And to add an addendum (redundant?). Equipment is the least important factor in the equation. We (I) like to think that the newest and best will make us/me better. It probably won't. It may give us more options or a make a good image possibly better depending on it's ultimate use.
The best tools in the hands of a poor craftsman, will still result in a shoddy product, photographically or otherwise. Having the best tools helps, but it only helps. I've got a wonderful image or two from plastic-lens Fuji film disposables. Tom C. On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Tom C <[email protected]> wrote: >> From: Darren Addy <[email protected]> >> >> Alright. I had a Ranger IPA and let the desire to unsubscribe pass. My >> Quality of Life Index stinks bad enough right now without cutting >> myself off from PDML (you see, I clearly have masochistic tendencies). >> : \ > > That's the way to do it. I knew you weren't a quitter!. :) Sorry about > the QLI. I heard IPA's are even becoming popular in India. > >> >> I realize that "Kenny Boy" is a widely reviled character here on PDML >> (and beyond), and I'm not clear if this is because his information or >> conclusion is (often?) wrong, or if he is just hated as a Pontificator >> (or worse, Nikon Fanboy). >> : ) >> > > I'll read the essay later. I think sometimes he has valid things to > say, I just generally dislike the pompousness of his writing. In > general he strikes me as one of those guys that makes me think 'well I > guess if he talks that much he HAS to be right about something > sometime'. > >> If I may, I would like to ask you to please "hold your noses" and tell >> me, specifically, what you disagree with in the following Kenny Boy >> essay on the subject of lens sharpness: >> http://kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm Please think of this as >> a weekend diversion, should you not have time for it today. In >> addition, if you have a link to share that you think discusses this >> subject (lens sharpness) more lucidly, please pass that along. >> >> I'd also like to add one more layer of complexity to the discussion, >> but that will (hopefully) come later. I don't want to "muddy the >> waters" with it right now. >> >> I realize that the bottom line (cop-out answer) that one can't argue >> with is "don't worry about it... just take pictures with what you've >> got" and while I agree with that sentiment, it doesn't make my desire >> to understand all of the variables to obtaining a good image go away. >> Thanks in advance for any opinions you care to share. > > The # 1 component of a good image is composition. If that does not > exist the image sucks, plain and simple. IMO that's at least 75% or > higher of what makes a good image. Interesting subject and great > lighting help (they're also elements of composition). It doesn't > matter if everything else is perfect. > > A technically perfect, yet poorly composed image is a sucky image. > > Of course a well composed, yet out of focus or poorly exposed image, > is also a sucky image, but without a good composition the rest > wouldn't matter. > > If I may quote William Robb from over a decade ago, probably 13 years > ago. It's the smartest thing he's ever written (that I've read), and > I've chuckled about it monthly if not weekly for the last 13 years. > > "Photography is not rocket science. TANG is rocket science" - William > Robb ca. 1999. > > Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
