Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/01/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Jan 25, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Henning Wulff wrote: > 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. that's why I always read your comments Henning, you understand the nerd at the service of the artist, so you say it, and you show it very well, Steve > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information