most of my best images aren't razor sharp
Bob Wibulseth
max_...@post11.tele.dk wrote on 04/4/2000 01:50:
You don't need great lenses to take a great picture, Ansell Adams once said
some thing along the line of "one could take a great picture with a pinhole
camera but one might be more compelled to take a picture with a hassleblad
or Leica with greater ease" I know this is not exact but you've got the
Idea. So does an image that's razor sharp, distortion free and grainless are
of a higher quality or values? Photography's values has been to capture the
scene in exact precision, Painters, other artist, since arrival of camera
feels intimidated and moved away from these values, impressionists such as
monet, van gogh capture a feelings in no way a camera can. THis comes down
to what kind of photographer are you? Realist? Impressionist? one cannot
define art for that it is ineffable, so please don't try to start a debate
on this, everyone is right in their own way, camera and lenses are just,
tools, we merely use them to our creative impulses, some people tends to
looks just at their gears and let technology dominate them, That is fine, if
you look at your gears a toys, not tools. Who ever said "Show me your
pictures, I know what your camera looks like" knows exactly what he's
talking about. Anyway, I like barrel distortion on my Canon 28-80 F3.5-5.6
USM Can't get the distortion like that on 28-70L it adds a great effects to
some of the pictures I took, and this is a discussion group about equipment,
not art.
> My best pictures are the ones which are razor sharp. I use slides film and
> usally takes
> pictures of buildings, landscapes, animals ect. I could not stand look at a
> pictures
> of a bird e.g. which is not razor sharp. And I am happy to have lenses which
> can
> make these pictures. So I think it depends very much on which kind of
> pictures you take.
> When I take pictures in cities I want to be able to read the street signs
> ect.
>
> Max
>
> Ray <s...@below.com> skrev i en
> nyhedsmeddelelse:38E4AF8D...@below.com...
>> I'm my past couple years of scanning and archiving literally decades
>> worth of images, I noticed that *my* favorites do not have that "razor
>> sharpness" that a lot of equipment junkies (myself included) have lusted
>> over everytime a new lens comes out. Portraits of family and friends,
>> special events and even some landscapes are just fine the way they are -
>> being too sharp would have changed my opinion of them.
>>
>> I think I've finally come to the realization that a sharper lens does
>> not always mean better images.
>>
>
>