Sorry to be complicated, as I often am. I was just concluding that
there is no single exposure solution for macro situations with changing
light and we have to stop and think to make the best choice we can with
the equipment we have. To me, I like the challenge of solving problems,
but that is my nature. My wife-equivalent on the other hand does not
like complicated or to have to think like that. She much prefers for it
to just work. And if it doesn't, well, someone didn't make the thing
right. (but she is more like a manager and me an engineer, things break
when she walks into the room, while things just start working when I
walk into the room - equipment things that is.)
My "preference" for macro photography is slide film, and there is
nothing more satisfying to me than viewing a slide where I have nailed
the exposure. The less manipulation I have to do with back end post
processing the more I like it. So I'm willing to give up a little
simplicity for that result.
I often need a little help to get my mind into "a photo kind of day" as
I don't often just drop into it, and the camera/film in hand affects my
process and my result. But that is just me. Even knowing I have Velvia
or Provia, B&W or color film affects my mood and my photo. Sometimes
the C5050 works better than the E-1, especially photographing people
because they react to the camera. That's one of the reasons I like the
OM with 85/2 lens for people shots, it feels less intrusive.
So, I do think the path I take to get a photo, equipment choices, film
choices, lens choices, affects the process and result I get. Just the
way a camera feels in my hands, the sounds it makes, alters my mood and
style. Of course, good photos can be made with any equipment, but not
necessarily the same photo. So to me, "what is a best tool for the
job?" is a creative choice, not a smart or cheating choice. My style, I
like complicated - to me it increases the possibilities, but it is not
necessarily better. A similar question is whether the effort to get a
photo makes it better or worse? A really hard to get at photo may not
be any better than the one we got in the backyard. And my harder to
expose slide does not necessarily make the higher latitude negative a
better photo. But it does make a different photo. There are many things
to explore with photography, sometimes you have to simplify some
aspects of it to delve into others.
Check out the part "The Subject, The Photographer, and Photography":
http://www.transom.org/guests/review/200111.review.nalexanian.html
Since, according to Nubar, the photographer is a part of every
photograph, does one's equipment and film choice make a difference? In
some cases it is important to simplify in order to re-integrate the
photographer into the picture. And, after all, we made the choice to
press the button. Now which button - that we all love to discuss and
debate.
Wayne
At 02:53 AM 6/28/2004, you wrote:
>That all sounds way too complicated!
>
>So I'll ask a question. Is choosing and using the best tool for the job
>smart or cheating? I know the answer is not always straightforward and
>the question never asked in some aficionado circles.
>
>My solution to all this is very simple. I mostly use a wide latitude,
>low contrast film, Portra NC in my case. Then I need only get the
>metering close, compensate if necessary, use Auto and be assured of
>properly exposed shots. Maybe it's cheating, but it sure makes getting
>the image I want easier. More time for choosing framing, aperture,
>waiting for that magic pause in subject movement, taking other shots, etc.
>
>Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|