exceptions: Sunday drive http://www.flickr.com/photos/booleansplit/3894430548 and the chase http://www.flickr.com/photos/ingynoo/4413415496 and five examples where sharpness are critical to the success of the photo. http://www.flickr.com/photos/minebilder/208387780 The sharp edges of the horizontal lines lend critical contrast to the blurs in the background. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilbert/3134678910 I don't see anything that is at unsharp about this photo I wouldn't describe environmental haze lending depth as a lack of clarity. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilbert/5179173922 Again, nothing unsharp about this one. A little environmental haze lending depth is all. http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikolaborissov/4119473858 I consider this picture sharp practically to the point of harshness. http://www.flickr.com/photos/silentrunning/3609986922 The leading edge of the flower, right in the center of the screen, is in perfectly sharp focus, and the razor thin depth of field lends depth to the photo. All of these photos critically depend on at least one element of sharpness to make them work. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
Most of these images rely on an element of clarity in a diffuse field. Awesome shots, BTW, I really like that face and the wharf/dock. On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: > On 11-01-26 1:37 PM, Larry Colen wrote: >> >> On Jan 26, 2011, at 7:04 AM, Bruce Walker wrote: >>> >>> On 11-01-25 7:47 PM, Larry Colen wrote: Better equipment won't make you a better photographer, and one can argue that equipment that is too good at doing everything automatically can interfere with you becoming a better photographer. And while a good photographer can get great pictures with almost any gear, especially if you aren't overmuch worried about minor details like sharpness, the right equipment can allow almost anyone to get clearer photos under difficult lighting situations. >>> >>> That's not a persuasive argument for either side, Larry. Achieving >>> "clear photos" has little or nothing to do with "great pictures". Clear >>> photos are desirable in technical manuals though. >> >> While there are exceptions to every artistic rule, unless your name is >> Knarf, clarity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a great >> picture. > > I beg to differ, and offer just a few from an innumerable list of excellent > images with little or no clarity. These shots are not mine--all taken from > Flickr ... > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/booleansplit/3894430548 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/minebilder/208387780 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilbert/3134678910 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/ingynoo/4413415496 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilbert/5179173922 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikolaborissov/4119473858 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/silentrunning/3609986922 > > And don't forget Christine Aguila's wonderful shot from the 2009 PDML Annual > (pg 9). Very low contrast, foggy, barely discernable bare trees in a > snowscape. Yet gorgeous; one of the most striking shots in the book. > > Too much clarity can spoil a shot. Very often you need to hide as much as > you reveal; submerge it in the shadows, unsaturate, untint or lower its > contrast, or defocus it; all reduce clarity. > > Clarity: not necessary. > > -bmw > > -- > 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. > -- Steve Desjardins -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 27 January 2011 11:16, Bruce Walker wrote: > I beg to differ, and offer just a few from an innumerable list of excellent > images with little or no clarity. These shots are not mine--all taken from > Flickr ... > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/booleansplit/3894430548 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/minebilder/208387780 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilbert/3134678910 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/ingynoo/4413415496 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilbert/5179173922 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikolaborissov/4119473858 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/silentrunning/3609986922 > > And don't forget Christine Aguila's wonderful shot from the 2009 PDML Annual > (pg 9). Very low contrast, foggy, barely discernable bare trees in a > snowscape. Yet gorgeous; one of the most striking shots in the book. > > Too much clarity can spoil a shot. Very often you need to hide as much as > you reveal; submerge it in the shadows, unsaturate, untint or lower its > contrast, or defocus it; all reduce clarity. > > Clarity: not necessary. I would argue that only two of the sample images you linked don't rely upon "clarity" as a component of their composition and of those one I like an the other my 4yo could have shot (if he were allowed to sit in the front seat) -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
From: Boris Liberman On 1/26/2011 12:12 AM, Bob W wrote: > Hmm. That would not be photography. Photography is the _direct_ action of > light on the film / sensor. It would be photography if you replaced your > retina with Velvia. > > B I thought retina (tm) was some kind of display technology /wink wink/... Boris Did someone say something about replacing velvia with Retsina? I'll drink to that. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1202 / Virus Database: 1435/3403 - Release Date: 01/25/11 -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 11-01-26 1:37 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On Jan 26, 2011, at 7:04 AM, Bruce Walker wrote: On 11-01-25 7:47 PM, Larry Colen wrote: Better equipment won't make you a better photographer, and one can argue that equipment that is too good at doing everything automatically can interfere with you becoming a better photographer. And while a good photographer can get great pictures with almost any gear, especially if you aren't overmuch worried about minor details like sharpness, the right equipment can allow almost anyone to get clearer photos under difficult lighting situations. That's not a persuasive argument for either side, Larry. Achieving "clear photos" has little or nothing to do with "great pictures". Clear photos are desirable in technical manuals though. While there are exceptions to every artistic rule, unless your name is Knarf, clarity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a great picture. I beg to differ, and offer just a few from an innumerable list of excellent images with little or no clarity. These shots are not mine--all taken from Flickr ... http://www.flickr.com/photos/booleansplit/3894430548 http://www.flickr.com/photos/minebilder/208387780 http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilbert/3134678910 http://www.flickr.com/photos/ingynoo/4413415496 http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilbert/5179173922 http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikolaborissov/4119473858 http://www.flickr.com/photos/silentrunning/3609986922 And don't forget Christine Aguila's wonderful shot from the 2009 PDML Annual (pg 9). Very low contrast, foggy, barely discernable bare trees in a snowscape. Yet gorgeous; one of the most striking shots in the book. Too much clarity can spoil a shot. Very often you need to hide as much as you reveal; submerge it in the shadows, unsaturate, untint or lower its contrast, or defocus it; all reduce clarity. Clarity: not necessary. -bmw -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On Jan 26, 2011, at 7:04 AM, Bruce Walker wrote: > On 11-01-25 7:47 PM, Larry Colen wrote: >> Better equipment won't make you a better photographer, and one can argue >> that equipment that is too good at doing everything automatically can >> interfere with you becoming a better photographer. And while a good >> photographer can get great pictures with almost any gear, especially if you >> aren't overmuch worried about minor details like sharpness, the right >> equipment can allow almost anyone to get clearer photos under difficult >> lighting situations. > > That's not a persuasive argument for either side, Larry. Achieving "clear > photos" has little or nothing to do with "great pictures". Clear photos are > desirable in technical manuals though. While there are exceptions to every artistic rule, unless your name is Knarf, clarity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a great picture. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
So a retina (about 1100 mm^2) is bigger than FF (864 mm^2)? On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:02 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: > On 1/26/2011 1:33 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: >> >> On 1/26/2011 12:12 AM, Bob W wrote: >>> >>> Hmm. That would not be photography. Photography is the _direct_ action of >>> light on the film / sensor. It would be photography if you replaced your >>> retina with Velvia. >>> >>> B >> >> I thought retina (tm) was some kind of display technology /wink wink/... >> >> Boris >> > Retina is capture technology. > > -- > Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom! > > --Marvin the Martian. > > > -- > 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. > -- Steve Desjardins -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 1/26/2011 1:33 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: On 1/26/2011 12:12 AM, Bob W wrote: Hmm. That would not be photography. Photography is the _direct_ action of light on the film / sensor. It would be photography if you replaced your retina with Velvia. B I thought retina (tm) was some kind of display technology /wink wink/... Boris Retina is capture technology. -- Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom! --Marvin the Martian. -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
Equipment upgrades can definitely improve the quality and efficiency of one's work. For example, the much improved metering of the K-7 made it a much better tool than the K20. Likewise, the improved autofocus and low- light noise levels of the K-5 make it a better tool than the K-7. I shot some pics at a pool hall last week just for gins, but also to gauge the K-5 low light capabilities in regard to noise and focus lock under difficult conditions. I did a similar shoot last year with the K-7. The performance of the K-5 was much better. Thus my results were better. Better equipment does make one a better photographer. It's certainly not the only factor that enters into the equation, but it's a very important one. That being said, I very much enjoy shooting with my Barnack Leica. A difficult chore, but a rewarding one. If personal enjoyment is the only goal of photography, the equipment is not so large a factor. But if profit and efficiency are a goal, equipment is critical. On Jan 26, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Bruce Walker wrote: > On 11-01-25 7:47 PM, Larry Colen wrote: >> Better equipment won't make you a better photographer, and one can argue >> that equipment that is too good at doing everything automatically can >> interfere with you becoming a better photographer. And while a good >> photographer can get great pictures with almost any gear, especially if you >> aren't overmuch worried about minor details like sharpness, the right >> equipment can allow almost anyone to get clearer photos under difficult >> lighting situations. > > That's not a persuasive argument for either side, Larry. Achieving "clear > photos" has little or nothing to do with "great pictures". Clear photos are > desirable in technical manuals though. > > -bmw > > -- > 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. -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
On 11-01-25 7:47 PM, Larry Colen wrote: Better equipment won't make you a better photographer, and one can argue that equipment that is too good at doing everything automatically can interfere with you becoming a better photographer. And while a good photographer can get great pictures with almost any gear, especially if you aren't overmuch worried about minor details like sharpness, the right equipment can allow almost anyone to get clearer photos under difficult lighting situations. That's not a persuasive argument for either side, Larry. Achieving "clear photos" has little or nothing to do with "great pictures". Clear photos are desirable in technical manuals though. -bmw -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
It's not that it matters all that much but I do have to practice these "why equipment matters" arguments to use on my wife. On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:50 AM, AlunFoto wrote: > I'm always impressed by how you guys can put a spin on the pun itch. > Jostein > > 2011/1/26 Bob W : >>> From: Steven Desjardins >>> > "I am what I am and that's all what I am" - Popeye the Sailor ;-) >>> > >>> >>> Well, that clears one thing up. It always sounded to me like he was >>> saying "I yam what I yam and that's all what I yam". >>> >>> Never could figure out what that had to do with spinach. >> >> the yam is a tropical variety of spinach. Bob Marley wrote a song about it: >> >> "Ooh, yeah! All right! >> We're yammin': >> I wanna yam it wid you. >> We're yammin', yammin', >> And we really like spinach, too." >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > > > -- > http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ > http://alunfoto.blogspot.com > > -- > 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. > -- Steve Desjardins -- 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.
Re: What gear is on your "short list"?
I'm always impressed by how you guys can put a spin on the pun itch. Jostein 2011/1/26 Bob W : >> From: Steven Desjardins >> > "I am what I am and that's all what I am" - Popeye the Sailor ;-) >> > >> >> Well, that clears one thing up. It always sounded to me like he was >> saying "I yam what I yam and that's all what I yam". >> >> Never could figure out what that had to do with spinach. > > the yam is a tropical variety of spinach. Bob Marley wrote a song about it: > > "Ooh, yeah! All right! > We're yammin': > I wanna yam it wid you. > We're yammin', yammin', > And we really like spinach, too." > > > > > -- > 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. > -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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.
