Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/01/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Many years ago, I was a nerd. Very recently, I was a nerd. Actually, I still am. I loved anything to do with physics from early on, certainly by the time I was 5 and got my first mechano (Marklin) construction set. Later I did a lot of electronics, mechanics, and chemistry also when it had to do with rockets. In University I studied physics and math and got some degrees in them. All the optics courses I could accommodate were included. My artistic side had a shot with painting, sculpture and photography, which I started with a 6x9 folder at 7 and darkroom work shortly after. Later I also became an architect. I love photos and photography, but I always wonder 'why' and 'how', just as I do in architecture or other things. When I get new equipment, I go out and shoot anything that doesn't run away fast enough, but I also try to find out what is special about every piece of equipment; what are its strong and weak points so that I know when to take it with me and when to leave it, depending on what I'm going out to shoot and how I'm feeling about my proposed subjects. When I photograph, I like surprises, but even more I like knowing beforehand what 'surprising' thing I can produce with certain equipment under certain circumstances. The 'oh, rats!' type of surprises I like a lot less. So I try out equipment, and when I feel I understand it reasonably well, I can feel confident when taking it out shooting. All the little techie bits I've learned about the equipment, the lenses, lets me use those aberrations which might otherwise spoil a picture to my advantage. Very often it's not necessary to know all the techie bits, but it's better to know them and be able to put them aside than not understand why a photo got screwed up. Henning On 2012-01-25, at 9:57 AM, Steve Barbour wrote: > On Jan 25, 2012, at 9:40 AM, <tedgrant at shaw.ca> wrote: > > Marty Deveney OFFERED: > >>> None of this matters if you don't care, or don't see the abberrations >> or don't know what the results of the aberrations look like. I see >> them because I look for them and have gone out of my way to learn what >> various aberrations look like in a print. Some of them produce >> effects I like, some I live with, some I only notice if I go looking >> for them.<<<<< > > Hi Marty and others, > This series of posts about the many good, bad and uglies of the Noctilux f > 1.0 for me has been very enlightening! > > I'm not being a smart ass with that comment, simply because once again the > LUG has become a most interesting learning tool. WHY? > > Well all the things technical pointed out against or within the lens are > items I never knew were there, nor do I understand the technical meanings > of many of the word descriptions. Nor what to look for? I don't think that > means I'm stupid or don't care. It is interesting. > > But because I never knew about it, nor do I look for many of the things > you lads have pointed out. I'm quite surprised someone hasn't looked at my > Noctilux exposed photographs, many printed as 16X20 exhibition prints in > trays. And said something along the lines you lads are talking about and > are describing? > > Me? It's the same old story..... "I'm a photographer first and foremost!" > A techie second or wherever it fell during my hundreds of assignments. The > one thing I have always strived for, are the feelings of myself when I've > been lucky and have a nice moment captured on film, or these days digital > and it printed well and looked cool on occasion. :-) > > And once in awhile a viewer makes a nice compliment about my abilities > with a camera. Not often, once in awhile is nice! ;-) > > I suppose if one doesn't know about all of the negative aspects explained, > then the negative aspects do no harm to your photographs, because you look > only at the "CONTENT!" And because that has always been my motto, what > I've shot for and the end result looking as smashing as possible, I'll > keep what has been said in some dusty old corner of my mind. But really > not pay any attention to them and carry on shooting as I've done for 61 > years. Content first and foremost! > > Thanks everyone for broadening my understandings about lenses. > cheers, > Dr. ted > > Totally understand and agree Ted. And I certainly comprehend the tech > stuff, it's only a question of.. Is it of primary importance and worth the > effort? > re the endless techie comments, it brings to mind one of my favorite > observations... > if you can't do, teach...if you can't teach, teach gym... > > s > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > Henning Wulff henningw at archiphoto.com