[HUG ] Re: tripods

It looks like the rot set in with photography even earlier than with
audio.
Although I do not think 35 mm photography was anywhere near a bad
compromise to larger formats.
It served a purpose on its own and gave many exciting images that would
have been impossible with larger format cameras.

I agree 126/110 and APS were bad choices made by marketing people just
to generate extra sales.
APS with its horrible slow lenses was a disgrace for photography and is
best forgotten.   



  "Remi Lemarchand" <remilema@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb: 
We?re quite off topic but I feel compelled to disagree ? in the analog
world, we did willfully degrade quality for convenience. We went from
8x10 to 4x5 to 120, then to 35mm and even to 126/110/disc and eventually
to the dreadful APS format.

Most people will take convenience over quality and an argument can be
made that perhaps it is better to have a bad photo than no photo at
all.

I think the issue is that people tend to associate digital with quality.
Both digital and analog can be excellent or garbage, it?s just easier to
hide the garbage when it?s digital?

Rémi.

From: hasselblad-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:hasselblad-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
flexbody@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 5:43 PM
To: hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [HUG ] Re: tripods

There is not only a big difference in technology between analogue and
digital audio equipment for both professional and home use.
In analogue days the best was not good enough and every precaution was
taken to ensure optimum quality.
Pros and amateurs did their utmost to achieve good reults whether
recording music or playing those recordings at home.

Now people accept and even will fully downgrade digital recordings just
for the sake of more content on the same carrier.
MP3 rubbish would have been impossible to sell in the analogue era.
 
For some reason sound and vision react differently on analogue/digital
transfers and recording media.
The eye seems to be more forgiving than our ears. 

In audio digital is still being compared with high end analogue like any
cola drink is always compared with Coca Cola.

















  "Franc Flipsen" <fujifan@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb: 

It;s the same for the CD vs Records ,  There is a roundness to music
from a record that you just don't get with a CD just like there is a
tonal quality you just don't get in a digital print.  Some call it
distortion, I like to call it old school richness.  There is something
about a reproduction antique, too perfect maybe??

Franc



----- Original Message ----- 
From: Sue Pearce 
To: hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 1:20 PM
Subject: [HUG ] Re: tripods

Bob,

I have several images from my Xpan that were both optically printed and
scanned and printed with Durst equipment. There is something about the
optical prints that just isn't there in the scan and print examples. 

Also, I must interject my feelings on the tripod business. No matter
what the format, a camera on a tripod will always produce the greatest
sharpness. Weather or not that is important is up to you. Th ere were
generations of wedding and commercial prhotographers that hand held
'blads with good results. In my ownb business, I am sometimes called on
to shoot from the tops of units in refineries, or from safety cage
ladders. I've drug my tiltall up those things, and it's no fun. Same for
shooting in a cramped weld shop. Things shot there are reproduced small,
but I have taken negs up to 20x24 and there is nothing to be ashamed of.
Or, nothing of which to be ashamed.

Bill Pearce

Other related posts: