AG Schnozz wrote:
> Ok, Moose, Mini-flame mode here:
>
Oooh, oooh, I can hardly stand the excitement! It a little chilly here
tonight, 52F, in the midst of our lovely Indian Summer string of
beautiful weather, so a mild bit of flame might feel gooood. (Visual of
moose squirming with pleasure.)
> Chuck wrote TIC:
>
>> Yes, I've been noticing that digital is so compositionally
>> restrictive. :-)
>>
You really opened the can with this one, Chuck. Congrats.
>
> My response was SPECIFIC to composition. Nothing more, nothing
> less.
Darn, no place for flames here. Sorry I read into your words more than
you intended.
> It is debatable of which capture format is superior for
> whatever lighting and purpose, but what I was addressing was
> exclusively the composition aspect. Furthermore, I wasn't
> necessarily addressing Film vs Digital, but even Film vs Film
> format. Those who shoot 4x5 or 8x10 are far more contemplative
> about the whole image and specifically the composition than
> small or medium-format shooters. I did overlook in my response
> the Ansel-Adam Thought Process (Zonies) where the
> post-processing (development and printing) is an important part
> of the image-capture side.
>
And I'll confess it; I really enjoy playing in the digital darkroom
sandbox. When I have shot a lot of images, working them all can get old,
so there are quite a few, some rather old, still waiting. But mostly, I
love it. And I'm not in any particular hurry. Where was I going....?
> I'm sorry that I'm not so skilled of a photographer as to be
> able to use just any tool to accomplish the task perfectly and
> 100% every time.
I though I wrote my last, lengthy reply to you carefully, but perhaps I
should elucidate further. I wasn't saying that I am any better or worse
than any LF shooters, only that, since I have never worked that way, I
have developed both my quicker and my more contemplative sides as a
photographer with the same kind of cameras. As a result, I gently
demurred at being classified with those who may have a hard time
resisting blasting away without restraint with a DSLR.
As I hope I made clear, I make no claim, nor entertain any hope, of
accomplishing the task perfectly and 100% any time, let alone every
time, no matter what tool I have at hand.
As to your self flagellation about your skills, I say bosh. Sure you
don't have a burr under your saddle these days? (Worse than a wedgie, I
imagine.)
> I'm the same way with clothes--if my shorts
> are giving me a wedgie, I don't feel like going for a walk.
> Some people don't let wedgies bother them, but they bother me.
Comfortable clothes are a very high priority for me. Being old and
unseflconscious enough to wear what I like is one of the many advantages
of having a few years under my belt. (Even if that means a bigger belt
:-) ) However, your point is not lost on me.
>
> You are singing the praises of your Canon Boxers
Here, I think you may impute to me more than is there. I'm using Canons
for digital for purely practical reasons. They are the best tools for me
at the moment. If Oly or N or P or even Sony makes a breakthrough, or if
my needs change, I'll switch in a heartbeat. And yes, I am apparently
more comfortable with switching to different camera designs than you
are. If one is not in a rush, finding which button does something by
looking isn't a big deal. Maybe Yoga would help? :-)
> , but Olympus
> Briefs may be the only thing that I can wear without needing to
> pull my undies out of my crack all day long. And I hate having
> to goosewalk to get my giblets rebalanced.
>
There's an image I'm not sure I needed... ;-)
> What does this have to do with composition? With the exception
> of the "better than a 4x5" 5D with it's mammoth viewfinder,
Oh pish tosh! The 5D viewfinder is one of its less endearing traits
relative to a 1Ds of FF EOS film, let alone an OM-1. Better than the
little sensor guys that I have tried - but I haven't tried them all -
but far from mammoth. But go ahead pulling my strings, at least have fun
at it.
