In a message dated 98-04-16 02:43:00 E you write:
Snip!
Thank you Gary for listing this piece for us to read. I think all
photographers should be required to read this! I nominate this for Lee's FAQ
list under "Why stay Manual? - A must reading! I think I'll frame Mr. Adems
quote and hang it in my office for those days when I am weakened by all the
Nikon and Canon marketing ploy!
Thanks again
BW
<< Hi all:
I lifted this from the nearly dead Canon FD list. It applies to OM users as
well as the Canon EOS vs. A-bodies/FD-lens users. Great reflections on the
camera making industry! I fully share the thoughts regarding the value of
simplicity.
********
FULLBROOK Kim wrote:
> If this is your first Canon camera, then why invest good money in an
> obsolete system ? In my opinion FD is only a good option if you have
> very simple requirements or already have an FD system. Otherwise it's
> not worth spending money on a system which is already years out of
> date, albeit one which is good quality. My recommendation would be to
> buy either EOS if you like Canon (it's a good system) or another brand
> where you can obtain up-to-date technology.
> Kim Fullbrook
> Slough, England. (FD and EOS owner)
In the words of Ansel Adams as quoted from the introduction of his
book _THE NEGATIVE_:
"...There is today a severe gulf between the general
public's awareness and use of photography (which can be described as
casual and imprecise for the most part) and the acute precisions of the
manufacturers' laboratories. There are a few exceptions, but the
general trend today is to apply high laboratory standards to produce
systems which are sophisticated in themselves, in order that the
photographer need not be! This tendency toward fail-safe and foolproof
systems unfortunately limits the controls the creative professional
should have to express his concepts fully. I am grateful for the
tremendous contributions of the photographic industry and its
scientists, but I cannot help being distressed when "progress"
interferes with creative excellence..."
Quality of the equipment, not its age or the number of bells & whistles
on the latest and greatest model, is the important factor. The rest is
in the hands of the individual photographer (literally!)
Cameras are tools and not some mystical answer to photographic
perfection. The key ingredient is the craftsman, the photographer. I
believe the automated systems are the answer to the
photojournalist's dream. However, there are a great deal more
branches of photography other than photojournalism. In the hands of an
experienced photographer who knows the craft and fully understands the
nuances of controls, the automated cameras are a very valuable
tool that can be exploited to their maximum capability. On the other
hand, in the hands of an inexperienced photographer, the automated
camera can become a crutch - if enough "good" shots are "taken" a false
sense of proficiency/ability can preclude LEARNING the craft. I think the
photographers cheat themselves and actually retard their artistic growth
by relying on automation rather than on their own knowledge, skills,
abilities and experiences. I know of a photography instructor who
teaches an advanced photography class...she has her students start out
with a pinhole camera to get down to the basics of understanding
light...its amazing the results the students turn out with such
"antiquated" equipment.
***end of quote. Continuing from the posting author:***
I had an EOS camera once; it became a very expensive, high-tech
instamatic for me. Though I enjoyed the autofocus, I had a tendency to
conveniently "forget" to put the program selector into manual mode,
relying instead on autoexposure as well. The quality of my final
product, though sharp, dropped drastically as a result.
Though the majority of my work today is done in the contemplative 4X5
auto-nothing format, I still rely on my auto-nothing F-1 and F-1n
cameras and their FD lenses for my stock photography which, if last
years sales are any indication, continue to produce desireable images
for may agency.
--
Greg Tims "I doubt there is anything more disturbing
Gig Harbor, WA USA than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."
gtims@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - Ansel Adams (1902-1984)
>>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|