On 11/5/2012 8:29 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> Moose, I can't believe that we are in such agreement in regards to Mike's
> issues. The fact is, he really should just get the Leica MM and be done
> with it.
Wouldn't do any good. It seems clear that Mike is not a post processing person,
much as he might imagine himself to be.
Or perhaps I should say he thinks it requires less effort than it actually does
to create the digital B&W images he
admires. Several comments, including one of mine, stressed that his idea that
this particular camera would produce image
files that would magically convert with minimal effort into great B&Ws with the
tonal qualities he wants is almost
certainly fantasy.
And ... Tina was kind enough to make some of her MM DNG files available. I'm
not impressed with them straight out of the
camera with default ACR conversion. DR seems good, noise is low, tonal
transitions are smooooth, but ... There's
something, maybe about the distribution of tones (?) that just leaves me
unexcited.
I don't know/remember enough about the Zone System to talk about it the way you
can, but there just seems to be
something lacking, in the middle, maybe middle to low? And something way up
top, but you already know I'm nuts about
highlight tonal detail.
That doesn't mean superb images can't come out of the MM. Those image files
have all the basics to allow creation of any
number of interpretations. Better, perhaps, for the good artist than files with
a preset "opinion"? The return of St
Ansel? "The DNG is the score, the print is the performance."
I 'should' get back to them, but I have so many of my own images to process.
> But the problem is that he's more about words than about doing.
I'd say more about words than about photography itself. He's a good writer,
competent journalist, appears to have been a
good editor and is very knowledgeable about photographic technology and history.
He's also an excellent blogger. I say that based not on any artistic, critical
judgment, but based on the number of
regular visitors he generates, including me. Some of what he writes and some of
the photography he likes drive me crazy.
But somehow, between his posts and the wide range of comments, I find my self
coming back.
Based on the few images he has put in his blog, I don't think he is really a
photographer, in the sense he would mean
the term. I don't see any passion about the images or any vision of images that
are any more than technically good
snapshots. Seems to me his true passion is what he's doing right now.
I could be wrong, of course, as I only see what he puts up. Perhaps he does
have a special photo/artistic vision that he
can't find the equipment and technique to realize.
> He's one of these classic examples of people who look to their equipment as
> a means of creating the artistic vision.
Yes, I see an important distinction between looking to equipment to create a
vision and looking for equipment to
implement a vision.
I've taken to carrying binoculars around my neck again, along with my camera.
The combination of small, light E-M5 and
lenses and improved binocular technology makes it practical now.* I've been
reminded again how far short photographs
fall of the 3D view through decent binocular lens systems.
So I've recently had a desire to find a way to recreate that. Present and past
3D photography systems don't even come
close. I've seen the vision, say a bird with depth, and in 3D relationship to
the branches around it. I can see that it
will be possible, even without holograms, when EVFs get good enough that a
special digital capture system and pair of
EVFs can recreate the view.
But part of the attraction is the razor sharp clarity, and that still in the
future. (Besides, the gear will be too
heavy. :-) )
> He's trying to recapture his lost youth when he was so successful with
> extremely primitive gear.
I wonder about that. I've not seen any of that early work. Based on what little
work I have seen, and what I recall
reading,I imagine rather straightforward portrait and commercial work. But
that's just speculation.
> It ain't going to happen. That ship has sailed. You cannot buy serendipity.
Agreed. You can't go home again. It is possible for a new vision similar to the
old one to arise, although unlikely, I
think.
> I lovingly use the old OM equipment because it has been my artistic partner
> for over 25 years now and it is so good at suggesting things to me. Unlike
> Mike, I don't look back at the OM days with fondness. I'm still living them.
And more power to you.
Ramblin' Moose
* Some years ago, I went on a quest for a great pair of binoculars, at
something short of an outrageous price. I found a
pair that pleased me greatly. But I've not used them much for a while. They are
big and heavy, and when we are out in
nature, Carol is often wearing them on a shoulder harness. Using them then
involves a complex extraction from her
body/clothes/hat and either rolling down the rubber eyecups or resetting the
diopter adjustment - followed by the
reverse. Too much hassle.
Recently, something led me too look around again. Technology has trickled down.
A pair of Pentax 8x25 DCF SW, High
Resolution Water Proof Roof Prism Binoculars for $100 (still so at Adorama) has
'opened my eyes'. Small, light, folding
design, BAK4 prisms with phase coating, nitrogen purged waterproof, pretty
close focusing, twist down eyecups, wow.
In the field, with any sort of half decent light, they are almost impossible to
tell from the B&L Waterproof Elite
8x40s. An amazing bargain.
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|