ghozer wrote:
Whether that makes the image sell better isn\'t the point. There are tons of images that sell well which are technically a mess.
While it is true that some images that sell are a \"technical mess\" (I could, but won\'t, name names), the photographers I\'m referring to do not produce work that is remotely \"technically a mess.\"
SKumar25 wrote:
The lens examples you provided are mainly due to size and weight. A landscape photographer trekking and carrying all his/her load will not be carrying a bag full of primes.
Wrong. Although the post I was responding to ironically pointed to Rowell\'s fondness for primes (and traveling light), the folks I\'m thinking of do little of their work in the backcountry.
If you ever visit the Ansel Adams Gallery in The Valley you could meet them at their exhibits.
Again, it is almost entirely a forum myth that folks who do great work that we all admire rely on these exotic lenses.
Many fine photographers use gear to achieve their artistic goals. This includes going Medium Format or Large Format.
One highly-regarded landscape photographer I know (his exhibition is at the AAG right now) was a large format film photographer who has now switched to medium format digital. Last time we talked about this - in the Yosemite backcountry, IIRC - he mentioned that one of his most used lenses is a zoom.
Finally, thank you melcat for your follow-up regarding \"Zeiss colors\" and \"drawing style,\" and for your successful though subtle take-down of a post typical of some who think that by using sophisticated and technical sounding but meaningless terminology their arguments will acquire more legitimacy - and who imagine that no one sees right through them. I had a laugh over his suggestion that I should go read about MTF in much the same way that you probably enjoyed pointing out the irrelevance of the link. :-)
ghozer wrote:
Whether that makes the image sell better isn\'t the point. There are tons of images that sell well which are technically a mess.
While it is true that some images that sell are a \"technical mess\" (I could, but won\'t, name names), the photographers I\'m referring to do not produce work that is remotely \"technically a mess.\"
SKumar25 wrote:
The lens examples you provided are mainly due to size and weight. A landscape photographer trekking and carrying all his/her load will not be carrying a bag full of primes.
Wrong. Although the post I was responding to ironically pointed to Rowell\'s fondness for primes (and traveling light), the folks I\'m thinking of do little of their work in the backcountry.
If you ever visit the Ansel Adams Gallery in The Valley you could meet them at their exhibits.
Again, it is almost entirely a forum myth that folks who do great work that we all admire rely on these exotic lenses.
Many fine photographers use gear to achieve their artistic goals. This includes going Medium Format or Large Format.
One highly-regarded landscape photographer I know (his exhibition is at the AAG right now) was a large format film photographer who has now switched to medium format digital. Last time we talked about this - in the Yosemite backcountry, IIRC - he mentioned that one of his most used lenses is a zoom.
Finally, thank you melcat for your follow-up regarding \"Zeiss colors\" and \"drawing style,\" and for your successful though subtle take-down of a post typical of some who think that by using sophisticated and technical sounding but meaningless terminology their arguments will acquire more legitimacy - and who imagine that no one sees right through them. I had a laugh over his suggestion that I should go read about MTF in much the same way that you probably enjoyed pointing out the irrelevance of the link. :-)
ghozer wrote:
Whether that makes the image sell better isn\'t the point. There are tons of images that sell well which are technically a mess.
The photographers I\'m referring to do not produce work that is remotely \"technically a mess.\"
SKumar25 wrote:
The lens examples you provided are mainly due to size and weight. A landscape photographer trekking and carrying all his/her load will not be carrying a bag full of primes.
Wrong. Although the post I was responding to ironically pointed to Rowell\'s fondness for primes (and traveling light), the folks I\'m thinking of do little of their work in the backcountry.
If you ever visit the Ansel Adams Gallery in The Valley you could meet them at their exhibits.
Again, it is almost entirely a forum myth that folks who do great work that we all admire rely on these exotic lenses.
Many fine photographers use gear to achieve their artistic goals. This includes going Medium Format or Large Format.
One highly-regarded landscape photographer I know (his exhibition is at the AAG right now) was a large format film photographer who has now switched to medium format digital. Last time we talked about this - in the Yosemite backcountry, IIRC - he mentioned that one of his most used lenses is a zoom.
Finally, thank you melcat for your follow-up regarding \"Zeiss colors\" and \"drawing style,\" and for your successful though subtle take-down of a post typical of some who think that by using sophisticated and technical sounding but meaningless terminology their arguments will acquire more legitimacy - and who imagine that no one sees right through them. I had a laugh over his suggestion that I should go read about MTF in much the same way that you probably enjoyed pointing out the irrelevance of the link. :-)
ghozer wrote:
Whether that makes the image sell better isn\'t the point. There are tons of images that sell well which are technically a mess.
The photographers I\'m referring to do not produce work that is remotely \"technically a mess.\"
SKumar25 wrote:
The lens examples you provided are mainly due to size and weight. A landscape photographer trekking and carrying all his/her load will not be carrying a bag full of primes.
Wrong. Although the post I was responding to ironically pointed to Rowell\'s fondness for primes (and traveling light), the folks I\'m thinking of do little of their work in the backcountry.
If you ever visit the Ansel Adams Gallery in The Valley you could meet them at their exhibits.
Again, it is almost entirely a forum myth that folks who do great work that we all admire rely on these exotic lenses.
Many fine photographers use gear to achieve their artistic goals. This includes going Medium Format or Large Format.
One highly-regarded landscape photographer I know (his exhibition is at the AAG right now) was a large format film photographer who has now switched to medium format digital. Last time we talked about this - in the Yosemite backcountry, IIRC - he mentioned that one of his most used lenses is a zoom.
ghozer wrote:
Whether that makes the image sell better isn\'t the point. There are tons of images that sell well which are technically a mess.
The photographers I\'m referring to do not produce work that is remotely \"technically a mess.\"
SKumar25 wrote:
The lens examples you provided are mainly due to size and weight. A landscape photographer trekking and carrying all his/her load will not be carrying a bag full of primes.
Wrong. Although the post I was responding to ironically pointed to Rowell\'s fondness for primes (and traveling light), the folks I\'m thinking of do little of their work in the backcountry.
If you ever visit the Ansel Adams Gallery in The Valley you could meet them at their exhibits.
Again, it is almost entirely a forum myth that folks who do great work that we all admire rely on these exotic lenses.
