photogdave
Shops local
I strive for the best image quality with the gear I have. If I can afford lenses that can give me higher image quality I will get them because it's important to ME and I take photos for MYSELF.
I'll never forget the day I decided to swear off zooms and switch to primes only. I had done the Everest Base Camp trek in Nepal and shooting on Nikons with the 20mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4 and 24-120mm 3.8-5.6. I shot everything on ISO 100 slide film.
I had the zoom along for convenience but it quickly proved to be less convenient because often there wasn't enough light to use the slower aperture range.
When I got he slides back the ones shot with the zoom were noticeable softer than the images shot with the primes - even in lots of light and fast shutter speeds.
I got rid of the Nikkor 24-120 right away. I held on to my Sigma 70-200 2.8 for a few more years as that was a very sharp lens but I still found it inconvenient to carry around.
Anyway, even to this day when I look at some of those slides I can't overcome my disappointment in the quality of the images shot with the zooms compared to the primes, and I regret ever using that zoom.
Does anyone else looking at the images notice the difference? Probably not but I do and that's what counts.
EDIT: Having said that, my post in this thread may seem to be in opposition to what i said here
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1153040#post1153040
But I wish I had made that image on a better lens too. I can't really print it bigger than 8x10 and I'd like to.
I'll never forget the day I decided to swear off zooms and switch to primes only. I had done the Everest Base Camp trek in Nepal and shooting on Nikons with the 20mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4 and 24-120mm 3.8-5.6. I shot everything on ISO 100 slide film.
I had the zoom along for convenience but it quickly proved to be less convenient because often there wasn't enough light to use the slower aperture range.
When I got he slides back the ones shot with the zoom were noticeable softer than the images shot with the primes - even in lots of light and fast shutter speeds.
I got rid of the Nikkor 24-120 right away. I held on to my Sigma 70-200 2.8 for a few more years as that was a very sharp lens but I still found it inconvenient to carry around.
Anyway, even to this day when I look at some of those slides I can't overcome my disappointment in the quality of the images shot with the zooms compared to the primes, and I regret ever using that zoom.
Does anyone else looking at the images notice the difference? Probably not but I do and that's what counts.
EDIT: Having said that, my post in this thread may seem to be in opposition to what i said here
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1153040#post1153040
But I wish I had made that image on a better lens too. I can't really print it bigger than 8x10 and I'd like to.
Last edited:
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Roger,
I'm not sure that's entirely fair. Fred didn't mention the nature of the project he was considering. For some types of work, a collaboration between multiple artists and craftsmen with multiple talents may be appropriate or even required. Film springs immediately to mind: they tend to run long lists of all those involved when passing out the credit.
...Mike
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
MichaelW
Established
"I drive a Rolls Royce, 'cos it's good for my voice"
Marc Bolan
Marc Bolan
Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
Who was it that said a fuzzy picture of a good idea is far better than a sharp picture of a fuzzy idea?
I'd agree with that.
Underexposure on the other hand...
I'd agree with that.
Underexposure on the other hand...
Haigh
Gary Haigh
It might be interesting if you take a look at Antoine Agata's images which can be found on the Magnum website. They are powerful; but might or might not be considered technically good. If you are easily offended you might want to avoid taking a look, some can be tough viewing. Some of my Flickr images look technically inept, my Leica Boutique images not so, even though I scanned them badly.
GaryM4
GaryM4
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
This is one of my favorite photos:
I got what I wanted on the film, and it works for me.
Indifferent focus and lots of camera shake but I think it looks pretty good on my wall. Not a huge print; it's full frame on 8 x 10 (the image is about 9 1/2 on the long side and the vertical is around 6 3/4).
"technical image quality?", maybe. The boat is white and was rocking on the water, the mountains were a slightly darker black than the lake, the moonlight was just about enough to differentiate the clouds from the sky, and the running lights of the boat passing by were bright compared to the rest of the scene.
I don't think this would be any better--or as appealing to me--had I shot it any other way than hand held, wide open, slow shutter speed.
Rob
I got what I wanted on the film, and it works for me.
Indifferent focus and lots of camera shake but I think it looks pretty good on my wall. Not a huge print; it's full frame on 8 x 10 (the image is about 9 1/2 on the long side and the vertical is around 6 3/4).
"technical image quality?", maybe. The boat is white and was rocking on the water, the mountains were a slightly darker black than the lake, the moonlight was just about enough to differentiate the clouds from the sky, and the running lights of the boat passing by were bright compared to the rest of the scene.
I don't think this would be any better--or as appealing to me--had I shot it any other way than hand held, wide open, slow shutter speed.
Rob