Ok, Moose, Mini-flame mode here:
Chuck wrote TIC:
> Yes, I've been noticing that digital is so compositionally
> restrictive. :-)
My response was SPECIFIC to composition. Nothing more, nothing
less. It is debatable of which capture format is superior for
whatever lighting and purpose, but what I was addressing was
exclusively the composition aspect. Furthermore, I wasn't
necessarily addressing Film vs Digital, but even Film vs Film
format. Those who shoot 4x5 or 8x10 are far more contemplative
about the whole image and specifically the composition than
small or medium-format shooters. I did overlook in my response
the Ansel-Adam Thought Process (Zonies) where the
post-processing (development and printing) is an important part
of the image-capture side.
I'm sorry that I'm not so skilled of a photographer as to be
able to use just any tool to accomplish the task perfectly and
100% every time. I'm the same way with clothes--if my shorts
are giving me a wedgie, I don't feel like going for a walk.
Some people don't let wedgies bother them, but they bother me.
You are singing the praises of your Canon Boxers, but Olympus
Briefs may be the only thing that I can wear without needing to
pull my undies out of my crack all day long. And I hate having
to goosewalk to get my giblets rebalanced.
What does this have to do with composition? With the exception
of the "better than a 4x5" 5D with it's mammoth viewfinder, most
digital cameras have rather "cramped" viewfinders. The
viewfinder in an OM, or a Contax 645 or even a Nikon F(x) tends
to "inspire". You can SEE the subject and how the image unfolds
before you. Most DSLRs (yes even your 5D) have bright
viewfinders with bokeh characteristics that don't have anything
to do with reality. Dinky viewfinder images are about as
inspiring as looking at Aunt Mimi's photo album of her latest
trip to see your 8th Cousin Susie in Kalamazoo. (I always
wanted to write Kalamazoo here in the OM list)
Does any of this have to do with composition and whether one
camera or format is superior to another? I do believe so. But
I also believe that it is intensily personal as to which one is
"best" for each photographer. The viewfinder, as much as I like
it, in the E-1 is pathetic when it comes to compositional value.
I dislike the bokeh characteristics, it's way too small, it's
distant (not like the perfect focus distance like the OM), and
the stupid digital readout is either too bright or not bright
enough. Using the E-1 for 90% of my purposes is a joyful
experience and is just fine. But for the 10% where you are
trying to pull out all the stops the E-1 is maddening.
I frequently look through my images after a shoot and wonder why
in the world I composed the image that way. Was I STUPID? From
what cabbage plant did I just get pulled out from under? In
comparision, my 35mm shots were usually quite good in
composition (and eye flow), but usually tanked in some other
technical aspect--vibration being the biggest bugaboo.
You're probably right--maybe I'm just not good enough as a
photographer. I DO find film to be easier to compose with than
digital because of camera ergonomics, but also because of the
developed mindset of "I can fix it later". This is a dangerous
thing and probably has set me back 10-15 years.
Moose, at least we agree on one thing--we dislike rangefinder
cameras. But why? If we are as good as we think we are, the
camera shouldn't matter.
Can I say "giblets" here on the list?
AG-Schnozz
____________________________________________________________________________________
Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business
(http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com)
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|