> Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 14:37:38 -0400 > From: "Brian Fancher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: EOS This week's big debate.... > > At the risk of taking incoming fire,
Not really..... > All this talk about "stunning" images, digital or analog, > megapixels and dpi, semi and full frame sensors, etc, etc, > has once again sidetracked on the science side of photography. Exactly. Which is the reason to look at pictures again and foremost. This is what propels all this effort after all, isn't it? Yesterday I hosted a workshop with 23 people attending in pouring rain. The job was simple: We met in Duesseldorf, city center. Everyone was handed a list of 9 subjects such as prominent buildings, a bridge, a certain part of the city center. Everyone was allowed to choose between either a 50 mm or 85 mm lens for 35, or adequate focal lengths for other film formats. Choose in the beginning and then use this chosen lens for *all* shots. To add to the handicap, everyone was allowed only one single shot from each subject. This is where the brain was required, and this is where feet were the most important tools. No technical overkill, just the cheapest (and still excellent) lens in any manufacturers line-up, the 1.8/50 mm for almost all the participants. The films were collected and will be digitized to be presented on a website side by side by the mid of June. I'll post a link here, if anyone is interested. I am pretty sure it will be amazing to see what 24 different people shot from 9 identical subjects for all. The most striking experience for all participants was to just have shot their shot, walk two more meters... and find out, that there would have been a better position. You get careful for the next shot, check a little back and forth, resist the urge to just zoom in and rather find that there are so much more good positions you would have never found (never needed finding!) with a zoom lens attached and used. > We have heard evidence on both sides of the digital/analog > debate that a particular list member's choice fully meets > his/her needs, while the opposite medium cannot. So we come > down, once again, to choosing the right tool for the job. Right. I shoot digital just like I would shoot conventional film, with just the slight difference that white balance allows much more than before. > Each medium is equally saddled with shortcomings. Right on. > My beef with the debate stems from a perception that many > analog retro grouches (and I say that in a friendly manner > since I'm still part of that group) seem to dismiss digital > as a clear failure, even today, in terms of turning out > quality work. There is a very simple cure to that: Attend a workshop, see what those toys can do, take home the images on CD, have laser outputs from a Fuji Frontier done in 25x38 centimeters and don't blame me if I can't tell you how to finance one of those beauties. After a full day of hands on experience I have yet to find somebody not being convinced. > Its what a photographer does with his tools, not his tools > themselves, that produces "stunning" images. Its been said > a million times, and, apparently still bears repeating. Right. Exactly the point in this workshop, sending people out in the field with nothing but the 50 mm. > last time I checked, not many of my photo club members > (and I've been in several across the US since I'm well > traveled in the military) were printing many, if any A3s > at all in an entire lifetime. Good point. Even I as a professional don't print that much in sizes exceeding 20x30. > focus on what I CAN do with the gear, not what I'm > missing out on. Which is the best way heading for "stunning images". > Hell, if I need huge blowups, well, out comes the 645. Or Altamira Groups Genuine Fractals Print Pro. > Just stoking the fire.... Burn, baby, burn! -- Michael Quack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
