[HUG ] Re: tripods

Some of those choices of too small format had to do with the price of
silver.
They were foisted upon the public.
In the 70¹s people who fell for it and went out and bought a disk camera
found themselves unable too shoot a decent shot of their family. Hence more
work for us then up and coming photogs...
Who shot huge 35mm film maybe. Or brownie flim.



mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mark William Rabiner




From: <flexbody@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: "hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 14 Oct 2008 22:49 GMT
To: <hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [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:
> We¹re 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, it¹s just easier to hide the
> garbage when it¹s 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 <mailto:bs.pearce@xxxxxxx>
>> 
>> 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: