I'm gonna reply interspersed:
> That's not the point, really. The capture of the image doesn't end when you > trip the shutter; that's almost only the start of the process. So, given the > latent image on the film (or in the memory), how can one best complete the > visualisation? Better photographers than I have invested a great deal of > effort to get the best transfer from emusion to paper; I'm just doing the > same in the digital world. If all that mattered was the non-technical stuff > nobody would bother to choose lenses because of their sharpness, or warmth, > or field of view, let alone more controversial factors such as bokeh. You've touched on my point ... I choose lenses for the results they produce ... sharpness or lack thereof, field of view, color rendition, bokeh, and other characteristics. However, it makes no difference to me WHY a lens behaves as it does because I'm not going to redesign it. What I am going to do is attach it to a camera, adjust the aperture, focus, and press the shutter release. The lens was chosen for its characteristics, and for the its contribution to the story I want to tell in the final print. Some time ago I was criticised for having several 85mm lenses, and commenting that I'd like a 77mm Ltd. It was said by someone on this list that I was, and I'm paraphrasing here, that I was a lens snob <LOL>, in part because there was really no need for so many lenses of the same focal length. Yet each has its characteristics, and each is better suited for a certain result than another. Actually, the capture of the image begins long before the shutter is released. Assuming we have a subject, the capture begins with (in no particular order) the choice of film, the choice of lens, aperture, shutter speed, the choice of camera (rangefinder, SLR, med format, large format, digital), and sometimes waiting for the right light - maybe even returning another day to make the photograph - amongst other things. Other choices that might be made before the exposure are choice of printing paper, whether for inkjet prints or "legacy" photographs, choices of enlarger or printer (shall a cold light head or a condenser head be used), a six or seven colored ink system, and so on and on and on. Perhaps those with the "fix it in Photoshop" mentality might disagree, but hey, if y'gotta fix it, then maybe something was wrong to begin with. By that comment I don't mean creative interpretation, but fixing a poorly exposed, focused, or framed image, or one in which the lighting was poor ... Sure, all photos receive some manipulation to get the final print. That's a given, regardless of whether one is exposing pixels or film. So, for me, all those things are VERY important are all or some are big considerations. Yet, for me, I don't have to know that the bokeh I like is a result of a certain lens aberration, or the sharpness of a lens comes at the expense of some other aberration, etc. All that matters is the result, which is obtained through experience and trying different techniques and equipment. > But from my standpoint that's merely a superficial understanding. You look at a > JPEG from the *ist-D, and fault it for excessive mosaic artifacts in my beard, say. > For you that's practically the end of the matter. For me that's just the beginning > of an investigation as to where those artifacts were introduced. If the tools at > hand don't help me enough, I'll create my own tools. And if I find that I can lay > the blame for these artifacts firmly at the feet of one particular step in the > process, I'll see if I can create my own replacement for that step. Conversion > from a RAW image buffer to a JPEG (or even TIFF) is not a deterministic operation; > there are many decision points along the way. But in order to make the best > choice at any particular decision point it *is* necessary to understand just > what a Bayer matrix is, what a cosine transform does, and which artifacts can > be introduced (or removed) by which numerical operations. And to locate and > respect the choices the photographer made before he took that final step I do > need to know just where the camera stores that information in the file. Now, for a guy like you (and I mean that in a complimentary sense) knowing all the technical stuff, especially in digital photography, is probably useful. You can, perhaps and for example, read the code in the Pentax software and change it to suit your purposes. Not only can't I do that, I'm not sure I'd want to. I'll agree that my understanding of a lot of things digital (and even in film) photography is superficial, but that doesn't prevent me from making a good print. Perhaps I've learned to work around my ignorance, or perhaps I realize that I don't need to know what you feel you need to know to get a good result. Does it matter that I don't know what you know? Does it matter that you don't know what I know? Not a whit, John, since we approach photography a little differently, usually photograph different subjects, and have a totally different eye. Yet, I'd be willing to bet lunch at that Thai restaurant you like, that either of us, should we set our mind to it, can make a great print of any subject ... you perhaps with a greater understanding of the technical and me based on emotion and a feel for what's right. Heck, half the time i can't even explain how a result was obtained. Sometimes I don't even know why I choose a particular exposure. The meter may say one thing, but something inside of me says give it more or less. IOW, I don't always "know" why I make a choice, but that ignorance hasn't stopped me. > A gross oversimplification, if you ask me. Should you use a different grade of > paper? Given the effect you were looking for, did you make the right choice of > developer? (That's one nice thing about digital; if you make the wrong choice it's > not an irrevocable step; you can just go back and start over). How about the > enlarger? there are different types, which produce different image artifacts. > And that's not even beginning to talk about colour correction filters, etc. It certainly is an oversimplification <g> Glad to see you caught it. Some of my comments above address your points. Thing is, when I'm doing some serious photography, the final result is in my head before I even pick up a camera. For example, let's say a friend wants a portrait, as happened recently. Since I know her well, I knew what aspects of her personality, what part of her environment, would be worth focusing on. That means I had a sense of what gear to use, and how the final print would look. So, in my mind, the photograph was done before I even got into my car and drove to meet her. The rest is all mechanical stuff ... don't need no in depth technical knowledge to know that I was gonna print using a cold light head on a warm tone paper. Didn't need to know why the bokeh I wanted was gonna turn out a certain way. I used the lens before, I knew what the result would be. > Not that I'm trying to convert you - I'm just attempting to explain my view. > I want to do the best job I can in getting that image from the buffer to paper. > If I'm not prepared to do the best that I can there, I'm devaluing the effort > I put into making the exposure in the first place. You can't convert me to your point of view, really. We pretty much agree ... we just take a different approach to the final image. You're a more technical guy, it helps you to know why certain things are. I'm less technical, and just accept what is and work with it as best I can. kind regards, shel
