From: Ian Greant (ian@51north.com)
Date: 06/30/03-04:58:15 PM Z
>On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Peter Marshall wrote:
> > You could of course get good results from cheaper cameras, and there are
> > certainly plenty of Dianas in digital, and a lot to be gained from
> > exploiting their possibilities.
> >
> > Incidentally, I've just been looking at the Robert Frank London/Wales
> > pictures (unfortunately I wasn't at the Corcoran, had to make do with the
> > catalogue) where he was shooting with a Leica in near-zero light, and
> > technical image quality would get subzero marks, but they are some of the
> > strongest images I've seen in quite a while.
>
>I can't remember who it was, but I remember Beaumont Newhall telling the
>story: when he was curator at MoMA he got some very fine printer (Ansel
>Adams?) to reprint the negatives of--- oh it'll come to me in a day or so,
>it could have been Moholy N. -- because the prints were so crude.
>Newhall's punchline was that the "fine" prints didn't work as pictures the
>way the "crude" ones did. Which is to say, those Franks might not be so
>smashing with 10 zones (or are there 12 ?)....
<snip>
Judy and others,
The above reminded of a print I made from a digital image last year. I'll
regal you with the short story in hopes you find at the least some
entertainment and at the most, maybe it makes purchasing a digital camera a
little bit easier for you.
Last year I was photographing a friends band in a dim, smoky, smelly little
pub. Usually the stage lights are bright enough I can get at least 1/10th
wide open but this place the only way was to underexpose by three stops and
hope I could rescue it in PhotoShop later.
As expected there was an image; grainy as all get out! It was truly ugly!
Too ugly too rescue in any sort of normal way. In the end I used only the
red channel (or was it the green?) Printed up a 8x10 neg on my inkjet and
it made a fantastic Cyanotype! My friend loved it and it's still
frequently commented on in my portfolio now.
The punchline? For gum and any process where accuracy is not the biggest
concern I can't see resolution making much difference in your choice
between cameras. It's rather like fussing over lens tests while wondering
why some guys with a 30 year old Pentax makes better prints than you
do. Having used a few different pocket sized digital cameras of friends I
would be far more concerned about the ergonomics and easy you find it to
use. I've seen great photos from the Sony 707 and 717 series but find it
much like trying to take photos with a stapler- cam ;)
For my own style of shooting I'd be most concerned over maximum lens
aperture, manual control over rides and the least amount of shutter
lag. (Sometimes shutter lag can give you exciting results) You list of
needs might vary.
Good luck shopping!
Ian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 07/09/03-08:31:14 AM Z CST