The camera, the lens and the photographer

sparrow6224 said:
. . . There are simply no great photographers who say, regarding equipment, oh just give me any old thing, it doesn't matter. But there are none as well who would say that only the best equipment can make the best photographs.
Click to expand...
Dear Vince,

This sums up what I was trying to say, better than I said it.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Point out that any given lens is (for example) not very sharp, lacks contrast or suffers from field curvature, and immediately, someone pops up and says, "Yeah, but you can still take great pictures with it."
Click to expand...
Instead of being literal-minded about respondents' relationship to technical matters, you could instead view the response with regard to what use it serves them. Said response massages an ego that risks bruising by association with a poor lens with the common recourse that it's the photographer who makes great pictures. Surely by now you know how closely some identify with their gear.
 
nikkor-watching said:
Instead of being literal-minded about respondents' relationship to technical matters, you could instead view the response with regard to what use it serves them. Said response massages an ego that risks bruising by association with a poor lens with the common recourse that it's the photographer who makes great pictures. Surely by now you know how closely some identify with their gear.
Click to expand...
Not untrue.

Cheers,

R.
 
I do miss Tech-Pan @ EI 200...
Is there a (I hate to say it) better way to get similar results these days?
Roger Hicks said:
As for Pan F at EI 1600, well, what stops you is insane contrast and absolute lack of shadow detail. You get about ISO 80 in Microphen.
Cheers,
R.
Click to expand...

More to the point of this thread, Roger, is this:
I've noticed in real life as well as on-line that there are folks who reject better/worse thinking and there are other folks who think it obvious that some things are better and some are worse and neither group of folks seems to be able to talk to each other.
Rob
 
rbiemer said:
I do miss Tech-Pan @ EI 200...
Is there a (I hate to say it) better way to get similar results these days?


More to the point of this thread, Roger, is this:
I've noticed in real life as well as on-line that there are folks who reject better/worse thinking and there are other folks who think it obvious that some things are better and some are worse and neither group of folks seems to be able to talk to each other.
Rob
Click to expand...
Dear Rob,

It's impossible to "reject better/worse thinking", or you wouldn't care about anything. You'd eat whatever kept you alive, without caring how it tasted. You probably wouldn't take any pictures at all -- why bother? -- and if you did, you wouldn't care what camera you used.

"Better/worse thinking" must always refer to better/worse for what.

Cheers,

R.
 
Let my try to make my point, err, better;
I know too many people that confuse their perceptions of better/worse and how much that matters as something objective rather than a subjective thing.
A couple of illustrations might help me be clearer.
1) A long time ago I had a friend in school who would ask questions like: "Which band do you like better, the Who or the Rolling Stones?"

When I answered "I like the Stones better."
His response to that was "Wrong! The Who are better because..."

It took me a while to realize that he was not really looking for my opinion but was looking for a starting point to impose his opinion on me or, maybe, to build or reinforce some kind of social standing in our school.

When I tried to tell him that There was NO wrong answer to his question, he simply could not grasp what I was talking about.

Sadly, he still parses questions like this.

2) I have said here at RFF and in real life that I quite like my Jupiter-8 lens in spite of the fact that there are any number of better 50mm lenses I could use.

For me to deny the real progress in lens making and design in the 50 or so years since that lens was made is irrational at least.

But at the same time, I like the results I get with it, I've used it long enough that I can make it work for me. And in some fairly specific circumstances, I will suggest trying one.

Rob
 
rbiemer said:
Let my try to make my point, err, better;
I know too many people that confuse their perceptions of better/worse and how much that matters as something objective rather than a subjective thing.
A couple of illustrations might help me be clearer.
1) A long time ago I had a friend in school who would ask questions like: "Which band do you like better, the Who or the Rolling Stones?"

When I answered "I like the Stones better."
His response to that was "Wrong! The Who are better because..."

It took me a while to realize that he was not really looking for my opinion but was looking for a starting point to impose his opinion on me or, maybe, to build or reinforce some kind of social standing in our school.

When I tried to tell him that There was NO wrong answer to his question, he simply could not grasp what I was talking about.

Sadly, he still parses questions like this.

2) I have said here at RFF and in real life that I quite like my Jupiter-8 lens in spite of the fact that there are any number of better 50mm lenses I could use.

For me to deny the real progress in lens making and design in the 50 or so years since that lens was made is irrational at least.

But at the same time, I like the results I get with it, I've used it long enough that I can make it work for me. And in some fairly specific circumstances, I will suggest trying one.

Rob
Click to expand...
Dear Rob,

Ah, sorry. As is so often the case, I thought I must have misunderstood you but I couldn't see another way to interpret it. Sorry for my stupidity -- though my stupidity seems to be a good deal less severe than your Who-loving high school chum!

Cheers,

R.
 
When I answered "I like the Stones better."
His response to that was "Wrong! The Who are better because..."
Click to expand...

This form of irrational behaviour is actually rational, in one sense.

Humans have built a world in which opinion is so frequently raised to the level of 'fact', that it is a sane defence to join in the general game. Many years ago, the British film "Quatermass and the Pit" used this as the central theme of the final act. Those who were rational became the victims of the irrational mass.

Far be it for me to ascribe motives to the writer Nigel Kneale but he was married to a Jewish refugee from the Nazi insanity, so had good reasons to understand the dangers of challenging the views of the majority, regardless of their subjectivity.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Vince,

This sums up what I was trying to say, better than I said it.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Dear Roger,
Many thanks. I think you were saying something more as well (perhaps about the general tendency we all can fall prey to, losing sight of the differences between collectors' hobbies and art -- that's my interpretation anyway). I'm glad to have contributed to the discussion.
 
I remember some years ago when a highly esteemed photographer and writer defined "The quality treshold" in an article on his website. I learne a lot from that. Since then I have always asked myself if I really needed that extra? will it improve my pictures if...? Hmm see if I can dig it out ;)
Best regards
 
sparrow6224 said:
Dear Roger,
Many thanks. I think you were saying something more as well (perhaps about the general tendency we all can fall prey to, losing sight of the differences between collectors' hobbies and art -- that's my interpretation anyway). I'm glad to have contributed to the discussion.
Click to expand...
Highlight: Also the simple point that if someone asks for a lens recommendation, by definition more or less from a position of ignorance (or they'd be answering the question, not asking it), then in the absence of their being highly specific about what they want -- cheap, low-contrast, very small, whatever -- then the best recommendation is normally a sharp, general-purpose, affordable lens. Such lenses got popular by satisfying a lot of people.

While it is perfectly legitimate to say, "I love my 35 Summilux pre-aspheric because it is small and light, and I'll put up with a lot at full aperture because of this", or even "...and I actually like the softness at full aperture," it does not do to say "I have taken a good picture with this lens, therefore it will suit you" and it is even feebler to say "someone else took a good picture with this lens forty years ago, therefore it will suit you". Feeblest of all is "This is the best lens because it's cheap" or "because I have one" or any other one-dimensional and non-aesthetic criterion of 'quality'.

What puzzles me is the viciously negative reaction one sometimes gets to "...but if you want something sharper, this may not be the lens for you."

Cheers,

R.
 
Yes: our tastes change. And it's always seemed a bit strange to me to make absolute and unnecessary rules: "I never crop", "I use only a 50mm lens", "I never post-process." Such rules are fine until you need to break 'em. Then... well, why not break 'em? At which point they ain't rules: they're just (perfectly reasonable) choices.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom