gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.4 #3 · thoughts of the fuji 35mm f2 | |
Jack Flesher wrote:
There seems to be a clear distinction in how engineer-brain vs artist-brain process data they feel is relevant. I am perhaps a conundrum as I am definitely more to the engineer brain than artist at heart, but when it comes to actual, tangible results I tend to do my own testing simply because I've seen so much incorrect or exaggerated bias in equipment tests; and especially lens tests. Many seem to based on values gleaned from nothing more than reading manufacturer MTF graphs as opposed to the tangible results shared from guys who post actual images -- hence I tend to favor those when making my decisions. And to be clear, this bias is not just relegated to photography, it's present in virtually every facet of every gear review for anything I've ever read. Anyway, hence my skepticism when people make broad-stroke claims like have shown up regarding these two lenses. Someone's testing is fouled and the only way to figure who's "right" is to test ourselves. And for those who've actually done it, it seems there's a clear winner, and in the case of "across the frame resolution" the f2 lens is NOT the winner... ...Show more →
Before getting to your point, I can agree with Mike that there is some softness in the far corners of the f/1.4 lens at f/1.4. I would consider that an objective fact. I think Mike might agree with me that the f/1.4 lens works at a larger aperture than the f/2 lens, which is also an objective fact. ;-)
I hear you about what you term the "engineer brain." I see the same thing in lots of fields in which gear/equipment is central — automobiles, audiophile stuff, musical instruments, computers, and on and on.
I'm kind of in the middle of that artist/engineer divide — though I like to favor the artist perspective. My academic background is in music, but specifically electronic and computer based music. But I started as a trombonist and played professionally, too. I like to flatter myself by thinking that I have some level of balance between the two perspectives.
You mention the people who write about and review photography. I can't imagine that I'm the only person who notices how much more writing about photography gear there is than about photographs and what makes them work. (By this, I don't mean what "rules" photographers follow or apply, I mean actual visual critique and commentary.)
In music, the focus on doing it correctly and getting the "best" instrument is a low level focus, something that you do in the earlier stages of a musical life. You have to make sure your instrument functions and that you can play the right notes — roughly akin to owning a camera and understanding enough to make photographs with it. As you mature as a musician you do continue to focus on technique — it is a lifelong pursuit to acquire and maintain it — and on getting better instruments.
But at some point, if you are serious about it, the focus on the gear and the development of technique takes a background to the more fundamental question: what are you expressing in your music and how are you expressing it. And while, on one hand, having good gear (your instrument) is important, the goal ultimately is to essentially forget about that and make music. (Also note that great musicians use a wide variety of instruments — far wider than the range of camera gear that we work with today.)
So, it is fine and even important to have some level of interest in how gear (and here I'm back to photography gear) works, what it can and cannot do, what it does best, and how to operate it. But that's just the admission ticket to what we actually want to do with photography, which is to make photographs that make people react emotionally. (Or at least I hope so!)
The notion that there is some perfect, best camera, lens, tripod, filter, sensor, format, light, camera bag, etc. is belied by the obvious fact that lots of photographers using almost any kind of equipment you can imagine are making excellent, powerful, beautiful, compelling photographs. Against hat range of variation, the difference between lens A and lens B in the far corners at f/1.4 on the test bench is about as irrelevant as can be.
One more thing. Why is it that there is so much more material about gear than about these other things. Three reasons, I think. First, you need gear in order to make photographs, and as people acquire it they want to invest wisely. Second, there's a whole commercial infrastructure underlying photography and that infrastructure rewards material created bout its products. Third, it is just a whole lot easier to write about gear and other technical stuff than to write about what makes good photographs. I've written about both, and I get that.
OK, and a foutth thing. A lot of people are entranced by shiny things, especially if they are new and expensive. Yeah, we all understand that, right?
|
