Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,228   Posts: 1,532,796   Online: 945
      
Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 120
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul VanAudenhove View Post
    "But, enough of that. Sorry for the digression."

    But that's my favorite part!

    I don't think that audiophiles are that different than photographers - to my way of thinking it's about having a passion. And following it. A lot comes down to experience - if you want to get better you have to actively participate.
    Well, having a passion and following it is one thing. Edward Weston did that, succesfully, with rather minimal equipment. The Leicaphools and audiophools end up obsessed with the meaningless minutiae, losing sight of the goal, which is to make photographs and hear music respectively. It's a mild form of mental illness - obsession and passion are not the same.

  2. #32
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,219
    Images
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Well, having a passion and following it is one thing. Edward Weston did that, succesfully, with rather minimal equipment. The Leicaphools and audiophools end up obsessed with the meaningless minutiae, losing sight of the goal, which is to make photographs and hear music respectively. It's a mild form of mental illness - obsession and passion are not the same.
    You generalize. Whatever camera people choose to use, don't you think there are personal reasons beyond the brand, that are well thought out and actually providing a benefit to their photography?
    Example: I used (still use) Pentax 35mm SLR cameras. I tried out a Leica, and did a practical comparison from print to print, and decided that results wise it really didn't matter much if I used a 50mm Pentax or a 50mm Summicron. There was, in my prints on a Leitz Focomat, using the same film and developer, no technical or quality difference that was substantial enough to care about. But, and this is the big stickler for me, that Leica was just soooooooo much nicer to handle and use. This means I'm more confident and swift with the camera, which in turn simply gives me prints that are better framed, more spontaneous, and I am simply happier with my output now than before getting that camera.

    The brand of the camera couldn't matter less; the good part for me is simply how it handles and what in the end comes out of it. I hope that you meant something else, like people who buy and use Leicas just because it's a Leica and then brag about how much better they are, without paying attention to the utility.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post

    The brand of the camera couldn't matter less; the good part for me is simply how it handles and what in the end comes out of it. I hope that you meant something else, like people who buy and use Leicas just because it's a Leica and then brag about how much better they are, without paying attention to the utility.
    I thought I made this clear. "...to make photographs and hear music..."

  4. #34
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,219
    Images
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    I thought I made this clear. "...to make photographs and hear music..."
    I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but it wasn't clear to me, probably because I read your post too quickly.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,370
    No worries.

  6. #36
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,840
    I read it, but I'm not sure I totally agree with it. If the goal were simply to make photographs I'd shoot digital. With a good DSLR the quality is close enough to good medium format as to make no practical difference at realistic print sizes, and it is far, far easier. But I enjoy the process of conventional photography. I enjoy getting away from the computer and getting my hands wet. It is, for me, clearly not solely about the image; it's also about the process.

    Of course your point about equipment is valid. I enjoy the process just as much with my old consumer grade Ricoh XR-7 as with my Pentax LX. Well, almost as much - the Ricoh is small, light, handles well and has exposure memory lock which the LX bizarrely lacks. But the LX is clearly a piece of fine equipment while the Ricoh is consumer plastic.

    But it's not just about the results produced. It it were, pianists could just compose music on a computer and have a synth program play it. Same with analog photographers.

  7. #37
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,589
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    But it's not just about the results produced. It it were, pianists could just compose music on a computer and have a synth program play it.
    Some do.


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  8. #38
    holmburgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Rochester NY (native KS)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,418
    Images
    2
    But our tools are not quite so simple. There are very complex relationships going on, beyond just saying that a midi keyboard is fundamentally identical to a piano.

    Sure they both have a 12-key per octave keyboard, but because there are possibilities available in the midi keyboard that are not there in a piano, and vice versa, the musician/composer will make different decisions along the way, ultimately leading to something completely different.

    The same is true with any tool or instrument. It'll be intrinsically suited to a certain way of working, determined by its design, and the way that we adapt to it will be in large part completely involuntary.

  9. #39
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,219
    Images
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    I read it, but I'm not sure I totally agree with it. If the goal were simply to make photographs I'd shoot digital. With a good DSLR the quality is close enough to good medium format as to make no practical difference at realistic print sizes, and it is far, far easier. But I enjoy the process of conventional photography. I enjoy getting away from the computer and getting my hands wet. It is, for me, clearly not solely about the image; it's also about the process.
    I see your point, Roger, but I see it differently for my purposes. For me, it's all about getting a piece of equipment that gets out of the way of what I'm doing. The less clutter and options, the more time I can spend with the subject matter, and to me that's what really counts.

    The whole process thing I think is almost a natural thing for film/darkroom photographers. We wouldn't be doing it if we didn't love making our prints with the aid of a fully tangible, smelly, and chemistry laden process.

    I guess to me it's two separate processes:

    1. Shooting film - it's the least expensive way to make negatives for the silver gelatin print sizes I desire. I could shoot digital and make digital negatives, but that would be infinitely more expensive for me.
    I tremendously enjoy the anticipation of seeing what the negative does in the darkroom. I passionately hate developing film, though, so the more standardized that process is, the happier I am. Shooting = fun, processing = sucks.

    2. Darkroom work - this is what I burn with passion to do, and where my creative juices really start flowing. This is where I work with the negatives to eke as much out of them as I possibly can, and I spend hours on end doing it, and I can't get enough.

    Those two processes are separate in my mind, and for the film shooting part I need equipment that is as transparent as possible, meaning that it's so intuitive to use that it vanishes from my chain of decision.
    In the second process, printing, I want equipment and materials that enable me to get the very most out of a printing session, and why I end up spending a fair bit of time with each print, making sure I don't have to come back and re-print it later on, because I likely never will, unless it sells.

    It's about having fun, so your whole 'might as well shoot digital' doesn't hold water for some people. The shooting part I probably would be just as happy with a Leica M9, but I would be 100% miserable doing post processing on a computer.

    So, to get back to the audio analogy - some people focus only on the music, listening intently for lyrics or musical element of the music that they enjoy, or just plain like it. Others just satisfy the intellectual challenge of building a truly awesome stereo, spending thousands of hours, and tens of thousands of dollars on equipment. Then there are those who do both, actual lovers of music with enough energy and funds to build an incredible audio setup, so that they can enjoy their music EVEN MORE. It is so good that it gets out of the way of the music, and gets you focused on the music rather than the equipment.
    One of my friends come to mind, and I would guess that for every $1,000 he spends on CDs and vinyl, he probably spends about $100 on equipment. He has struck an amazing balance in his system, to the point that it's chameleon versatile and plays just about everything with real vigor and authority. But it's all to bring out the best in the music. Often we go to the gym together, and he enjoys what I play for him on my crappy car stereo...

    With that long wound reply, I guess some people pursue really good equipment in order to enable themselves to be absolutely 'free to see' when the time comes to click the shutter. The tools are a means to an end, and you can sort of feel the process rushing through your head and veins, imagining what the picture will look like once transformed into a print. That, to me, is the tool to strive for, and I might look for it with a highly selective mind, to get just what I want. Unfortunately these cameras tend to be Hasselblads and Leicas, at least for me.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  10. #40
    Lionel1972's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    France
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    199
    I discovered hi-end Hi-Fi equipment a couple of years before I rediscovered analog photography. Just when, 3 years later I did with Large Format and Medium Format, I stumbled onto some websites exposing the surprising qualities of analog (vaccum tube based) audio gear. Just like I started to feel the need to own at least one 4x5 and one MF camera when I had my mind blown away at the sight of some 4x5 Kodachromes from the 40's online, after I read how some old technology based equipment could enhance my listening experience, I looked online and found out I could actually afford a small integrated hybride tube amp (DARED MP-5). It came at my house along with small shelf Klipsch loudspeakers. Once I played a Coltrane CD (Love Supreme) I just couldn't believe my ears! I've played the saxophone in a small band during high school, and suddenly, right in front of me my ears and brain were fooled to the point that I could almost see and feel the instrument and all its little noises just as real as I remembered them. I just didn't know such realistic sound reproduction was possible. In a similar way the first time I looked into the blue eyes of my father with a loupe over my first 4x5 transparency portrait, I couldn't beleive my eyes, it felt as if I could reach and touch him. Again I did not know such things were possible. No digital device before nor since has giving me this experience. The non-linear properties of analog technology cannot be overlooked as equaled by "good enough" ditigal approximations. Our phyisical experience of the world is far more sensitive to those differences than what measurements and theories are able to envision so far. Oddly enough, recently I thought I would get a better source by playing my CDs on a brand new Sony Blu-Ray player. Ended up very disappointed as my old hard-discount supermarket DVD player (50 euros paid more than 5 years ago) does produce a better, more 3-dimensional and natural sounding source. Yet I get the most real-like (almost touchable) sound from good vinyls on my PE34 Hi-FI turntable from 1964 that I bought at a charity flea market for less that I paid for the DVD player.
    Last edited by Lionel1972; 01-31-2012 at 03:13 PM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin