CAN"T disagree, and I sure didn't mean to imply that I did somehow with my
previous statement on tests.
Try to see me as I actually am. I run a taxi medallion for my livelihood. I
used to be in the news game, which is where and why I got into the habit of
taking pictures. The pictures I took along the way, the ones published,
that is, were rendered in newspaper half-tones on newsprint, and critical
quality off in the corners was never an issue. this many years down the
line I tend to approach photography with the same, or similar, mind set and
bent subject-wise. I look for history to record--people on the move, places
of interest, events that shape the world. <g>
I don't know, but I think it's hard to embrace all of photographer and what
goes into it and still be true to yourself. I think it's especially true
that once we fixate too closely on the technical side that "creative
vision" must suffer. I don't say ignore the details, they're always
important, and if you run too far astray your work will show it right away.
But there's something to be said for going out in a relaxed frame of mind
there and just taking the damned pictures, too.
Where will you teach, Gary?
Tris
At 06:10 AM 7/27/01 -0700, you wrote:
Tris writes:
<< Tests are one thing, work out in the field another. >>
I'm not doing tests anymore. I'm back in the field shooting - a lot.
I'm diversifying my portfolio now that I'll be teaching photography on
the college level. The whole test process helped me cull my working
bag(s) of lenses and know their limitations.
<< When I go to shoot I think a whole lot more about the film I'm taking
vis-a-vis the light I expect to have and whether my subject will be
moving or still than I do about my lenses at all, and peripheral field
of view is something I've never given a serious thought for quarter of a
century. >>
Corner focus ability is important day in and day out. How many times
when in right brain mode do we get a shot framed and set up on a tripod
and forget to have checked the depth of field? It is way easier to
determine the close focus distance (often an object in a corner, in my
compositions) by not moving the camera. There are too many Zuikos in
which the corner image in the viewfinder, on at least a 1 series screen,
is mush. Mush = anytime you have to hunt for correct focus.
The characteristics I included in my tests concern me as a
photographer. "Vignetting" has an impact on metering accuracy and light
fall off in shots including the sky. Distortion is of the utmost
importance in anything we shoot with recognizable straight lines -
including trees! SQF grades help identify those Zuikos which will be
easiest to focus.
In case anyone wonders, I don't carry the SQF results with me on shoots.
I rarely get good shots if I stay left brain dominant during a shoot.
Which is why it's important for me to carry lenses I can trust. Which
are presently: 16, 18, 21/3.5, 24/2.8, 28/2, 35/2, 35-70/3.5~4.5 or
/3.6, 50/1.4, 80-200/2.8 Tamron SP, 90f/2, 135/4.5, 200/4, 300/4.5,
400/5.6 Noflexar, 600/6.5, 1.4x. Truth is that if I had that lens
versatility in medium format, I'd primary shoot MF.
Gary Reese
Las Vegas, NV
< 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 >
|