Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,771   Posts: 1,670,960   Online: 1036
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,767
    What a pointless article. I suppose maybe there was a point - the first few times it was said that crap is crap and chasing marginally better lens performance doesn't mean better pictures. But by now it is as old and tired as any lens test article.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    What a pointless article. I suppose maybe there was a point - the first few times it was said that crap is crap and chasing marginally better lens performance doesn't mean better pictures. But by now it is as old and tired as any lens test article.
    Yes, it's a rehash of aticles I remember reading in the mid '70s. But, there is a point to lens sharpness and fine grain film with tiny negatives. I never realised just what a wonderful job 35mm does until I started using larger formats.

    I wonder how many of these seekers of the sharpest lens ever bother to use a tripod?

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    3,606
    Minor improvements in equipment and techniques can indeed cumulatively add up to an overall improvement in the intended result. For example,
    when my "chihuaua" 6x9 format pretends to be an 8x10 rottweiler, I find that I really do need my finest taking, enlarging lenses, and specific
    film choice to get a reasonably comparable result in a 16X20 print. But more often it's the "look" or rendering of a particular lens in relation to
    the subject matter which is far more important. "Cult" lenses sometimes deserve their reputation, sometimes do not. Just depends what you
    want and, all too often, how much of a sucker you are when handing out your shekels. But all this talk about the "image" mattering regardless
    of the tools is nonsense. People can make music with kazoos, gut buckets, and handsaws, but I don't want to listen to it.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,767
    Don't be so sure, Drew. The latest aspheric gut buckets are really something.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Don't be so sure, Drew. The latest aspheric gut buckets are really something.
    So's a 100 year old Dagor in the hands of some one who can actually use it.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,767
    Sorry I thought we were talking about gut buckets.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,286
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    But all this talk about the "image" mattering regardless
    of the tools is nonsense. People can make music with kazoos, gut buckets, and handsaws, but I don't want to listen to it.
    I understand both these sentences, but not how they go together. Are you suggesting that you'd like jug band music just fine if it were performed on orchestral instruments instead? (The image of Gus Cannon playing the cello has a certain weird appeal, actually.)

    At the risk of putting words in your mouth, it seems like what the second sentence suggests is that jug bands are working in an *aesthetic* you don't like, not that they're impaired by inadequate tools.

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  8. #28
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,027
    Images
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    I take exception with the term perceived sharpness when used with lenses. Lens resolution is an easily measureable and quantifiable property. There is nothing perceived about it. Now the sharpness of a particular print is subjective and the use of "perceived" is proper in this case.
    I think I see where you are coming from, but as resolution is just one part of what constitutes sharpness, and the other parts include various types of contrast, I think the performance of the lens is relevant to the issue of perceived sharpness.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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