> most
> digital cameras have rather "cramped" viewfinders. The
> viewfinder in an OM, or a Contax 645 or even a Nikon F(x) tends
> to "inspire". You can SEE the subject and how the image unfolds
> before you. Most DSLRs (yes even your 5D) have bright
> viewfinders with bokeh characteristics that don't have anything
> to do with reality. Dinky viewfinder images are about as
> inspiring as looking at Aunt Mimi's photo album of her latest
> trip to see your 8th Cousin Susie in Kalamazoo.
I agree. And yet, for this one fool, that mostly just falls away when I
am looking through at the subject, so the 5D is fine. Maybe never having
done LF photography is paying off now. :-P More seriously, the 20/10
acuity in my viewfinder eye may have something to do with it too.
> (I always wanted to write Kalamazoo here in the OM list)
>
I remember the rush when I first wrote Chattanooga here. And now I get
to write Chattahoochie - oooh, goosebumps - , just because you gave me
the opening (And Chattahoochee, just to cover the common spellings.) And
Timbuktu to you!
> Does any of this have to do with composition and whether one
> camera or format is superior to another? I do believe so. But
> I also believe that it is intensily personal as to which one is
> "best" for each photographer.
Oh yeah, what I was trying to say.
> The viewfinder, as much as I like
> it, in the E-1 is pathetic when it comes to compositional value.
> I dislike the bokeh characteristics, it's way too small, it's
> distant (not like the perfect focus distance like the OM), and
> the stupid digital readout is either too bright or not bright
> enough. Using the E-1 for 90% of my purposes is a joyful
> experience and is just fine. But for the 10% where you are
> trying to pull out all the stops the E-1 is maddening.
>
Oh dear, a W after all.
> I frequently look through my images after a shoot and wonder why
> in the world I composed the image that way. Was I STUPID?
Of course I get those too, I just don't fret about them and especially
don't beat myself up about them. Whether I get more or fewer than you
do, or even whether all of mine might fit in that category for your
taste, I have no idea. I do know that they aren't as hard for me.
> From
> what cabbage plant did I just get pulled out from under? In
> comparision, my 35mm shots were usually quite good in
> composition (and eye flow), but usually tanked in some other
> technical aspect--vibration being the biggest bugaboo.
>
The great OM bugaboo that both the E-1 and 5D improve on . (Got in
another cool word there!)
> You're probably right--maybe I'm just not good enough as a
> photographer. I DO find film to be easier to compose with than
> digital because of camera ergonomics, but also because of the
> developed mindset of "I can fix it later". This is a dangerous
> thing and probably has set me back 10-15 years.
>
BOSH, I say again, BOSH. I'm not going to repeat all that stuff about
self acceptance and other feel good drivel that I just wrote yesterday,
but I mean it.
> Moose, at least we agree on one thing--we dislike rangefinder
> cameras. But why? If we are as good as we think we are, the
> camera shouldn't matter.
>
Me? Good? Once in a while, by some chance of fate. I'm just enjoying
muddling through. It's FUN. And as long as I enjoy what I produce, I'm
fine. When my friends enjoy it, that's a bonus. If folks here enjoy a
few, that's a freebie!
Actually, I have been pleased with shots I've taken with the XA. I put
up with the rangefinder part for its other redeeming qualities. It's
possible I could get used to the viewfinder/rangefinder of one of those
L or V beasties, I can see that. The real problem I've had with them for
so long is that my eye naturally sees tele and close-up/macro. My
favorite lenses on my dad's Ftn were the 200/4 and 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor.
My first Zuiko lens after the 50/1.8 was a 100.2.8, but it wasn't really
long enough. Rangefinders are pretty useless tools for those kinds of
shooting. Now, I would add my love of zooms to the reasons rangefinders
don't interest me at all.
Looks like a 500C and 80/2.8 Planar may fall into my lap. I can get a
nice hit of fondling wonderful German camera engineering before deciding
what to do with it. That should allay any need to fondle a Leica for
another few years. Of course if I use it, I'll have an excuse to buy
another scanner. :-)
> Can I say "giblets" here on the list?
>
NO! At least not until November. :-)
A fizzling Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|