On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 23:06:27 GMT, "Tony Spadaro"
Well, you raised many interesting issues, but have missed
the point of the thread completely...;-) And, you obviously
have never looked at the images on my web page...;-) Yes,
all technique (and even the apparent lack thereof...) needs
to serve the image (which, in the end, is all we have before
us), and yes, there are no *absolute* standards for what the
needs of the image are, let alone what constitutes "good
technique", BUT: *assuming no aesthetic needs in the image
for degrading these characteristics*, one can say that
optimum sharpness of the appropriate parts of the image,
the presence of a good black, the absence of dirt, stains,
and other irrelevant intrusions on the image "quality",
ETC., ETC., ***ARE*** desirable aspects of the image, and
if the desirable image aspects can be optimized, why not
do this?! Or, why would I take a Leica M6 and an aspheric
35mm f2 and shoot it hand-held at a slow speed (while
shaking...) at the smallest stop for all my work, unless
my "thing" is blurry photographs? (And, if so, why not
use "less able" gear...?;-) And, why would I shoot a
landscape at a stop I know to be somewhat unsharp compared
with nearby stops for the dubious gain of a tad more DOF?!
(ETC.)
Now for the specifics...
> I would never accuse a micro Nikkor of being sharp at any aperture.
You have just lost any credibility you had...;-)
>Your
>idea of a big difference is strictly horse liniment. I've done diffraction
>tests using very fine grain films and good quality lenses. The tests have
>taught me to ignore diffraction paranoids as much as I ignore the multitute
>of other people who obsess on buggaboos.
The effects are subtle (unless carried to an extreme) - but
subtle effects can add up for a superior resulting image...
> I keep a filter on my lenses at all times --- whooo degradation city,
>man!
So do I (surprise! ;-) - I've done the tests, and this one
does not degrade the image quality *under most
conditions*...
> I use films faster than ISO 10 ---- Aach! Disgusting grain!
Not necessarily - but one must become more selective with
film choices as the speed rises to maintain desired qualities
(which may include intentional "graininess"...).
> I stop down to f11, and 16 ----- Gasp! Run, the diffractors are coming!
Both are fine - it is f22 that is "iffy" in 35mm, and f32 that is generally not acceptable...
> And I take pictures with content - instead of pictures designed to show
>my ability to follow the rules of the anal types.
As would any "serious" photographer, while using knowledge
of technical aspects to optimize the outcome. Ignoring the
second is like handing a paint brush to a 5-year old - good
results are likely to be the result only of accident, even
if the kid really is "talented" visually...
> I used to read Photo Techniques back when they still had occasional
>articles relevant to photography. I remember all the pictures they printed.
>Perfectly exposed -- zoned to a degree Adams would have found excessive.
>Perfectly Composed -- Smack on the rule of thirds -or as we Irish call it,
> Da Rule of Turds.
>Perfectly printed -- complete with unsharp masking, and with a full tonal
>range from jet black to paper white in every shot. Of course it's on the
>finest of papers and archivally processed in fresh chemicals with a
>guarantee to outlast the photographer by a couple thousand years.
>And
>Perfectly Boring -- in that search for the best sharpness, and the best
>print quality and the best of everything, they've forgotten that there is
>supposed to be something of interest in the picture.
Of course - good technique without good "vision" is useless;
but good vision without good technique is "hobbled" and
very limited...
> Even Adams wasn't worried about diffraction.
With contact prints from 8x10, diffraction is a
non-issue...;-) With 4x5 with great enlargements, it
is - but only around f32-64 or so... Adams didn't
need to worry much about diffraction with the formats
he used - but you can bet he did the tests, though...;-)
>Ask Cartier-Bresson if he
>even considers diffraction - hell, some of his most famous shots aren't even
>in focus.
Yes - I've seen his prints, and they are close to worthless
in their original form (the poor technique kills the
vision); it is only with the careful making for the books
of the small reproduction images that his work really
lives - the small images corrected many of the problems of
focus, sharpness, poor tonality, etc. that existed in the
originals and interfered with the overall image "meaning"...
It is the maker of the CB reproductions that "fixed" many
of CB's technical errors, and as a result, strengthened his
vision as we know it. This is an excellent example of the
need for good *appropriate* technique to carry the meaning
of the images, without which they have little value...
>Or perhaps George Lepp who uses two TCs a 12mm spacer and a number
>1 close up ring to do macro shots of insects in the field.
On many of my macro images I use a non-macro 200mm
tele-design lens (not usually considered a good choice for
close focus...) + achromat + tube + teleconverter - and get
very sharp images *at the optimum stops* for the
combinations. There are no "rules" for what gear will and
will not work well - which is the point of "anal"
testing: to find what works best and what doesn't...
>According to the
>article stopping down all the way gives him sufficient DOF for the shots to
>work -- dof not diffraction is the problem he feels must be overcome.
It is a serious problem for high-magnification work, and
sometimes a compromise is made - but without knowing what
that involves, one cannot make an informed choice. I would
not simply "stop down all the way", though - the results
are likely to be softer than one might like, and with only
a stop and a half wider, could be considerably sharper and
possibly without serious loss of DOF...
> Ask just about any successful artist or professional how much time they
>spend worrying about diffraction. Start with the guys who sell prints made
>from Holga negatives. Or better yet the ones who use pinhole cameras -- at
>f180 a 50mm pinhole camera shows more diffraction than you can imagine. What
>is it those people have that the careful, scientific perfectionist
>photographer with his diffraction rules and his dof charts and his unsharp
>masks lack --- Usually - an interesting picture.
Of course - *any* techniques, including intentionally "bad"
ones, can be used to make good photos (as can "bad" gear"),
but the point is, with knowledge, skill, vision, and good
gear, one can shoot a FAR wider *range* of "good" images,
more easily... Do you really want to be limited to the
capabilities of a Holga? Or to the capabilities of f32?
> Come up with an interesting picture, and let the diffraction fall where
>it may. If you can't come up with an interesting picture the diffraction or
>lack thereof is still of no importance as nobody's looking.
Well, of course! The final image is ***ALWAYS*** what
counts! But, there are "bits" along the way to making
it that can contribute to its being better...;-)