"-hh" <recscuba_google@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1194985838.998029.239460@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Bill Again" <s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "-hh" <recscuba_goo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >
>> > IIRC, there have been some Pro's who have had projects that were
>> > completed with just a P&S. However, your point is well taken: the
>> > key question to ask is what are the names of successful Pro's who
have
>> > utterly abandoned all SLRs for all still image* applications.
>>
>> You remind me with that comment of an article I read
>> recently by Jane Bown... I quote:
>>
>> <quote>
>> I'm not very particular about equipment: ...
>> I work quickly using available light, have never had an assistant and
>> usually expose no more than two rolls of film - any more than that is
>> usually a sign that things aren't going well. Rather than use a light
>> meter,
>> I have a setting I like - l/6o sec at f/2.8 - and usually make the
>> picture
>> work around this. I normally gauge the light level by the way it falls
on
>> the back of my hand.
>> <unquote>
>>
>> Try putting that on a function menu!
>
>
> This is a very good point, as it is essentially saying that a good
> photographer's abilities transcends the "mechanical" limitations of
> their equipment to make them irrelevant.
>
> In the end, composition and lighting are all that matter, and with the
> technological improvements we've seen in exposure lattitude, nailing
> the lighting is far less im****tant today than years ago.
>
> As such, it all effectively comes down to just the composition, and
> there is no "compose perfectly" setting on any camera's function
> dial.
>
> And while it is obviously preferable to get both composition and
> exposure perfect, the reality is that time with the subject is
> invariably limited, so you having 108 different video-compression
> options or 1024 zones is actually a work taskloading liability, not an
> asset.
>
>
> -hh
>
-hh, I couldn't agree more. Of course it might be the case that Jane's
work
would nowadays be turned down as there is some likelihood that it is "not
sharp enough" for today's publications. That, of course, would be a matter
of taste. Also we should remember that reproduction in newspapers up
until,
what, the 80s was invariably halftone anyway. Not exactly renowned for
excellence in definition.
|
