Peter,
> > On the other hand, in certain areas, e.g. as in Nature
> > Photography, image quality is paramount. Then the question
> > "is this a sharp lens" has to be asked.
> As to your nature comment, I agree but only partially.
> Ansel Adams never used the best of the best but
> shot much at F64 (some contemporaries called it the
> school of F64 photography) making his good equipment
> produce great results. I happen to have a book of
> Ansel Adams early potographs and many were
> not tack sharp but were great images that still sell. On the
> other hand I have seen some nature images that were tack
> sharp but crummy images. For me I will take the former.
> So its really NOT paramount that an image be tack sharp to
> sell.
Which is not neccessarily a contradiction to what I said :-)
"image quality" is more than just sharpness.
I can also see that people who buy Ansel's early prints
know his name, and possibly give him some "slack" ("... back
then lenses and film weren't as good as today ...").
I think it'd be much more challenging to sell a nature
photograph (not only scenery, but also animals, plants,
etc.) which isn't up to today's technical standards.
It also has to do with what's in fashion. A couple years
ago, those slot canyon photographs where a novelty. Now,
everybody has seen them, and those photographs lost their
flair of specialty.
Of course, Saint Ansel's photographs never go out of
fashion :-)
Lars
--
Lars Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED]
87GT http://www.larsmichael.com/
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
