I am sorry, but I cannot help pointing out that I find this a downright horrible analogy.
Originally Posted by ford prefect
As for format change, medium or large format to me at least are far superior to 35mm for most purposes. People often are concerned about weight, and there is obviously a question of personal physique. However, I lug my 8x10 up ad down mountains, use a caddy where I can, and my other cameras are not that small, either. My advice therefore: get a medium format camera from Ebay or so, and not the smallest format possible. Should you not like it, sell it again, but chances are that you will never look back, and just regret that you did not acquire your new outfit earlier.
Originally Posted by ted_smith
Medium format makes it so you enlarge less for the same prints size, OR can print larger at the same print "quality".
It also gives you less depth of field than 35mm, at a given angle of view. This can be a blessing or a curse, depending on the shot. In practice, it often makes tripods a necessity if you want extensive D of F.
The main benefits are sharper and more grain free prints (in general). This is either good or bad, depending on what you want. When I want a "truly" sharp large print, I will shoot medium format or larger. This does not mean that 35mmm is not good enough for a lot of things. It just means that one tends to shoot differently with each format. Changing formats most certainly changes the way I shoot. I shoot more freely and loosely with 35, and shoot medium format more "formally". 35mm nails shots that I would have missed with 120/220, simply due to hand holdability and quickness...not to mention super fast lenses, which simply do not exist for medium format.
Last edited by 2F/2F; 01-29-2009 at 02:15 AM. Click to view previous post history.
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."
- Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)
where as i have no problem with someone dissagreeing with me in general i do take offense to the fact that you give no reasoning for such a negative comment about a little analogy i made when your own post echos spme of my points
1. mf/lf superior quality
2. amount of weight to carry around in lf/mf vs 35mm
those were the basis of my analogy it would just be nice to add a little construction to your criticism not just a blanket statement that it is a "horrible" analogy
in fact although more wordy (and my point was to simplify my thoughts) a lot of the post here have also echoed the points i made.
now if your gripe is soely that i use fire arms as the hub of said analogy then what ever i guess you have your own predjudices to deal with if that is not the case i would like to know what makes it so horrible. i'm not trying to pick a fight here i just feel a little disrespect in the comment with no explaination if you have anythin more to add feel free to pm me about them and i will take them in for thought
i believe we are all have the right to our own opinion.
I take a 35mm clamshell in my pocket everywhere I go. I cannot take my TLR to work or to the grocery store, but I do take it with me anytime that I reasonably expect to be taking photographs. But for those times when I am not so equipped, I have the 35mm for those special moments.
I would much rather have had my TLR for this picture (BANDWIDTH WARNING - 3303 x 2103 image link). But I can't take it with me everywhere. So I'm glad I had the clamshell 35mm. It's better than nothing.
Okay, my comment was perhaps somewhat rash: on second thoughts, I should have sent a private email to you, and not just written this sentence at the top of my comment.
Originally Posted by ford prefect
I have no trouble with the factual statements you made, and I realize now that you must have felt my reaction to be strange and over the top, because you probably were just looking for a good way to elucidate your point.
So here is the reason you ask for: weapons are not neutral for me, but a huge bone of contention. To use their as-a-matter-of-fact handling in an analogy seems to me to attach a normality they do not, and should not possess. In other words, it seems to presuppose that such a handling is a normal cultural activity, whereas it is deeply exceptional to say the least.
I might say myself, for instance, that a paparazzo uses his camera like a gun, if I want to imply that he/she intrudes on other people and hurts them, but to compare photographic activities on the whole (which for me are artistic and contemplative) with gun slinging...I do hope you get my point. I apologize for any insult, I did not mean to pick a fight, but would nevertheless suggest that you do rethink the use of this analogy.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
i understand your point from a cultural stand point sometimes i forget that this is an international community. where i am from guns are not viewed as implicitly evil and a large number of people use them recreationaly. that is why with people around my area this is an easy to grasp comparrison. we are fairly rual and often if for no other reason guns are kept in houses to protect pets and live stock from other animals.as well as hunting. i can see how in some parts of the world firearms are not looked at in the same light. thank you for explaining your position and i respect that.
Guns are just tools, nothing more. There is nothing evil about them, so long as they are in the hands of law-abiding citizens. An armed citizenry is one of our most cherished traditions.
I think the poster's point is that while an armed citizenry may be one of *your* country's most cherished traditions (although I know for a fact that a significant number of Americans don't share that view), that isn't necessarily the case in other countries. The Internet is a world community, not an American community. (In fact, the owner of this website isn't American at all - he's a New Zealander.)
Originally Posted by Chazzy
I think the analogy was reasonable and it didn't offend me, but I can see how it could offend some. I know the offense was not at all intended by him.
Jim MacKenzie - Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
A bunch of Nikons; Feds, Zorkis and a Kiev; Pentax 67-II (inherited from my deceased father-in-law); Bronica SQ-A; and a nice Shen Hao 4x5 field camera with 3 decent lenses that needs to be taken outside more. Oh, and as of mid-2012, one of those bodies we don't talk about here.
Favourite film: do I need to pick only one?